Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up

• Settlement Between Victim & Accused Not A Valid Ground To Quash FIR/charge-sheet When Offences Are Serious & Against Society, Reiterates SC [Arjun Singh v. State of UP] The Supreme Court has reiterated that settlement between the victim and the accused cannot be a valid ground to quash the FIR. or the charge sheet when the offences alleged are against society and not private in nature. In this case, the accused were charged with Section 493 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The bench comprising Justices Navin Sinha and Krishna Murari noted that though the offence in question are non-compoundable the power of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC of the Court to quash the proceedings in such offences is well recognised by the various decision of this court and the issue is no longer res Integra. ● Section 438 (Anticipatory Bail) Has No Application To Cases Under SC/ST Act Except When There Is No Prima Facie Case Is Made Out [Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India & Ors.] The Supreme Court has observed that provisions of section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Anticipatory Bail) shall not apply to the cases under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, except when the complaint does not make out a prima facie case for applicability of the provisions of the Act. In cases where prima facie case is not made out, the bar created by section 18 and 18A (i) of the Act excluding provisions of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Anticipatory Bail), shall not apply, observed the bench of Justices Arun Mishra, Vineet Saran and S. Ravindra Bhat while upholding the constitutionality of Section 18A of the SC-ST Act, inserted vide an amendment in 2018. ● Condition Restraining Alienation Of Property By Donee In A Gift Deed Is Void [Sridhar v. N. Reveanna] The Supreme Court has observed that a condition in the gift deed that the donee shall not alienate the subject property is a void condition as per Section 10 of the Transfer of Property Act. The issue in this appeal was whether the condition imposed in a gift deed that "the donee or his younger brothers who may be born hereafter have no right to alienate the schedule property in any manner whatsoever by way of sale, gift mortgage or otherwise" is void or not. The Trial Court had held that this condition is void, but the High Court held that it is valid. The bench comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan and Navin Sinha referred to Section 10 of the Transfer of Property Act on Condition restraining alienation. ● Complaint U/s 138 NI Act Cannot Be Quashed When Disputed Question Of Facts Are Involved [Rajeshbhai Mujlibhai Patel v. State of Gujarat] The bench comprising Justices R. Banumathi and AS Bopanna observed that a cheque bounce complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act cannot be quashed when disputed questions of facts are involved. In this case, the High Court, in a petition filed by the accused, observed that the criminal case has been filed under Section 138 of N.I. Act based on the alleged forged receipts, and thus quashed the complaint. ● No Presumption That A Decision Taken By Persons Occupying High Posts Is Valid [Brig. Nalin Kumar Bhatia v. Union of India] There is no presumption that a decision taken by persons occupying high posts is valid, remarked the Apex Court in a judgment delivered on Tuesday. The bench of Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice Hemant Gupta was concerned with an appeal filed by a Brigadier against his non-empanelment for promotion to the rank of Major General. ● [Section 482 CrPC] HC Cannot Quash Criminal Proceedings On The Basis Of Its Assessment Of 161 Statements [Rajeev Kourav v. Baisahab & Ors.] The Supreme Court has held today that Criminal Proceedings cannot be quashed on the basis of statements recorded before Police officials in terms of Section 161 CrPc. The Judgment rendered by a bench of Justices L. Nageshwar Rao & Deepak Gupta has laid down that interference by High Court's under Section 482 Crpc is only warranted in order to prevent abuse of process of court and to secure tends of justice. ● 'Hampi A Site Of Historic Importance' : SC Upholds Direction To Demolish Constructions In Virupapura Gaddi [Sakkubai & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors.] Acknowledging the historic importance of the Hampi heritage site, the Supreme Court on Tuesday directed the demolition of unauthorized constructions in Virupapura Gaddi, an oval islet formed by Tungabhadra river on the west of Hampi. A bench comprising Justices Mohan M Shantanagoudar and R Subhash Reddy dismissed the appeals filed against a judgment passed by the High Court of Karnataka in 2015, which upheld the orders passed by Hampi World Heritage Management Authority (HWHMA) for the demolition of restaurants, guest...

Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up

Arabhi Anandan

Tags