In this edition of the Court Judgements review, we look at the Supreme Court’s judgement on the power of High Courts to quash criminal proceedings using powers granted under article 226 of the constitution, Allahabad HC’s order that refusal to cohabit together by one spouse for long periods of time may constitute causing mental cruelty to the other, Bombay HC’s order that solitary instance of following the victim would not be sufficient to make out the offence of Stalking, among others.
Allahabad HC: Refusal to cohabit together by one spouse for long periods of time may constitute causing mental cruelty
In Mahendra Prasad (Appellant-Husband) vs. Bindu Devi (Respondent-Wife), the Allahabad High Court (HC) ruled that refusal to cohabit for long periods of time by one spouse may constitute mental cruelty.
The facts of the case are that the Appellant and Respondent were married in 1990 and cohabited intermittently for approximately eight months until 1996. The Appellant filed a divorce petition in the Family Court, which was denied. Challenging this decision, the Appellant approached HC, alleging mental cruelty by the Respondent. The Appellant claimed that the Respondent refused to follow the custom of wearing a Parda (veil) and accused her of having an illicit relationship with a ‘Punjabi Baba.’ Additionally, the Appellant argued that despite refusing to cohabit, the Respondent was also unwilling to consent to divorce.
The HC observed that a woman, as a free-willed person, has the right to interact with members of society, and such behaviour cannot, in itself, be deemed as mental cruelty. Further, the court found no evidence to substantiate the allegation of an illicit relationship with the ‘Punjabi Baba.’ However, the court took note of the fact that the couple had not cohabited for the past 23 years. The Wife’s refusal to cohabit or agree to a divorce, under these prolonged circumstances, may amount to mental cruelty to the Husband. Consequently, the HC allowed the appeal and granted divorce.
SC: CBI does not need state government consent to register FIR under Central Law against Central Government Employees posted in States
In The State, Central Bureau of Investigation (Appellant) vs. A. Sathish Kumar & Ors (Respondents), the Supreme Court (SC) ruled that Special Police Forces, such as the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), do not require the consent of state governments to register cases against central government employees posted in any state.
The facts of the case were that allegations against two central government employees (Respondents) stationed in the Kurnool and Anantapur districts of Andhra Pradesh (A.P.), accused of soliciting and accepting bribes in 2017, in violation of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act). Following investigations, the CBI filed chargesheets in the Court of the Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases in Hyderabad.
The Respondents challenged the trial proceedings by filing Writ Petitions (WPs) before the Andhra Pradesh High Court (HC). They argued that the offences occurred within the jurisdiction of the newly formed State of A.P., making the Hyderabad-based CBI court inherently lacking jurisdiction. Additionally, they contended that under the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act, the CBI needed prior consent from the A.P. Government to investigate and prosecute the alleged crimes. They also claimed that the transfer of cases from the CBI court in Visakhapatnam to the one in Kurnool was illegal.
The A.P. HC held that the transfer of cases was not inherently flawed. However, it ruled that the absence of state government consent to the CBI to register First Information Reports (FIRs) and investigate the alleged offences rendered the proceedings before the Hyderabad CBI court invalid. Consequently, the Appellant (CBI) challenged this decision before the SC.
The SC held that the A.P. Government had granted general consent to the CBI on 14 May 1990, authorizing it to investigate offences across the erstwhile undivided state of A.P. Furthermore, under the A.P. Reorganization Act, 2014, a circular dated 26 May 2014, specified that all laws, by-laws, rules, notifications, etc. applicable to the undivided A.P. as of 1 June 2014, would continue to apply to the successor states of Telangana and A.P. Therefore, the SC held that the CBI, and the Hyderabad CBI court possessed the jurisdiction and authority to investigate and try the offences in question. Accepting a contrary position would lead to legal chaos.
The SC highlighted that the PC Act being a central legislation, and the involvement of central government employees in the case, made state government consent irrelevant for the registration of FIRs. Citing prior SC judgments and the 1963 resolution establishing the CBI, which empowered it to investigate offences involving both central and state governments as well as individuals, the Court concluded that the CBI’s actions were within its authority. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the proceedings before the trial court were restored.
SC: HCs are also empowered to quash criminal proceedings under extraordinary power granted under Article 226 of Constitution
In Kim Wansoo vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors, the SC held that High Courts (HCs) possess extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in addition to the authority under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), to quash FIRs and other proceedings in cases where a miscarriage of justice is evident.
In this case, the Appellant and others were accused of defaulting on payments amounting to ₹ 9 crores in a contractual agreement with the Respondents. Based on these allegations, an FIR was registered, and the authorities issued a notice requiring the Appellant to submit certain documents. The Appellant, claiming innocence, approached the HC to seek the quashing of the proceedings initiated against him. While the HC declined to quash the proceedings, it directed that the Appellant should not be arrested unless credible evidence was found against him. Aggrieved by the HC’s judgment, the Appellant appealed to the SC.
The SC held that Article 226 of the Constitution endows HCs with extraordinary powers to intervene in cases of apparent miscarriage of justice, beyond the powers conferred under Section 482 of the CrPC. It observed that the HC had erred by not exercising its powers under Article 226 to quash the proceedings, especially when the FIR contained only vague allegations and lacked specific details against the Appellant.
Consequently, the SC set aside the HC’s judgment and quashed the proceedings against the Appellant.
Bombay HC: Solitary instance of following the victim would not be sufficient to make out this offence
In a common judgment in two separate appeals between Amit (Accused No. 1) and Akash (Accused No. 2) vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors, the Bombay High Court (HC) ruled that for the offence of stalking to be established, the prosecution must prove that the accused repeatedly or persistently followed, watched, or contacted the victim, either directly or through electronic or digital media.
The case involved the conviction of both Accused by the sessions court for stalking and sexually assaulting a minor girl. In 2020, the victim alleged that both Accused followed her on one occasion when she went to fetch water from a river. She reported this incident to her mother, who approached the Accused parents and requested them to counsel their children.
Subsequently, on 26 August 2020, while the victim’s mother was away, Accused No. 1 entered the victim’s house, gagged her, and assaulted her. The victim’s sister responded to her cries for help, prompting Accused No. 1 to flee. When the victim’s mother returned on 28 August, the victim narrated the incident, and her mother again informed Accused No. 1’s parents. The incident was finally reported to the police on 4 September 2020, leading to the arrest and conviction of both Accused by the sessions court.
On an Appeal, the HC noted that while Accused No. 1 argued that the charges against him were fabricated, the evidence clearly proved his involvement in the sexual assault. However, no evidence implicated Accused No. 2 in the assault, and even the victim did not accuse him of participating in it. Consequently, Accused No. 2 was acquitted of the charge of sexual assault.
Regarding the stalking charge, the HC observed that the prosecution presented evidence of only a single instance of the victim being followed. The court clarified that to constitute stalking, the prosecution must establish that the victim was repeatedly or persistently followed, watched, or contacted, whether directly or through electronic or digital means. Since this requirement was not met, both the Accused were acquitted of the stalking charge. The judgment of the sessions court was accordingly modified.
SC: Health and Well-being of Child are paramount while considering visitation rights of parents living separately from each other
The facts in Sugirtha (Wife) vs. Gowtham (Husband) case were that they were married in 2021 and bore a child in 2022. In June 2023, the wife filed a divorce petition before the family court on the charges of cruelty, an attempt to kill both her and the child, among others, by the husband. Since August 2022, they started living separately with wife having the custody of the child. Thereafter, the husband filed a petition seeking his visitation rights to the child.
In November 2023, the family court adjudicated that every Sunday, the child should be taken from Madurai, where the wife lives, to Karur, where the husband lives, and be handed over to the husband between 10 AM and 12 PM. This was challenged in the HC by the wife on the ground that the distance between Madurai and Karur is 150 kilometres and making the tender age child travel 300 kilometres each Sunday is not good for the child. The HC dismissed it saying that since the husband is also a natural guardian of the child, he is also entitled to visit.
On an appeal, the SC held that in matters such as these, though the visitation rights of the parents cannot be undermined, the health and well-being of the child become paramount considering the child’s tender age. Accordingly, the SC directed that the husband shall have the right to visit the child at a temple or park between 10 AM and 2 PM at Madurai, instead of Karur. The Wife, though present, shall stay at a distance of about 10 meters from the husband and the child, during the visitation time.
