List of Current Affairs

Home / List of Current Affairs

Criminal Law

Section 186 of IPC

12-May-2025

Umashankar Yadav & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh

“It goes without saying the manner and mode of interrogation was to be decided by the labour officers but appellants' endeavours were not to impede interrogation but to ensure it was conducted in a more effective manner. Such factual position denudes their action of the requisite mens rea, i.e. intention to obstruct official duty. ”

Justices PS Narsimha and Joymalya Bagchi

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, the bench of Justices PS Narsimha and Joymalya Bagchi quashed the criminal case against NGO Guria members, terming it vexatious and malicious, finding no evidence of force or obstruction under Sections 186 and 353 of India Penal Code ,1860.

The Supreme Court held this in the matter of Umashankar Yadav & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh.

What was the Background of Umashankar Yadav & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2025) Case ?

Guria is a well-known NGO in Uttar Pradesh that works against human trafficking and commercial sexual exploitation of girls and children.
Umashankar Yadav, a Project Coordinator at Guria, submitted an application to the District Magistrate of Varanasi alleging that bonded and child labourers were engaged at a brick kiln in Varanasi.
The District Magistrate directed the Assistant Labour Commissioner to take necessary action, who assembled a team of Labour Employment Officers and police personnel.
On 6th June, 2014, this team, accompanied by the appellants (NGO workers), proceeded to inspect the brick kiln.
During the inspection, a disagreement arose between the appellants and the officials regarding how to conduct the investigation.
The appellants wanted the labourers and children to be brought to the police station for interrogation, while the officials intended to record their statements at the site.
The appellants allegedly put the labourers and children in a dumper and took them away from the site before their statements could be recorded.
Raja Ram Dubey (a Labour Employment Officer) filed an FIR against the appellants under Sections 186 (obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions), 353 (assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of duty), and 363 (kidnapping) of the Indian Penal Code.
Section 363 was later dropped based on the statement of one of the labourers.
Criminal proceedings continued against the appellants under Sections 186 and 353 IPC.
The appellants approached the High Court to quash the FIR, but the court refused, stating that the issues involved disputed questions of fact which could not be adjudicated under Section 482 CrPC.
Aggrieved by the High Court's decision, the appellants approached the Supreme Court.

What were the Court’s Observations?

The Supreme Court criticized the High Court's order as "cryptic" for not addressing the facts of the case or the contentions raised by the appellants.
The Court observed that summoning an accused is a serious matter affecting liberty and dignity of the individual concerned.
The Court stated that judicial intervention under Section 482 CrPC to weed out vexatious proceedings is of pivotal importance to protect individuals from untold harassment.
The Court noted that the inherent power of the High Court to prevent abuse of process is much wider in amplitude than discharge powers.
Regarding Section 353 IPC, the Court observed that the uncontroverted allegations did not disclose use of force or threatening gestures giving rise to apprehension of use of force towards a public servant.
The Court held that the physical movement of labourers would not amount to use of force, far less criminal force, on a public servant.
Regarding Section 186 IPC, the Court observed that obstruction to a public servant must be done with the requisite mens rea (intention) to prevent discharge of official duty.
The Court noted that the appellants' actions appeared to stem from a genuine difference of opinion rather than an intention to impede interrogation.
The Court observed that the appellants' endeavours were not to impede interrogation but to ensure it was conducted in a more effective manner.
The Court found that the hostile stance of the labour department suggested that the criminal case was a product of malice and personal vendetta against the appellants.
The Court identified procedural flaws: Section 186 is a non-cognizable offence requiring prior permission from a Magistrate under Section 155(2) CrPC to register an FIR, which was not obtained.
The Court emphasized that cognizance of an offence under Section 186 IPC can only be taken on a complaint in writing by the aggrieved public servant or their superior, not on a police report as was done in this case.

What is Section 221 of ( Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) BNS ?

Section 221 prescribes punishment for voluntarily obstructing any public servant in the discharge of his public functions.
The offence carries imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to two thousand and five hundred rupees, or both.
This offence was previously covered under Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code.
The essential elements of this offence require voluntary obstruction and intention to prevent discharge of official duties.
Mere disagreement or difference of opinion with a public servant regarding the manner of discharging duties does not constitute obstruction under this section.
The prosecution must establish mens rea (guilty intent) to prove obstruction of a public servant.
The obstruction must be voluntary and with the specific intention to prevent the public servant from discharging their official duties.
Where the alleged actions lack the requisite mens rea, the offence is not made out even if there is apparent interference.
This section does not cover situations where individuals act in good faith with alternative suggestions for how public duties might be discharged more effectively.
To establish an offence under this section, it must be shown that the accused deliberately impeded the official's function, not merely that they disagreed with the manner of execution.
This offence is non-cognizable, requiring prior permission of a Magistrate under Section 155(2) CrPC for police to register an FIR and investigate.
Cognizance of this offence can only be taken on a complaint in writing by the aggrieved public servant or their superior as per Section 195 CrPC, not on a police report.
The legal bar under Section 195 CrPC cannot be circumvented by treating a police report as a deemed complaint under the Explanation to Section 2(d) CrPC.
When the profile of allegations renders existence of mens rea patently absurd or inherently improbable, such prosecution may be quashed as an abuse of process of law.

Civil Law

Cause of Action under CPC

12-May-2025

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC)

Gurmeet Singh Sachdeva v. Skyways Air Services Pvt. Ltd.

“The phrase “does not disclose the cause of action” has to be very narrowly construed. The rejection of plaint at the threshold entails very serious consequences.”

Justice Ravinder Dudeja

Source: Delhi High Court

Why in News?

A bench of Justice Ravinder Dudeja held that the plaint should not be rejected on the ground that the averments are not sufficient to prove the facts. The Court is authorized to reject the plaint only if the plaint fails to disclose a cause of action.

The Delhi High Court held this in the case of Gurmeeet Singh Sachdeva v. Skyways Air Services Pvt. Ltd. (2025).

What was the Background of Gurmeeet Singh Sachdeva v. Skyways Air Services Pvt. Ltd. (2025) Case?

Skyways Air Services Pvt. Ltd. (plaintiff/respondent) filed a suit against Gurmeet Singh Sachdeva (defendant/petitioner) for recovery of Rs. 21,28,478/- (Rs. 18,03,795/- as principal and Rs. 3,24,683/- as interest).
The plaintiff alleged that the defendant used their logistic services to send goods to foreign destinations by air but failed to make the payment for these services.
The defendant filed a Written Statement contesting the claim and raising preliminary legal objections, including that the plaint was vague, ambiguous, lacked material particulars, and did not disclose a valid cause of action.
On 12th October 2023, the defendant filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 (CPC) seeking rejection of the plaint for non-disclosure of valid cause of action.
The trial court (District Judge, Commercial Court-03, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi) dismissed this application with a cost of Rs. 5,000/- on 12th October 2023.
Aggrieved by this order, the defendant filed a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order.
The defendant argued that the plaint lacked specific details about the goods, booking dates, airlines used, freight charges, taxes, and service charges.
The plaintiff countered that they had summarized the facts in the plaint and filed all relevant documents (approximately 200 pages) including ledger accounts, sub-agency collection reports, bills with airway bills, customer instructions, and billing reports.
The plaintiff maintained that these documents, which the defendant allegedly deliberately omitted from the record, contained complete details of the transactions.

What were the Court’s Observations?

The Court first of all observed that rejection of plaint is provided for under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC.
The Court held that while dealing with an application for rejection of plaint the Court has to only deal with the averments made in the plaint and the pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement are not relevant at this stage.
The Court held that it has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Liverpool & London S.P. & I Association Ltd v. M.V. Sea Success & Another (2004) that if the averments made in the plaint or documents relied upon disclose a cause of action, plaint should not be rejected merely on the ground that the averments are not sufficient to prove the facts stated therein.
- It held that for the disposal of application under Rule 11 (a), the documents filed under Rule 14 must be taken into consideration.
The Court clarified that Order VII Rule 11, while authorizing the rejection of a plaint for failure to disclose a cause of action, does not mean a plaint should be rejected if it contains averments that disclose a cause of action but may not be sufficient to prove the facts needed for the claimed relief.
The Court established that a plaint should not be examined in isolation from the documents relied upon in the plaint.
The Court noted that since the respondent had placed on record all relevant documents containing details about goods booked, destinations, taxes, and invoice dates, it cannot be said that the plaint fails to disclose a cause of action.
The Court emphasized that the phrase "does not disclose the cause of action" must be very narrowly construed.
The Court observed that rejection of a plaint at the threshold carries serious consequences, and this power should be exercised only in exceptional circumstances.
The Court stated that this power should be used only when the Court is absolutely certain that the plaintiff has no arguable case whatsoever.
The Court pointed out that the petitioner's argument was not that a combined reading of the plaint with the documents fails to disclose a cause of action.
The Court found no merit in the petition and accordingly dismissed it.
The Court also disposed of any pending applications related to the case.

What is Cause of Action?

The term “cause of action” has been explained in several case laws as follows:
- Om Prakash Srivastava v. Union of India & Anr. (2006)
  - The Supreme Court defined cause of action as "every fact, which, if traversed, it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to support his right to a judgment of the Court."
  - In other words, it's the bundle of facts necessary for the plaintiff to establish to succeed in their suit.
- Bloom Dekor Ltd. v. Subhash Himatlal Desai (1994)
  - This case established that cause of action refers to the collection of facts that a plaintiff must prove to obtain a favorable judgment.
- Sadanandan Bhadran v. Madhavan Sunil Kumar (1998)
  - The court held that in a broad sense (as used in Section 20 of the Civil Procedure Code), cause of action means every fact necessary to establish to support a right to obtain a judgment.
- South East Asia Shipping Co. Ltd. v. Nav Bharat Enterprises (P) Ltd. (1996)
  - This case clarified that cause of action consists of facts that give cause to enforce legal inquiry for redress. Importantly, it must include some act done by the defendant, as without such an act, no cause of action would arise.
- Rajasthan High Court Advocates' Assn. v. Union of India (2001)
  - The court distinguished between the restricted and wider meanings of cause of action:
    - In the restricted sense: the circumstances forming the infraction of the right
    - In the wider sense: necessary conditions for maintaining the suit, including both the infraction and the right itself
  - The judgment also distinguished between facts necessary to be proved (which comprise the cause of action) and pieces of evidence needed to prove those facts (which are not part of the cause of action).
- Gurdit Singh v. Munsha Singh (1977)
  - This case emphasized the two interpretations of cause of action:
    - Restricted view: facts constituting the infringement or basis of a right
    - Comprehensive view: the entire bundle of material facts a plaintiff must prove to succeed

Civil Law

Unregistered Agreement to sell

12-May-2025

The Registration Act, 1908

Muruganandam v. Muniyandi (Died) Through Lrs, (2025)

“We are of the opinion that the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, an unregistered document can be admitted as evidence in a suit for specific performance or a collateral transaction. ”

Justices PS Narasimha and Joymalya Bagchi

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, the bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Joymalya Bagchi has held that an unregistered agreement to sell is admissible as evidence to prove a contract in a suit for specific performance under the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908.

The Supreme Court held this in the matter of Muruganandam v. Muniyandi (Died) Through Lrs, (2025).

What was the Background of Muruganandam v. Muniyandi (Died) Through Lrs,2025 Case ?

The appellant (Muruganandam) and respondent (Muniyandi) entered into an alleged oral agreement for the sale of immovable property.
On 01st January 2000, the appellant claimed that the respondent agreed to sell his property after receiving part consideration of Rs. 5000/- and purportedly put the appellant in possession of the said property.
Subsequently, on 01st September 2002, the parties allegedly agreed that the property would be sold at the rate of Rs. 550 per cent, with the appellant paying an additional sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards this transaction.
The appellant claimed to have paid the balance consideration from time to time thereafter.
As the respondent failed to execute the sale deed despite the alleged payments, the appellant instituted a suit (O.S. No. 78 of 2012) before the District Munsiff Court, Madurantakam, seeking specific performance of the agreement and permanent injunction.
During the pendency of the suit, the appellant filed an interlocutory application (I.A. No. 1397 of 2014) under Order 7, Rule 14(3) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking permission to place on record the document dated 01.01.2000 that evidenced the agreement.
The appellant contended that due to genuine reasons, the document had got mixed up with other documents, preventing its earlier production, though a photocopy was enclosed with the plaint.
The Trial Court dismissed the application on 21st April 2015, holding that the reasons for not producing the original document were unconvincing and that the document was unstamped and unregistered, making it inadmissible under Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1989, and Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908.
The appellant filed a Civil Revision Petition (CRP.PD. No. 2828 of 2015) before the Madras High Court, which was dismissed on 26th Febuary 2021, affirming that the unstamped and unregistered document could not be brought on record.
Aggrieved by the High Court's decision, the appellant approached the Supreme Court through a Special Leave Petition (SLP (C) No. 10893 of 2021).

What were the Court’s Observations?

The Supreme Court observed that the prayer in the appellant's interlocutory application fell under the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908.
The Court noted that this proviso expressly permits an unregistered document affecting immovable property to be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance.
The Court relied on its previous decision in S. Kaladevi v. V.R. Somasundaram (2010) 5 SCC 401, which established that an unregistered document may be received as evidence of a contract in a suit seeking specific performance.
The Court observed that when an unregistered document is tendered in evidence not as evidence of a completed sale but as proof of an oral agreement of sale, such document can be received in evidence with an appropriate endorsement.
The Court noted that the appellant's plaint had referenced the document dated 01.01.2000, and a photocopy had been filed along with the plaint.
The Court recognized that the appellant intended to use the document solely as proof of an oral agreement of sale, which is permitted under Section 49 of the Registration Act.
The Court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the contents of the document and that the respondent/defendant remained free to contest the relevancy and validity of the document.
The Court emphasized that it would be for the Trial Court to consider the submissions and pass appropriate judgment/order as deemed fit.
The Court determined that there was no valid legal impediment to allowing the appellant to introduce the document dated 01.01.2000 under the circumstances of the case.
The Court observed that the lower courts had erroneously disregarded the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act in their assessment of the admissibility of the unregistered document in a suit for specific performance.

What is Section 49 of the Registration Act,1908 ?

Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908, establishes the legal consequences of non-registration of documents that are required to be registered under Section 17 of the said Act or under any provision of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
The main provision categorically prohibits any unregistered document, which is mandatorily registrable, from affecting immovable property comprised therein, conferring any power to adopt, or being received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property or conferring such power.
The prohibition under Section 49 is tripartite in nature, restricting the evidentiary value, title-creating effect, and transaction-proving capability of unregistered documents that are compulsorily registrable.
Notwithstanding the stringent prohibition in the main provision, the proviso to Section 49 carves out two specific exceptions where an unregistered document may still be admitted in evidence: a. As evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance under Chapter II of the Specific Relief Act; or b. As evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by a registered instrument.
The proviso creates a legal fiction by which an otherwise inadmissible document may be admitted for limited purposes, thereby balancing the strict requirements of registration with principles of equity and justice in specific circumstances.
The legal effect of the proviso is to prevent technical requirements of registration from defeating genuine contractual claims, particularly in suits for specific performance where the document serves not to establish title but to prove the existence of a contractual obligation.
The proviso does not nullify the requirement of registration but merely provides a procedural accommodation to admit unregistered documents for limited evidentiary purposes in specific legal proceedings.
The exception provided under the proviso is particularly significant in cases where parties have acted upon an unregistered agreement and substantial consideration has been exchanged, thus allowing courts to enforce specific performance despite the technical defect of non-registration.
The proviso distinguishes between the document's effect on property rights (which remains prohibited without registration) and its admissibility to prove contractual obligations (which is permitted in specific performance suits).
The statutory scheme acknowledges that while registration is essential for documents affecting title to immovable property, justice requires that contractual claims not be defeated merely on technical grounds of non-registration when substantial compliance and part performance are established.