List of Current Affairs

Source: Jammu & Kashmir High Court   

Why in News? 

Recently, Justice Sanjay Dhar held that the plea of alibi is a matter of defence to be tested at trial, and cannot be a ground for quashing the charge sheet at the pre-trial stage. 

• The Jammu & Kashmir High Court held this in the matter of Abdul Qayoom Ganie and Ors. v. UT of J&K and others (2025). 

What was the Background of Abdul Qayoom Ganie and Ors. v. UT of J&K and others, (2025) Case? 

• The present case arose from FIR No. 52/2024 registered at Police Station Zainapora, Shopian for offences under Sections 142, 148, 323, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).  
• According to the allegations contained in the FIR, on 23.06.2024, the complainant (respondent No. 3) was undertaking repairs of his house when the incident occurred. The complainant alleged that the petitioners, along with co-accused persons, came to the location armed with deadly weapons including axes, knives, and iron rods. 
• The complainant further alleged that the accused person launched a premeditated and violent attack upon him and his associates. As a result of this attack, the complainant sustained injuries on his head and other parts of his body. Additionally, three other persons named Tanveer Ahmad, Manzoor Ahmad, and Hameed Imran also received injuries on different parts of their bodies during the incident. 
• Based on the written complaint filed by respondent No. 3, the police registered the FIR and initiated an investigation into the matter. After completion of the investigation, the investigating agency filed a charge sheet before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shopian. 
• The petitioners challenged the charge sheet proceedings on the ground of alibi. They contended that they were not present at the scene of the alleged offence at the relevant time as they were discharging their official duties at their respective places of posting. 
• Specifically, petitioner No. 1 claimed he was working as a Selection Grade Constable in the Police and was posted at Ahstan Sharief Jinab Sahib Soura, where he was on duty on the date of the incident. Petitioner No. 2 claimed he was working as a Teacher at Higher Secondary School, Shopian and was discharging his duty as an Invigilator on the relevant date. Petitioner No. 3 claimed he was working as a Lecturer in Higher Secondary School, Keegam and was also on duty at the relevant time. 
• The petitioners argued that since they were not present at the spot during the incident, no offence was made out against them. They also alleged that the police had not investigated the matter properly and that respondent No. 3 had lodged the complaint with malicious intent to wreak vengeance upon them due to a civil dispute between the parties. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• On the Nature of Allegations: The Court observed that the contents of the FIR clearly disclose that the petitioners and co-accused launched an attack upon the complainant and his associates, resulting in injuries to the victims. The allegations specifically mention that the petitioners were carrying weapons like axes, knives, and iron rods at the time of the incident and used these weapons to inflict injuries upon the complainant and his associates. The Court noted that these allegations clearly disclose the commission of cognizable offences against the petitioners. 
• On Investigation and Charge Sheet: The Court observed that the Investigating Agency, after investigating the FIR, found substance in the allegations made against the petitioners, which resulted in the filing of the charge sheet. The Court noted that prima facie evidence existed to support the charges. 
• On the Plea of Alibi: The Court made a crucial observation that the plea of alibi put forward by the petitioners cannot form a ground for quashing the charge sheet in writ proceedings. The Court emphasized that the veracity of the defence raised by the petitioners is a matter that can be examined by the trial court at the appropriate stage during the trial proceedings. 
• On Scope of Judicial Review: The Court observed that it cannot exercise its powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) to conduct a mini-trial to ascertain the veracity of the defence put up by the petitioners. The Court clarified that such detailed examination of evidence and defence pleas is beyond the scope of quashing proceedings. 
• On Alternative Remedy: The Court observed that if the petitioners believe that their defence of alibi has not been properly investigated by the Investigating Agency, they have the liberty to approach the learned trial Magistrate before whom the charge sheet has been filed and seek further investigation of the case. The Court noted that the trial court is the appropriate forum to address such concerns regarding adequacy of investigation. 
• Final Observation: The Court concluded that it cannot go into all aspects of the matter in the present writ proceedings, as these are matters that fall within the domain of the trial court. The Court observed that the petition lacked merit and accordingly dismissed it, leaving all questions of fact and law to be determined by the trial court during the course of the trial proceedings. 

What is the Concept of Plea of Alibi? 

• Definition:  
  • A plea of alibi is a fundamental defense mechanism in criminal law where an accused person claims they were physically present at a different location at the time the alleged offense was committed, making it impossible for them to be the perpetrator of the crime. 
• Legal Framework: 
  • Under Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023: 
    • Section 9 governs the plea of alibi, which states that facts not otherwise relevant become relevant if they are inconsistent with any fact in issue or relevant fact. 
    • Section 106 addresses the burden of proof, placing the responsibility on the accused to prove their claim of being elsewhere. 
  • Under Indian Evidence Act, 1872: 
    • Section 11 provides the legal basis for alibi defense, making facts relevant if they are inconsistent with the facts in issue. 
• Essential Elements of Plea of Alibi: 
  • Commission of a cognizable offense that is punishable by law. 
  • Formal charges must be filed against the accused. 
  • Proof of absence from the crime scene at the relevant time. 
  • Evidence of presence at a different location making it impossible to commit the crime. 
  • Timely assertion of the defense in legal proceedings. 
• Burden of Proof: 
  • The burden of proving the plea of alibi lies entirely on the accused person. However, the standard required is not "beyond reasonable doubt" but should be strong enough to create reasonable doubt about the accused's presence at the crime scene. 

Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, the bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta quashed the FIR under the UP Gangsters Act, holding that the Act cannot be invoked for a solitary incident without evidence of continuous organised criminal activity, as it violates the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of Lal Mohd. & Anr. v. State of U.P & Ors. (2025). 

What was the Background of Lal Mohd. & Anr. v. State of U.P & Ors.    (2025) Case? 

• The appellants were members of a political party in Uttar Pradesh, with Appellant No. 1 being a former two-time elected Chairman of the Nagar Panchayat and Appellant No. 2 being his son.  
• On 10th October 2022, one Rikki Modanwal made a social media post containing allegedly defamatory language towards a particular religion. In response, several believers of that religion, including the appellants, assembled outside Rikki Modanwal's shop and raised vociferous protests the social media post.  
• The protests escalated into violence and acts of vandalism between two different religious groups. 
• Multiple FIRs were registered on 11th October 2022 against the people involved in the incidents, including FIR bearing CC No. 294 of 2022 against 41 accused persons including the appellants for offences under various sections of the Indian Penal Code,1860 (IPC).  
• A second FIR bearing CC No. 296 of 2022 was also registered on the same date against members of both religious groups under multiple sections of the IPC and other Acts.  
• Following investigation into these FIRs, the appellants were arrested and subsequently released on bail. Nearly six months later, on 30th April 2023, Inspector Arun Kumar Dwivedi filed the impugned FIR against the appellants and 39 other accused under Section 3(1) of the UP Gangsters Act.  
• The timing of this FIR was significant as it came just 13 days after Appellant No. 1's daughter-in-law filed her nomination for Chairmanship of Nagar Panchayat Khargupur on 17th April 2023.  
• The appellants had anticipated this development and filed a representation on 25th April 2023 to the UP-State Election Commission raising concerns about potential misuse of the UP Gangsters Act. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court observed that extraordinary penal provisions like the UP Gangsters Act must be invoked based on evidence that meets a threshold of credibility and substantiality, with materials establishing a reasonable nexus between the accused and alleged criminal activity. 
• The Court emphasized that when a statute creates serious fetters on personal liberty, the evidentiary foundation for its invocation must be commensurately strong, supported by concrete verifiable facts rather than vague assertions.  
• The bench noted that the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty acquires even greater significance when extraordinary legislation with stringent provisions is invoked, and such power cannot be wielded as an instrument of harassment or intimidation, particularly where political motivations may be at play. 
• The Court found that the impugned FIR merely referred to an isolated incident without any subsequent criminal acts or pattern of organized criminal behavior, failing to establish the sustained criminal enterprise that the UP Gangsters Act is designed to address.  
• The timing of the FIR registration, occurring just 13 days after the political nomination and following the appellants' anticipatory representation, lent credence to their contention that the Act may have been weaponized for extraneous considerations.  
• The Court determined that applying the UP Gangsters Act to appellants based on a single incident of communal violence represented a significant departure from the Act's legislative purpose of combating organized gang-based crime. 
• The bench concluded that compelling the appellants to undergo another prosecution under the UP Gangsters Act for the same set of allegations would constitute a manifest abuse of the legal process and result in a gross miscarriage of justice.  
• The Court also referenced recent guidelines framed by the UP Government emphasizing rigorous assessment of gravity of underlying offences and established patterns of criminal activity, which were not met in the present case. 

What is the Overview of the UP Gangsters Act? 

• This Act establishes a comprehensive legal framework to combat organized crime by defining stringent punishments for gangsters and corrupt public servants who assist them. 
• Section 3 prescribes imprisonment of 2-10 years and fines for gangsters, with enhanced punishment of 3-10 years for offenses against public servants or their families, while public servants who illegally aid gangsters face 3-10 years imprisonment and fines. 
• Section 4 introduces special evidence rules allowing courts to consider the accused's criminal history, presume unexplained wealth was acquired through gangster activities, automatically presume kidnapping was for ransom, and conduct trials in the accused's absence when necessary. 
• Sections 5-13 establish Special Courts with exclusive jurisdiction over gangster offenses, appointing qualified judges and prosecutors, allowing flexible venue changes for witness protection, ensuring trial precedence over other cases, and permitting simultaneous trial of related offenses. 
• Sections 14-17 create a robust property forfeiture mechanism where District Magistrates can attach suspected gangster-acquired property, claimants have three months to challenge attachments by proving legitimate acquisition, and courts conduct detailed inquiries with the burden of proof on claimants to establish the property's lawful origin, ultimately ordering release, confiscation, or other appropriate disposal.  
• Section 11 mandates in-camera proceedings to protect witness identities and addresses, with violations punishable by up to one year imprisonment and ₹1,000 fine.  
• Section 19 establishes strict bail restrictions requiring Public Prosecutor consultation and court satisfaction that the accused is unlikely to be guilty and won't commit offenses while on bail, while extending remand periods from the standard 15-90 days to 60 days-1 year, making all offenses under this Act cognizable and non-bailable with enhanced procedural safeguards. 

Source: Karnataka High Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice Vijaykumar A Patil held that filing of counter claim cannot be permitted after the framing of issues.  

• The Karnataka High Court held this in the case of Abdul Sattar v. M. Khalid (2025). 

What was the Background of Abdul Sattar v. M. Khalid (2025) Case?   

• The petitioner had filed suit before the IV Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Mangaluru, seeking a permanent mandatory injunction against the respondents. 
• The relief sought by the petitioner was to direct the defendants to remove an illegal compound wall constructed on the western and northern sides of the suit property, and in the event of non-compliance, to have the Court bailiff carry out the work at the defendants' cost. 
• The petitioner also sought a prohibitory injunction to restrain the defendants from obstructing his movement on the suit property. 
• The respondents filed their written statement on 26th August 2013, denying the allegations made in the plaint. 
• The plaintiff's evidence was concluded on 15th December 2015, and the matter was thereafter posted for the defendants’ evidence. 
• The defendants repeatedly sought adjournments, and eventually, the trial court posted the matter on 13th October 2019 for defendants’ evidence as a last chance. 
• On 20th October 2019, the defendants (respondent Nos. 1 and 2) filed IA No. 14 under Order 6 Rule 17 r/w Section 151 CPC, seeking to amend their written statement and raise a counterclaim for the first time. 
• The amendment and counterclaim were sought more than six years after the filing of the original written statement, and after the plaintiff’s evidence had already been concluded. 
• The trial court allowed the application for amendment and counterclaim through an order dated 03rd December 2019, which led to the present writ petition being filed. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court held that Order 8 Rule 6A of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) permits a defendant to raise a counterclaim only up to the stage of filing the written statement or within the time allowed for delivering the defence. 
• The Court observed that the counterclaim must be based on a cause of action that accrued before the filing of the defence or before the expiry of the time allowed to file the defence. 
• The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Ashok Kumar Kalra v. Wing Commander Surendra Agnihotri (2020), which held that though filing a counterclaim with the written statement is not mandatory, it cannot be permitted after framing of issues. 
• The Supreme Court in the above case laid down that a counterclaim may be allowed after filing of the written statement but only up to the stage of framing of issues, and in exceptional cases, till commencement of the plaintiff’s evidence. 
• The High Court found that in the present case, the counterclaim was filed more than six years after the written statement and after the conclusion of the plaintiff’s evidence, which violates the procedural timeline under CPC and the principles laid down in Ashok Kumar Kalra. 
• The Court ruled that the trial court erred in exercising discretion by allowing such a belated counterclaim without considering relevant factors such as delay, prejudice to the plaintiff, and the stage of proceedings. 
• The Court emphasized that discretion to allow a counterclaim must be exercised judicially and allowing it at an advanced stage defeats the objective of speedy and efficient justice. 
• The Court concluded that the impugned order allowing the amendment and counterclaim was legally unsustainable and liable to be set aside. 
• The High Court clarified that rejection of the counterclaim would not bar the defendants from pursuing their claim through an independent legal proceeding. 
• Accordingly, the Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the trial court’s order dated 03rd December 2019, and rejected IA No. 14 seeking amendment of the written statement and inclusion of the counterclaim. 

What is a Counter Claim? 

About: 

• Order VIII Rule 6A of CPC provide for counter claim by the defendant-  
  • Sub-clause (1): Right to File Counter-claim 
    • A defendant can file a counter-claim against the plaintiff in the same suit. 
    • This counter-claim can be for any right or claim (e.g., damages). 
    • The cause of action must arise before the defendant has filed his defence or before the time allowed for filing defence has expired. 
    • Proviso: The counter-claim must be within the court’s pecuniary jurisdiction. 
  • Sub-clause (2): Effect of Counter-claim 
    • The counter-claim will have the same effect as a separate suit (cross-suit). 
    • The court can give a final judgment in the same case covering both the plaintiff’s claim and the defendant’s counter-claim. 
  • Sub-clause (3): Plaintiff’s Right to Reply 
    • The plaintiff can file a written statement in reply to the counter-claim. 
    • The court will fix the time within which this reply must be filed. 
  • Sub-clause (4): Treatment of Counter-claim 
    • The counter-claim will be treated like a plaint (a new suit). 
    • It will follow the same rules as applicable to plaints under the CPC. 
• Order VIII Rule 6B states that Counter-claim to be stated- 
  • If a defendant wants to raise a counter-claim, he must clearly mention it as a counter-claim in his written statement. 
  • The defendant should specifically state that he is making a counter-claim and not just a defence. 
• Order VIII Rule 6C provides for exclusion of counter claim- 
  • If the plaintiff feels that the counter-claim should not be decided in the same suit, but in a separate suit, he can apply to the court. 
  • This must be done before issues are framed for the counter-claim. 
  • The court will then decide whether to allow or exclude the counter-claim from the current case. 
• Order VIII Rule 6D provides for effect of discontinuance of suit-  
  • If the plaintiff’s main suit is stayed, withdrawn, or dismissed, the defendant’s counter-claim can still continue. 
  • The counter-claim does not automatically end if the main suit ends. 
• Order VIII Rule 6E provides for default of plaintiff to reply to counter claim- 
  • If the plaintiff fails to respond to the defendant’s counter-claim, the court may: 
    • Give judgment against the plaintiff in respect of the counter-claim, or 
    • Pass any appropriate order regarding the counter-claim. 
• Order VIII Rule 6F provides for relief to defendant where counter claim succeeds 
  • If the counter-claim or set-off is successful, and there is a balance due to either party, the court can: 
    • Award judgment in favor of the party entitled to that balance amount. 
  • This allows fair adjustment between both parties’ claims. 

Relevant Case Laws: 

• Ashok Kumar Kalra v. Wing Commander Surendra Agnihotri and Others (2020): 
  • The Supreme Court observed that as per the 2002 amendment, the defendant must file the written statement within 30 days from the date of service of summons, extendable up to 90 days with court’s permission. 
  • Rule 6A of Order 8 CPC was introduced to avoid multiple proceedings and enable the court to decide all disputes in one suit. 
  • The law does not require a counterclaim to be filed strictly with the written statement, but courts have discretion to allow it later, depending on circumstances. 
  • The trial court must exercise discretion carefully, ensuring that: 
    • No prejudice is caused to the plaintiff. 
    • The trial is not unduly delayed. 
    • The object of the CPC amendment (efficient justice) is upheld. 
  • Courts should generally not permit counterclaims after issues are framed or the suit has substantially proceeded. 
  • The Court emphasized that speedy justice is important but must be balanced with the need to ensure effective justice and fair opportunity to all parties. 
  • Courts must assess various factors before allowing a delayed counterclaim, such as: 
    (i) Length of delay 
    (ii) Limitation period for the cause of action 
    (iii) Reasons for delay 
    (iv) Whether the defendant has asserted the right earlier 
    (v) Similarity between the main suit and counterclaim 
    (vi) Cost of filing a fresh suit 
    (vii) Possibility of abuse of process 
    (viii) Prejudice to the plaintiff 
    (ix) Overall facts and circumstances 
    (x) Most importantly, not after issues are framed 
  • The Court finally concluded that while Rule 6A gives flexibility, the right to file counterclaim is not absolute, and courts must ensure the counterclaim is timely and fair.