List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, bench led by Chief Justice BR Gavai and comprising Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice Atul S Chandurkar quashed the criminal proceedings against a woman’s in-laws, noting that the FIR contained only vague and general allegations without specific details against them. The Court clarified that the serious charges of cruelty and unnatural sex were directed solely at the husband, not his family members. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of Sanjay D. Jain & Ors. V. State of Maharashtra & Ors.  (2025). 

What was the Background of Sanjay D. Jain & Ors. V. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2025)? 

• Piyush (son of the appellants) married the complainant on 14th July, 2021. 
• At the time of marriage, the complainant's family gave various gifts to the groom's family. 
• After the marriage, the appellants allegedly made continuous demands for additional gifts and dowry from the complainant and her family. 
• On 7th August, 2021, when the complainant visited her parental house, she received a call from her mother-in-law demanding clothes and jewellery. 
• Upon returning to her matrimonial home on August 30, 2021, the complainant brought some clothes for the family members. 
• Despite fulfilling these demands, the appellants allegedly continued to make further demands for gifts and dowry from time to time. 
• The complainant alleged that her husband insisted upon her engaging in unnatural sex, which caused her mental torture. 
• On 6th February 2022, FIR No. 20 of 2022 was registered at Bajaj Nagar Police Station, Nagpur under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 
• Subsequently, offences under Sections 377 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code were also added to the charges. 
• After completion of further investigation and recording statements of the complainant and witnesses, a final report was filed. 
• Procedural History: 
  • The appellants (father-in-law, mother-in-law, and sister-in-law) along with the complainant's husband filed an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings. 
  • The Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench dismissed the application on March 19, 2024, holding that there was prima facie material on record to proceed with the trial. 
  • The accused persons, except the husband, filed the present appeal before the Supreme Court challenging the High Court's order dated 19th March, 2024, in Criminal Application No. 741 of 2022. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court observed that if allegations made in the FIR or complaint, even when taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out any case against the accused, quashing of the proceedings would be justified, and vague and general allegations cannot lead to the formation of a prima facie case. 
• Upon perusal of the FIR in its entirety, the Court found that statements of a general nature had been made against the appellants without specific particulars, and there were omnibus statements made in the complaint without any particulars whatsoever. 
• The Court held that for constituting an offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, cruelty as indicated in the Explanation to the said provision must be inflicted with the intention to cause grave injury or drive the victim to commit suicide or inflict grave injury to herself—such allegations were absent in the present case. 
• The Court noted that allegations regarding offences punishable under Sections 377 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code had been made only against the complainant's husband and not against the present appellants, and there was no allegation whatsoever in that context against the appellants that would require them to face trial on that count. 
• The Court concluded that on the touchstone of the law laid down in State of Haryana and Others vs. Bhajan Lal and Others (1990) a case had been made out by the appellants for quashing of the criminal proceedings, as continuation of these proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law. 
• The Court clarified that this adjudication shall not come in the way of the proceedings initiated against accused No. 1 (the husband) under Sections 498-A, 377, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, and the observations made were restricted to the present appellants only. 

What are the Key Legal Principles Governing the Quashing of Criminal Proceedings in Cases Involving Allegations Under Section 498-A of IPC? 

• Grounds for Quashing Criminal Proceedings - If allegations made in the FIR or complaint, even when taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out any case against the accused, the proceedings are liable to be quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 
• Sufficiency of Allegations - Vague and general allegations without specific particulars cannot lead to the formation of a prima facie case against the accused, and omnibus statements made in a complaint without any details whatsoever are insufficient to sustain criminal proceedings. 
• Essential Ingredients of Section 498-A IPC - For constituting an offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, there must be cruelty inflicted against the victim which either drives her to commit suicide, causes grave injury to herself, or leads to conduct that would cause grave injury or danger to life, limb, or health, or harassment with a view to satisfy an unlawful demand for any property or valuable security. 
• Specificity of Cruelty under Section 498-A - The cruelty caused by the husband and his family members should be of such nature that it is inflicted with the intention to cause grave injury or drive the victim to commit suicide or inflict grave injury to herself, and such cruelty as indicated in the Explanation to Section 498-A must be specifically stated to be inflicted. 
• Individual Culpability and Specific Allegations - Where allegations regarding offences punishable under Sections 377 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code are made only against one accused person (husband) and not against co-accused persons (in-laws), and there is no allegation whatsoever against the co-accused in that context, they cannot be required to face trial on that count. 
• Abuse of Process of Law - Continuation of criminal proceedings against accused persons based on vague allegations that do not satisfy the essential ingredients of the offences charged amounts to an abuse of the process of law, warranting quashing of such proceedings under the principles laid down in Bhajan Lal. 
• Limited Scope of Quashing Order - An order quashing criminal proceeding against certain accused persons (in-laws) does not affect or prejudice the continuation of proceedings against other accused persons (husband) for the same offences, and such proceedings shall be adjudicated independently on their own merits. 

Cases Referred 

• Digambar and Another v. The State of Maharashtra and Another (2024): 
  • The Court relied on this judgment to reiterate the legal parameters for quashing FIR proceedings and the essential ingredients required for constituting an offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, particularly emphasizing that vague and general allegations cannot lead to forming a prima facie case. 
• State of Haryana and Others v. Bhajan Lal and Others (1990):  
  • The Court applied the legal principles laid down in this landmark judgment as the touchstone for determining whether the criminal proceedings against the appellants deserved to be quashed, holding that continuation of proceedings based on vague allegations would amount to an abuse of the process of law. 

Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, Justice Anand Pathak and Justice Pushpendra Yadav flagged the rising issue of police personnel being distracted by mobile phones and social media while on duty, alongside traditional intoxication like alcohol. The court urged senior police officers to implement monitoring and sensitization measures to ensure discipline and proper conduct during duty hours. 

• The Madhya Pradesh High Court held this in the matter of Ashok Kumar Tripathi v. State of MP (2025). 

What was the Background of Ashok Kumar Tripathi v. State of MP (2025) Case ? 

• The appellant, Ashok Kumar Tripathi, was serving as a police constable in the State of Madhya Pradesh. 
• On 4th August 2007, at approximately 6:00 am, the appellant was posted on guard duty at Bungalow No. 16 in Gwalior. 
• The said bungalow was the residence of a protectee requiring security arrangements. 
• While on duty, the appellant was discovered sleeping under the influence of alcohol. 
• A charge-sheet was issued against the appellant alleging dereliction of duty due to consumption of liquor whilst performing guard duties. 
• A departmental enquiry was initiated and conducted against the appellant in accordance with service rules. 
• During the departmental proceedings, evidence was recorded from Dr. A.K. Saxena, who testified that the appellant's breath contained the fragrance of liquor. 
• The departmental enquiry concluded that the charges against the appellant were proved. 
• Vide order dated 31st December 2007, the Commandant of 5th Battalion, SAF, Morena imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement upon the appellant. 
• The appellant challenged the said order before the Deputy Inspector General of SAF, which appeal was dismissed. 
• Subsequently, the appellant filed a mercy petition before the Director General of Police, Bhopal, vide order dated 9th August 2011, which was also rejected. 
• The punishment order was confirmed vide order dated 18th March 2008. 
• The appellant then approached the learned Single Judge by filing Writ Petition No. 2907 of 2012 challenging his compulsory retirement. 
• The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition vide order dated 2nd April 2025. 
• Prior to this incident, the appellant had a disciplinary record showing he had been punished vide order dated 30th April 2007 for remaining absent from duty, for which one increment was stopped with cumulative effect. 
• The appellant's counsel contended that no medical examination or breath test was conducted, and the findings were based merely on a smell test. 
• It was argued that the doctor had found the appellant fit despite the alleged drunken condition, and that evidence on record was disregarded. 
• The respondent-State contended that being a member of a disciplined force posted on guard duty, the appellant was expected to remain vigilant and serious towards his duty. 
• Aggrieved by the dismissal of his writ petition, the appellant preferred Writ Appeal No. 1140 of 2025 before the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Gwalior. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The departmental enquiry was based on Dr. A.K. Saxena's testimony confirming the appellant's breath contained the fragrance of liquor, and the Court held that a police employee performing duties under the influence of liquor is a recipe for law-and-order problems where many things are at stake. 
• Relying on Union of India v. K.G. Soni, (2006) the Court held that judicial interference in disciplinary matters is warranted only if the punishment is illogical, procedurally improper, or shocking to conscience, and found the compulsory retirement proportionate to the charges. 
• The Court noted the appellant's prior disciplinary record for remaining absent from duty, indicating habitual dereliction, and emphasized that being posted on guard duty at a protectee's residence required greater vigilance as intoxication may breed indiscipline and cause accidents or mishaps. 
• Finding no grounds for interference, the Court affirmed the Single Judge's order dismissing the writ petition and upheld the compulsory retirement. 
• The Court drew attention to another form of intoxication prevailing in police departments—mobile phones and social media usage—observing that personnel on guard, court, and law and order duties are commonly engaged in observing mobile and social media, creating indiscipline, casualness, and affecting their disposition through incriminating clips. 
• The Court suggested incorporating sensitization programmes in police training centres and establishing mechanisms for constant supervision to check and verify the social media presence of police personnel while on duty. 
• The Court directed that a copy of the order be sent to the Director General of Police and Additional Directors General (Administration and Training) for information and contemplation, terming the issue as "food for thought" requiring appropriate mechanisms as per rules, regulations, and guidelines. 

What are the Legal and Disciplinary Standards for Police Personnel on Guard Duty Regarding Alcohol Consumption and Use of Mobile/Social Media? 

• Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, challenging the order of the learned Single Judge. 
• Relying on Union of India and Another v. K.G. Soni, (2006), the Court held that the scope of judicial review in disciplinary proceedings is limited, and courts should not interfere unless the punishment is illogical, suffers from procedural impropriety, or is shocking to the conscience of the court. 
• A police employee performing duties while under the influence of liquor constitutes serious misconduct, and the punishment of compulsory retirement for a constable found sleeping under the influence of alcohol while on guard duty at a protectee's residence is proportionate to the gravity of the offence. 
• Evidence based on medical testimony confirming the fragrance of liquor in breath, even without formal breath analyzer tests, can form a valid basis for proving charges in departmental enquiries, and prior disciplinary record is a relevant consideration indicating habitual dereliction of duty. 
• Police personnel posted on guard duty at residences of protectees are held to a higher standard of vigilance and discipline, as any dereliction may cause accidents, mishaps, or security breaches. 
• Excessive use of mobile phones and social media by police personnel while on duty creates indiscipline, casualness, and affects their disposition, warranting institutional mechanisms for supervision and regulation as per departmental rules, regulations, and guidelines.