List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, the bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan has held that merely refusing to marry, without any active instigation or intentional aid, does not satisfy the legal requirements of “abetment” under Sections 306 and 107 IPC. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of Yadwinder Singh @Sunny V. State of Punjab & Anr (2025). 

What was the Background of Yadwinder Singh @Sunny v. State of Punjab & Anr.(2025) ? 

• Yadwinder Singh @ Sunny, a government advocate posted at Batala, and Pardeep Kaur, also a government advocate posted at Amritsar, were in a romantic relationship and had developed intimacy with each other. In 2015, Yadwinder came to Pardeep's house and assured her mother, Surinder Kaur, that he and Pardeep liked each other and wished to marry.  
• He stated that his father was somewhat opposed to the match but he would persuade him soon, requesting that Pardeep not be married elsewhere. 
• There was significant opposition from Yadwinder's family regarding the proposed marriage with Pardeep. Despite his initial assurances and the mutual affection between them, Yadwinder eventually backed out from marrying Pardeep due to family pressure and reluctance to proceed against his parents' wishes. 
• On 6th November 2016, Pardeep was studying in the upper room of her house. According to her mother's supplementary statement, she had multiple telephonic conversations with Yadwinder that day.  
• When Pardeep's condition deteriorated and she was being rushed to hospital after consuming poison, she told her mother that Yadwinder had committed fraud with her, exploited her mentally and physically on the pretext of marriage, and when she warned him that she would consume poison if he betrayed her, he callously responded that he did not care if she died and she could do whatever she wanted.  
• Pardeep also allegedly contacted Yadwinder's father, Balwinder Singh, at around 4:30 PM, but received no sympathetic response. She died during treatment at approximately 11:00 PM that night at Escorts Hospital, Amritsar. 
• On 7th November 2016, Surinder Kaur, mother of the deceased, lodged a First Information Report at Chheharta Police Station, Amritsar, alleging that her daughter committed suicide by consuming poison due to being betrayed by Yadwinder Singh, who had promised marriage but then refused. The FIR was registered under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (abetment of suicide). 
• Two days later, on 9th November 2016, the first informant gave a supplementary statement providing additional details about the alleged mental and physical exploitation, the telephonic conversations, and Yadwinder's alleged instigation. She handed over CDs of conversations between her daughter and Yadwinder, as well as mobile phone bills, to the investigating officer. 
• Sessions Case No. 728 of 2018 was initiated against Yadwinder Singh in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar. He filed a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana seeking quashing of the FIR.  
• The High Court rejected his petition vide order dated 17th March 2025 in CRM-M-No.41256 of 2018, prompting him to approach the Supreme Court through Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 7309 of 2025. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court observed that the legal position regarding abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code is well-settled. The basic ingredients to constitute the offence are: (i) suicidal death, and (ii) abetment thereof. Abetment, as defined under Section 107 IPC, involves instigating, conspiring, or intentionally aiding the commission of an act. Instigation means to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite, or encourage someone to do an act. 
• The Court emphasized that abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding in the commission of suicide. Without a positive act on part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. There must be a clear mens rea (guilty mind) to commit the offence.  
  • The ingredients of Section 306 IPC would stand fulfilled only if the suicide is committed due to direct and alarming encouragement or incitement by the accused, leaving no option but to commit suicide.  
  • The act of instigation must be with the intention to push the deceased into such a situation that they are left with no other option but to take their own life. 
• The Court observed that even accepting the entire prosecution case without adding or subtracting anything, none of the ingredients constituting the offence of abetment punishable under Section 306 IPC were made out.  
  • While the appellant may have declined to marry the deceased due to opposition and pressure from his family, it could not be said that he created a situation whereby the deceased was left with no other option but to commit suicide. The appellant could not be said to have intended the consequences of his act, namely suicide. 
• The Court specifically held that mere refusal to marry, even if true, by itself would not amount to instigation as contemplated under Section 107 of the IPC. Though the young woman may have felt hurt and disappointed, and one sensitive moment tragically led to the loss of her life, the Court as an adjudicating body was obliged to decide the matter strictly on the basis of evidence on record and whether the allegations constituted any offence in law. 
• The Court concluded that putting the accused to trial on the basis of the evidence on record would be nothing short of a travesty of justice, as the trial would be an empty formality.  
  • The Court allowed the appeal, quashing FIR No. 273 of 2016 dated 7th November 2016 registered at Chheharta Police Station, Amritsar, as well as the proceedings in Sessions Case No. 728 of 2018 pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, Punjab. 
• The Court also noted that the first informant, the mother of the deceased, although served with notice by the Supreme Court, chose not to remain present before the Court to oppose the appeal. 

What is Section 107 of IPC,1860? 

• Definition of Abetment 
  • Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code defines abetment of a thing. A person abets the doing of a thing through any of three specified modes. 
• Three Modes of Abetment 
  • The first mode is instigation, where a person instigates another to do that thing. 
  • The second mode is conspiracy, where a person engages with one or more persons in a conspiracy for doing that thing, and an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy.  
  • The third mode is intentional aid, where a person intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. 
• Explanation 1: Wilful Misrepresentation 
  • A person who by wilful misrepresentation or wilful concealment of a material fact which they are bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing. 
• Explanation 2: Facilitation 
  • Whoever, either prior to or at the time of commission of an act, does anything to facilitate the commission of that act and thereby facilitates its commission, is said to aid the doing of that act. 
• Mental Element Required 
  • All three modes require mens rea or guilty intention. The abettor must have the intention to bring about the commission of the act through active participation, not mere passive presence. 

Source: Himachal Pradesh High Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, Justice Ajay Mohan Goel clarified that Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) deals only with the stay of subsequent suits between the same parties on the same cause of action, and has no connection with the consolidation or clubbing of suits. 

• The Himachal Pradesh High Court held this in the matter of Hardeep Singh v/s Manohar Lal and others (2025). 

What was the Background of Hardeep Singh v. Manohar Lal and others (2025)  ? 

• The petitioner, Hardeep Singh, approached the Himachal Pradesh High Court challenging an order dated 25th April 2023 passed by the Trial Court. 
• The petitioner was involved in multiple civil suits. There were suits filed by Manohar Lal against Hardeep Singh and others, by Manohar Lal against Gurmail Singh and another, by Manohar Lal against Smt. Rano Devi, and a suit filed by Hardeep Singh against Manohar Lal and others. 
• All these civil suits were pending before the Trial Court and involved common parties and overlapping issues. 
• The petitioner filed an application under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code before the Trial Court seeking consolidation and clubbing of all four civil suits together. 
• The petitioner's application was dismissed by the Trial Court vide order dated 25th April 2023. 
• The Trial Court rejected the application on the ground that there exists no provision for clubbing of cases involving common issues. 
• The Trial Court held that the only relevant provision is Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, which does not permit consolidation or clubbing of suits. 
• The petitioner challenged this order by filing a civil miscellaneous petition before the High Court. 
• Initially, the petitioner challenged two orders (Annexures P-7 and P-20), but later confined his challenge only to Annexure P-20 on technical grounds. 
• Respondent No.1, Manohar Lal, was represented through counsel, while respondents No.2, 4, 5 and 6 were ex parte. 
• Respondent No.3 was stated to be deceased. 
• The petitioner sought quashing of the impugned order and prayed that the application for consolidation of suits be allowed. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The High Court observed that the impugned order passed by the Trial Court was not sustainable in the eyes of law. 
• The Court noted that the Trial Court had completely misdirected itself by holding that there is no concept of consolidation or clubbing of cases. 
• The Court clarified that Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code has nothing to do with the issue of clubbing or consolidating cases. 
• The Court explained that Section 10 relates to the principle of res subjudice, wherein a subsequent suit filed between the same parties on the same cause has to be stayed in light of the pendency of the earlier suit. 
• The Court held that clubbing and consolidation of cases is permissible when the parameters for doing so are met in terms of the prayer made. 
• The Court observed that consolidation of cases helps avoid multiplicity of recording of evidence and prevents adjudication in isolation of one dispute which may have bearing on another dispute. 
• The Court emphasised that whether cases should be consolidated depends upon the facts involved in the concerned cases. 
• The Court stated that there is no straitjacket formula that every such application has either to be allowed or rejected. 
• The Court held that the Trial Court erred in observing that there is no provision for clubbing or consolidation of cases. 
• In light of these observations, the Court quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 25th April 2023. 
• The Court ordered that the application filed for clubbing and consolidation of cases be revived. 
• The Court directed the Trial Court to decide the application afresh on the basis of the contents of the application. 
• The Court clarified that it had not made any observation on the merits of the application. 
• The Court directed that the application be decided by the Trial Court on its own merit in light of the reply filed by the other party. 
• The Court directed the parties through counsel to appear before the Trial Court on 17th November 2025. 
• The Court clarified that Annexure P-7 shall not come in the way of the Trial Court in deciding the application afresh on merit. 

What is Section 10 CPC,1908? 

• Core Definition 
  • Section 10 of CPC embodies the principle of Res sub judice (meaning "under judgment"), which prevents courts from proceeding with trials when the same matter is already pending adjudication elsewhere. 
• Main Provision 
  • No Court shall proceed with the trial of any suit where the matter in issue is directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties (or those claiming under them with the same title), when such prior suit is pending in the same or another competent court in India, or in certain courts beyond India established by the Central Government, or before the Supreme Court. 
• Scope and Application: 
  • Applies only to suits (including appeals), not to applications and complaints 
  • "Matter in issue" refers to the entire matter in controversy, not merely individual issues 
  • The pendency of a suit in a foreign court does not bar Indian courts from trying a suit on the same cause of action 
• Nature of the Bar: 
  • Bars the trial of a suit, not its institution 
  • The subsequent suit must be stayed, not dismissed 
  • The provisions are mandatory with no judicial discretion 
  • Stay can be ordered at any stage of proceedings 
• Objectives: 
  • Prevents parallel litigation on the same cause of action and subject matter 
  • Avoids frivolous litigation 
  • Saves judicial time and resources for both the State and litigants 
• Essential Conditions 
  • Six conditions must be satisfied simultaneously: 
  • Two suits must exist - one previously instituted, one subsequently instituted 
  • The matter in the subsequent suit must be directly and substantially in issue in the previous suit 
  • Both suits must be between the same parties or their representatives 
  • Parties must be litigating under the same title in both suits 
  • The previous suit must be pending in a competent court (same court, another Indian court, specified foreign court, or Supreme Court) 
  • The court hearing the previous suit must have jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed in the subsequent suit 
• Legal Consequences 
  • A decree passed in violation of Section 10 is not void and cannot be disregarded in execution proceedings 
  • The section establishes a procedural rule that can be waived by a party 
  • Filing an application under Section 10 does not prevent the court from examining the case merits 
  • When Section 10 applies, courts should not invoke inherent powers under Section 151 of CPC