List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News? 

The bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N. Kotiswar Singh in the case of State of U.P. & Anr. v. Mohd Arshad Khan & Anr. (2024) set aside the Allahabad High Court's order which, while declining to quash an FIR, simultaneously imposed a fixed timeline for completion of investigation and granted protection from arrest to the accused until cognizance was taken.

What was the Background of State of U.P. & Anr. v. Mohd Arshad Khan & Anr. (2024) Case? 

• An FIR was registered in Agra in May 2024 following an STF (Special Task Force) investigation. 
• The accused were alleged to have fraudulently obtained multiple arms licences through various means including: 
  • Submitting forged Aadhaar cards, PAN cards and affidavits. 
  • Falsifying dates of birth to project themselves as skilled marksmen. 
• One of the accused was a retired Arms Clerk allegedly involved in facilitating the fraudulent process. 
• The FIR invoked serious offences under the IPC, including Sections 420 (cheating), 467 (forgery of valuable security), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), and 471 (using forged documents as genuine), along with provisions of the Arms Act. 
• The accused approached the Allahabad High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the FIR. 
• The High Court refused to quash the FIR but passed identically worded orders with two key directions: 
  • Directed the investigating officer to complete the investigation within 90 days. 
  • Granted the accused protection from arrest until cognizance was taken by the trial court. 
• These directions were based on the High Court's earlier decision in Shobhit Nehra v. State of U.P. 
• Aggrieved by these directions, the State approached the Supreme Court, referencing the judgment in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2021).

What were the Court's Observations? 

On "No Arrest" Protection: 

• The bench referred to the decision of Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) to observe that granting "no arrest" or "no coercive steps" orders while dismissing a quashing petition is tantamount to granting anticipatory bail without applying the strict legal tests for it. 
• The Court emphasized that such orders are "inconceivable and unthinkable." 
• The Court quoted from Neeharika Infrastructure: "It is absolutely inconceivable and unthinkable to pass an order directing the police not to arrest till the investigation is completed while declining to interfere or expressing opinion that it is not appropriate to stay the investigation." 
• The Court held that High Courts cannot grant "no arrest" or "no coercive steps" directions while refusing to quash an FIR as such orders are tantamount to granting anticipatory bail without satisfying the statutory requirements. 

On Investigation Timelines: 

• The bench noted that imposing a deadline at the threshold, without any evidence of delay, was premature and constituted an encroachment upon executive functions. 
• The Court clarified that judicially imposed timelines can be directed only in exceptional circumstances and only when there is material on record demonstrating undue delay or stagnation in investigation. 
• The Court observed: "Timelines are not drawn by the Court to be followed by the investigators/the executive right from the beginning, for that would clearly amount to stepping on the toes of the latter." 
• The Court summarized: "Timelines are therefore imposed reactively and not prophylactically." 

Final Directions: 

• The Supreme Court set aside both the 90-day investigation deadline and the blanket protection from arrest granted by the Allahabad High Court. 
• The appeal by the State was allowed. 

What is 482 of CrPC/Section 528 of BNSS?

About:  

• This section was earlier covered under Section 482 of CrPC.   
• Section 528 of BNSS deals with the saving of inherent powers of the High Court.   
• It states that nothing in this Sanhita shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.   
• This section does not confer any inherent power on the High Courts, and it only recognizes the fact that High Courts have inherent powers.   

Purpose:   

• Section 528 of BNSS lays down as to when the inherent power may be exercised.   
• It enumerates three purposes for which the inherent power may be exercised:   
  • to make orders necessary to give effect to any order under the Code.   
  • to prevent abuse of the process of any court.   
  • to secure the ends of justice. 

What are the Landmark Judgements Based on Powers of High Court to Quash the Proceedings? 

• Anand Kumar Mohatta v. State [NCT of Delhi] (2018):  
  • In this case the Court held that the High Court has the power to interfere in the proceedings and quash the FIR against the accused even after filing the chargesheet.  
• Jitha Sanjay and Others v. State of Kerala and Other (2023)  
  • The Kerela High Court in the present case highlighted that courts can quash criminal proceedings if they are found to be vexatious, frivolous, or motivated by an ulterior motive, even if the FIR contains false allegations of an offense. The court observed that complainants with extraneous motives can craft FIRs to include necessary ingredients.  
• Sh. Anupam Gahoi v. State (Govt. of NCT Of Delhi) And Anr (2024):  
  • The Delhi High Court recently quashed a matrimonial case where a husband had sought to invalidate an FIR filed by his wife in 2018 under the CrPC and BNSS.  
• Mama Shailesh Chandra v. State of Uttarakhand (2024):  
  • In this case it was held that even if the charge sheet had been filed, the Court could still examine if offences alleged to have been committed were prima facie made out or not based on the FIR, charge sheet and other document.

Source: Bombay High Court 

Why in News? 

The division bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Sandesh Patil in the case of Ayyappa Swami v. State of Maharashtra (2025) quashed an FIR lodged against a society resident who allegedly restrained persons from feeding stray dogs at non-designated spots including the society's entry/exit gate and school bus stop area. 

What was the Background of Ayyappa Swami v. State of Maharashtra (2025) Case? 

• The case arose from a housing society in Pune's Hinjewadi area where approximately 40 incidents of dog attacks and bites had occurred. 
• On September 12, 2024, the complainant and her friends were feeding stray dogs in the society premises during school hours, specifically near the school bus pick-up area and the entry/exit footpath of the society. 
• Ayyappa Swami, a resident of the society, told the complainant and her friends that they were feeding stray dogs at a non-designated spot which was not the proper feeding area. 
• An altercation ensued between the parties, with the complainant allegedly abusing and threatening Ayyappa Swami. 
• Ayyappa Swami filed a complaint with the police, which was registered only as a non-cognisable complaint against the dog feeders. 
• After nearly four months, on January 24, 2025, the complainant lodged an FIR against Ayyappa Swami under Section 126 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita alleging wrongful restraint. 
• The FIR alleged that Ayyappa Swami had wrongfully restrained the complainant and her friends from feeding stray dogs in the society premises. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The Court examined the essence of Section 126 of the BNS, noting that it requires voluntary obstruction of any person to prevent them from moving in any direction they have a legal right to proceed, signifying that the person is immobilized from proceeding in any direction. 
• The bench held that feeding stray dogs in particular areas, especially footpaths, entry and exit points of the society, and school bus stops where children board and alight school buses, is very crucial for the safety of children. 
• The Court ruled that obstructing persons from feeding stray dogs in these areas cannot be said to be voluntary obstruction within the meaning of Section 126 of the BNS. 
• The judges referred to the provisions of the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023 which provide for designated feeding areas for stray dogs. 
• The Court emphasized that stopping a person from wrongfully feeding stray dogs in a non-designated area cannot be said to be restraint within the meaning of Section 126(1) of the BNS Act. 
• The bench noted that the alleged obstruction was not for committing any illegal act but for ensuring the safety of the children of the society, particularly in light of approximately 40 incidents of dog attacks and bites that had occurred in the society. 
• The judges considered the significant delay of nearly four months in lodging the FIR as an additional factor while quashing and setting aside the same. 
• The Court ordered the FIR dated January 24, 2025 to be quashed and set aside. 

What is Section 126 of BNS? 

• Definition: Voluntarily obstructing any person to prevent them fromproceeding in any direction in which they have a right to proceed constitutes wrongful restraint. 
• Essential Elements: The obstruction must be voluntary, intentional, and must prevent the person from moving in a direction they legally have the right to move.
• Exception: Obstructing a private way over land or water is not an offense if the person obstructing has a good faith belief that they have a lawful right to obstruct that way.
• Punishment: The offense is punishable with simple imprisonment for a term extending up to one month, or with a fine extending up to five thousand rupees, or with both.
• Legal Predecessor: This provision was previously covered under Section 339 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) before the enactment of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita. 
• Illustration: If A obstructs a path along which Z has a right to pass, without believing in good faith that he has a right to stop the path, thereby preventing Z from passing, A wrongfully restrains Z.
• Good Faith Belief: The exception emphasizes that obstruction based on a genuine, good faith belief of having a lawful right to obstruct does not constitute an offense.
• Right to Proceed: The critical factor is whether the obstructed person has a legal right toproceed in the direction they are being prevented from moving.