List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta of the Supreme Court decided Indroneel Goho v. Razouvonuo Thong & Anr. (2026). The Court held that while the existence of an arbitration clause does not bar criminal proceedings, the court must first determine whether the allegations disclose the essential ingredients of the offence alleged. Finding that the ingredients of cheating under Sections 417 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), now Sections 318(2) and 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), were not made out, the Court set aside the Gauhati High Court's order and quashed the criminal proceedings against the appellant.

What was the Background of Indroneel Goho v. Razouvonuo Thong & Anr. (2026) Case? 

• The appellant was the CEO of Darjeeling Organic Tea Estates Private Limited (the Company). 
• Respondent No. 1, the proprietor of CR Traders, negotiated with the Company regarding a tea estate. In 2021, before the agreement, she wrote to UCO Bank about the tea estate and its mortgage with the Bank. 
• A Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was signed between the Company and CR Traders. The appellant signed it as the Company's authorised signatory. 
• In June 2021, Respondent No. 1 transferred Rs. 40,00,000 to the Company's account in two transactions. 
• The Company later terminated the MoU on the ground that Respondent No. 1 had failed to comply with its terms and conditions. 
• In 2022, Respondent No. 1 filed a criminal complaint alleging that the appellant had induced her to part with the money by representing that the tea estate belonged to the Company, when it was in fact owned by another company and was the subject of proceedings involving UCO Bank. Summons was issued. 
• The appellant approached the Gauhati High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), now Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). He argued that:  
  • the dispute was purely contractual; 
  • the MoU was entered into by the Company and not by him personally; 
  • the money went into the Company's account; and 
  • the Company itself had not been made an accused. 
• The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that a prima facie case under Sections 417 and 420 IPC was made out and that the arbitration clause in the MoU was no ground for quashing. 
• Aggrieved, the appellant approached the Supreme Court.

What were the Court's Observations? 

On the effect of an arbitration clause: 

• The High Court was correct that an arbitration clause does not, by itself, bar criminal proceedings. 
• However, that proposition does not answer the real question. The court must first determine whether the allegations disclose the essential ingredients of the offence alleged. 

On the distinction between breach of contract and cheating: 

• Relying on G. Saminathan v. State (represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police), the Court reiterated that for the offence of cheating, the complainant must show fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time the promise or representation was made. 
• For an offence under Sections 417 and 420 IPC, the dishonest intention must exist at the inception of the transaction and must have induced the complainant to part with property. 
• A subsequent failure to perform a contractual obligation cannot, by itself, lead to an inference of such intention. 

On the position of the appellant: 

• The MoU was between Respondent No. 1 and the Company. The appellant signed it only as the CEO and authorised signatory of the Company. 
• The amount of Rs. 40,00,000 was transferred directly to the Company's account. There was no allegation that the appellant received or appropriated any part of it for his personal benefit. 

On the alleged false representation: 

• The complaint itself suggested that the appellant was aware that the tea estate and factory did not belong to the Company, and this had to be read in the context of the transaction as a whole. 
• Respondent No. 1 knew that the tea estate was mortgaged with UCO Bank. 
• The MoU itself contemplated clearing UCO Bank's dues and encumbrances and eventually acquiring the tea estate. 
• The record indicated that the Company was in possession of and operating the tea estate, and had substantial claims concerning it. 
• In these circumstances, a bare assertion that the appellant knew the representation to be false did not establish dishonest intention at the inception of the transaction. 

On the nature of the dispute: 

• Whether the termination of the MoU was valid, and whether Respondent No. 1 was entitled to a refund or other relief, are civil questions. 
• Such issues cannot take on a criminal character merely because the contractual relationship later broke down. 
• Continuing the prosecution would give a predominantly contractual dispute the colour of a criminal case and would amount to an abuse of the process of law. 

Conclusion: 

• The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court's order dated 13.05.2025 in Criminal Petition No. 32 of 2022. 
• C.R. Case No. 17 of 2022 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dimapur, Nagaland, and all proceedings arising from it, were quashed insofar as the appellant was concerned. 
• The Court clarified that Respondent No. 1 remains free to pursue any remedy available in law for her civil or contractual claims.

What is Section 318 of the BNS? 

About: 

• Section 318 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 defines and punishes the offence of cheating. 
• It consolidates Sections 415, 417, 418 and 420 of the IPC into a single provision. 

Provisions: 

• Section 318(1) — Definition (Section 415 IPC): Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat". 
• Section 318(2) — Punishment for cheating (Section 417 IPC): Imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or fine, or both. 
• Section 318(3) — Cheating with knowledge of wrongful loss to a person whose interest the offender is bound to protect (Section 418 IPC): Imprisonment which may extend to five years, or fine, or both. 
• Section 318(4) — Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property (Section 420 IPC): Imprisonment which may extend to seven years, and fine. 

Essential Ingredients of Cheating: 

• Deception of a person, by a false or misleading representation or by dishonest concealment of facts. 
• Fraudulent or dishonest inducement of that person to deliver property, or to do or omit to do something. 
• Such dishonest or fraudulent intention must exist at the time of making the representation, that is, at the inception of the transaction. 
• Damage or harm, or likelihood of it, to the person deceived (for Section 318(1) cases not involving delivery of property). 

Breach of Contract vs. Cheating: 

• Every breach of contract does not amount to cheating. A mere failure to keep a promise, without dishonest intention at the outset, gives rise only to civil liability. 
• Courts have repeatedly cautioned against giving civil disputes a criminal colour to pressurise the other party into settlement, and have treated such prosecutions as an abuse of process. 

Liability of Company Officers: 

• The IPC and BNS do not contain any general provision fastening vicarious liability on directors or officers for offences committed by a company. 
• An officer can be prosecuted only where there are specific allegations of his own active role and criminal intent, or where a statute expressly provides for vicarious liability, as held in Sunil Bharti Mittal v. CBI (2015). 
• Signing an agreement merely as the company's authorised signatory, without more, does not make the officer personally liable for cheating. 

Power to Quash Proceedings (Section 528 BNSS): 

• Section 528 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 CrPC) saves the inherent power of the High Court to make orders necessary to give effect to any order under the Sanhita, to prevent abuse of the process of any court, or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. 
• Following State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992), proceedings may be quashed where the allegations, even if taken at face value, do not prima facie constitute any offence, or where the proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fides or instituted with an ulterior motive. 

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu of the Supreme Court decided Rajkumar Madki v. Dr. Shailendra Beldale (2026). The Court held that a private complaint for an offence under Section 125A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RP Act) is maintainable, and that the bar under Section 195(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), now Section 215 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), does not apply to it. However, on the facts, the Court declined to revive the complaint and upheld the Karnataka High Court's quashing order on different grounds.

What was the Background of Rajkumar Madki v. Dr. Shailendra Beldale (2026) Case? 

• Respondent Dr. Shailendra Beldale was elected to the Karnataka Legislative Assembly from the Bidar constituency in 2023. 
• The appellant, Rajkumar Madki, alleged that the respondent had given a false declaration about his residential address in the affidavit filed with his nomination papers. 
• The appellant filed a complaint under Section 200 CrPC before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, alleging an offence under Section 125A of the RP Act. 
• The Karnataka High Court quashed the complaint. It held that the restrictions under Section 195(1) CrPC applied, and that only the Election Commission of India or the concerned public servant, and not a private individual, could initiate such a complaint. 
• Aggrieved, the appellant approached the Supreme Court.

What were the Court's Observations? 

On whether Section 195(1) CrPC applies to Section 125A RP Act: 

• Section 195(1) CrPC does not include Section 125A of the RP Act among the offences that require a complaint by a public servant. 
• Section 125A was inserted in 2002, while Section 195 CrPC was amended later, in 2006. Since the legislature did not add Section 125A to Section 195 at that time, the omission must be treated as deliberate. 
• If the legislature had intended that cognizance of a false affidavit offence could be taken only on a public servant's complaint, it could have amended Section 195 CrPC to say so. 

On the absence of any statutory bar: 

• No enactment provides that a complaint for an offence under Section 125A can be lodged only by a public servant. 
• Section 125A itself opens with a non-obstante clause, making the punishment applicable notwithstanding anything in any other law for the time being in force. 

On the respondent's arguments: 

• The respondent argued that permitting private complaints would encourage frivolous criminal proceedings against returned candidates. 
• The respondent also relied on an Election Commission press note of June 2020, stating that the Commission would take up complaints showing serious omissions in affidavits and refer them to investigating agencies case by case. 
• The Court held that Election Commission guidelines and press notes do not bind courts in interpreting statutory provisions, since interpretation of statutes is primarily the task of the courts. 

On safeguards against frivolous complaints: 

• Magistrates are empowered to deal appropriately with frivolous complaints, or proceedings instituted merely to harass elected candidates, depending on the facts of each case. 

On the facts of the case: 

• The allegation regarding the residential address had been prima facie rebutted by the documents on record. 
• The possibility of conviction appeared remote, and continuing the proceedings would only consume judicial time. 

Conclusion: 

• The Court rejected the legal reasoning of the High Court but did not revive the criminal proceedings. It upheld the quashing of the complaint for different reasons. The appeal was disposed of, with the parties bearing their own costs.

What is Section 125A of the RP Act? 

About: 

• Section 125A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 provides the penalty for filing a false affidavit or concealing information in election nomination documents. 
• It was inserted in 2002, following the Supreme Court's decisions on voters' right to know the antecedents of candidates (Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms, 2002, and PUCL v. Union of India, 2003). 

Provisions: 

• A candidate who, with intent to be elected in an election: 
  • fails to furnish information required under Section 33A(1); or 
  • gives false information which he knows or has reason to believe to be false; or 
  • conceals any information, 

in his nomination paper under Section 33(1) or in his affidavit under Section 33A(2), commits an offence. 

• Punishment: Imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or fine, or both. 
• The provision applies notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force. 

Related Provision (Section 33A RP Act — Right to Information): 

• A candidate must disclose whether he is accused of any offence punishable with imprisonment of two years or more in a pending case in which charges have been framed. 
• He must also disclose whether he has been convicted of an offence (other than those under Section 8(1), (2) or (3)) and sentenced to imprisonment of one year or more. 
• This information is furnished along with an affidavit under Section 33A(2), which the Returning Officer displays for public information.

What is Section 215 of the BNSS? 

About: 

• Section 215 of the BNSS deals with prosecution for contempt of the lawful authority of public servants, offences against public justice, and offences relating to documents given in evidence. 
• It corresponds to Section 195 of the CrPC. 

Provisions: 

• Section 215(1)(a): No court shall take cognizance of offences under Sections 206 to 223 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Sections 172 to 188 IPC), or of abetment, attempt or conspiracy to commit them, except on the written complaint of the public servant concerned or a public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate (or another authorised public servant). 
• Section 215(1)(b): Certain offences against public justice, and offences relating to documents produced or given in evidence, when committed in or in relation to a court proceeding, can be taken cognizance of only on the written complaint of that court or a court to which it is subordinate.