List of Current Affairs

Source: Madhya Pradesh High Court

Why in News?

Justice Alok Awasthi of the Madhya Pradesh High Court decided DB v. State of MP (2026). The Court set aside an appellate court’s order acquitting a husband and his father, and restored the husband’s conviction under Section 498A of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, holding that a post-marriage dowry demand is punishable even without a prior dowry agreement. 

What was the Background of DB v. State of MP (2026) Case? 

• According to the prosecution, the wife’s parents gave cash, jewellery and household articles worth about ₹17 lakhs at the time of marriage, and also bore the wedding expenses. 
• After reaching the matrimonial home, the wife found that the husband had misrepresented his education. He claimed to have studied BBA in the USA, but had only passed Class 12 and had never studied abroad. 

The wife alleged that: 

• The husband and his family harassed her mentally and physically after marriage, saying they had expected dowry worth ₹25 lakhs but received only ₹17 lakhs. 
• She was thrown out of the house when the balance was not paid. 
• She lodged a complaint on 6 August 2007. 

Proceedings before the trial court: 

• The prosecution examined nine witnesses, including the wife, her parents, her brother, the investigating officer and the watchman of her Pune residence. The defence examined none. 
• The trial court convicted the husband and his father under Section 498A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, and sentenced them to one year’s rigorous imprisonment with a fine of ₹1,000, with default stipulation. 

Proceedings before the appellate court: 

• The appellate court overturned the conviction and acquitted both accused. 
• The wife challenged the acquittal before the High Court. 

Contentions: 

• Wife: The appellate court erred in treating the absence of a fixed pre-marriage dowry agreement as fatal to a demand made after marriage. Greed has no limits, and a person with money may still demand more. 
• Husband and father: The prosecution failed to prove any prior dowry agreement between the parties. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

On the definition of dowry: 

• Under Section 2 of the Act, dowry includes property or valuable security given or agreed to be given at, before or at any time after the marriage, in connection with the marriage. 
• A demand made after marriage therefore falls within the definition of dowry. 
• A prior dowry contract is not a condition precedent for an offence under Section 4. 

On proof of the demand: 

• A dowry demand can be proved through oral testimony. 
• There is no rule requiring documentary evidence to establish a monetary demand. 

On appreciation of evidence: 

• The wife’s account was materially supported by all the prosecution witnesses, though some differed on details and the source of their knowledge. 
• A criminal prosecution does not require witnesses to reproduce an incident verbatim. 
• Minor variations in dates, wording or recollection, especially when testimony is given years after the events, do not automatically make the evidence unreliable. 

On the appellate court’s findings: 

• The appellate court’s order was inconsistent regarding the alleged ₹17 lakhs given at marriage. 
• The Court rejected the argument that, because the wife left Pune with her luggage, she must have left voluntarily. Leaving home after a quarrel does not mean the person was not already being harassed before it. 
• The appellate court failed to identify any evidentiary defect that made the trial court’s findings unsustainable. 
• The evidence established a consistent post-marriage demand, supported by the wife’s testimony and corroborated in material particulars. 

Directions: 

• The order of acquittal was set aside, and the husband’s conviction under Section 498A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was restored. 
• The conviction of the father-in-law was not restored, since criminal liability does not survive the death of the accused. 

What is the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961? 

Introduction: 

• The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 is a central legislation enacted to prohibit the giving, taking and demanding of dowry in India. 
• It came into force on 1 July 1961 and applies to the whole of India. After the Jammu & Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019, it applies to Jammu & Kashmir as well, which earlier had a separate state law. 
• The Act was enacted in response to growing social concern over dowry deaths and harassment of women. It has historically faced criticism for weak enforcement, a concern the Supreme Court has repeatedly flagged. 

Key provisions: 

Related criminal provisions: 

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana of the Supreme Court decided Pinarayi Vijayan v. Adv KM Shajahan (2026). The Court allowed former Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan and other petitioners to challenge a Kerala High Court Single Judge's direction to register an FIR in the CMRL-Exalogic case. While doing so, it explained how Section 175(4) BNSS differs from the erstwhile Section 156(3) CrPC. 

What was the Background of Pinarayi Vijayan v. Adv KM Shajahan (2026) Case? 

• The matter arose from the CMRL-Exalogic case in Kerala. 
• A Single Judge of the Kerala High Court directed registration of an FIR and commencement of an investigation under the Prevention of Corruption Act against the petitioners, including former Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan. 
• The petitioners sought leave to appeal against this order before a Division Bench of the High Court. 
• The Division Bench refused to grant leave to appeal. 
• Aggrieved, the petitioners filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

On the change brought by the BNSS: 

• The Court noted that the scheme for registration of an FIR through judicial intervention has changed under the BNSS compared to the CrPC. 
• Under Section 156(3) CrPC, there was no requirement to involve the public servant or their superior before a Magistrate directed registration of an FIR. 
• Under Section 175(4) BNSS, where a complaint is made against a public servant for acts arising in the course of official duties, the Magistrate must:  
  • Receive a report on the facts and circumstances from the public servant's superior officer; and 
  • Consider the assertions of the public servant about the situation that led to the alleged incident. 

On the right of the public servant to be heard: 

• During the hearing, Justice Bagchi observed that under Section 175(4), the public servant's opinion is taken before the Magistrate directs an FIR. 
• Such a public servant is entitled to have their arguments heard on merits, rather than being shut out at the threshold for want of locus. 

Limited purpose of the reference: 

• The Court clarified that it referred to Section 175(4) BNSS only to explain the expanded safeguards available to a potential accused before registration of an FIR under the new law. 
• It did not decide whether the provision applied to the allegations against the petitioners. 

On the petitioners' challenge: 

• The Court found that the petitioners had made out a prima facie case to challenge the Single Judge's order, particularly since it directed not only registration of an FIR but also commencement of investigation under the Prevention of Corruption Act. 

Directions: 

• The Division Bench's refusal to grant leave to appeal was set aside, and the petitioners were permitted to pursue their appeals. 
• The investigation was stayed for seven days to enable the petitioners to seek interim relief from the High Court. 

What is Section 175 of the BNSS? 

About: 

• Section 175 BNSS deals with the police officer's power to investigate cognizable cases. 
• It corresponds to Section 156 of the CrPC. 

Sub-sections: 

• Section 175(1): An officer in charge of a police station may investigate a cognizable case without a Magistrate's order, within the local jurisdiction of the court that can try it under Chapter XIV.  
  • Proviso: Considering the nature and gravity of the offence, the Superintendent of Police may require a Deputy Superintendent of Police to investigate the case. 
• Section 175(2): Proceedings of a police officer cannot be questioned on the ground that the officer was not empowered to investigate under this section. 
• Section 175(3): A Magistrate empowered under Section 210 may order investigation after:  
  • Considering an application supported by an affidavit made under Section 173(4); 
  • Making such inquiry as deemed necessary; and 
  • Considering the submission made by the police officer. 
• Section 175(4): A Magistrate empowered under Section 210 may, upon a complaint against a public servant arising in the course of official duties, order investigation, subject to:  
  • (a) Receiving a report containing facts and circumstances of the incident from the officer superior to the public servant; and 
  • (b) Considering the assertions made by the public servant about the situation that led to the incident. 

How does Section 175(4) BNSS Differ from Section 156(3) CrPC?