12 December 2024 - Legal Updates

1. Caste-Based Insult in Backyard of Private House Not “Within Public View”, No Offence Under Section 3 SC/ST Act: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently ruled that a caste-based insult or intimidation that took place in the backyard of a private residence does not meet the criteria of being “within public view” under Section 3 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. A bench consisting of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh discharged an individual from the charges under the Act, making this observation.

The Supreme Court overturned the Orissa High Court's November 13, 2019 order, which had upheld the rejection of the appellant's discharge application. The Court ruled that the alleged offence occurred in the backyard of the appellant's private house, which cannot be considered "within public view." The complainant, a member of a Scheduled Caste, accused the appellant of insulting and intimidating her with the intent to humiliate her. However, the individuals accompanying the complainant were employees or laborers hired for repairs, not the general public. The appellant faced charges under Sections 294 and 506 of the IPC, and Section 3(1) (x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

The complainant, along with her employees who were carrying out repairs on her adjacent house, entered the appellant's backyard without permission. The appellant objected to their entry and allegedly made insulting or intimidating remarks. The appellant then filed an application under Section 239 of the CrPC for discharge, arguing that the incident did not meet the criteria of “public view” under Section 3(1) (x) of the SC/ST Act. However, the Additional Sessions Judge in Bhubaneswar rejected the application, leading the appellant to approach the High Court, which upheld the rejection. As a result, the appellant filed the current appeal, asserting that the incident took place in the backyard of his private house, which does not qualify as "public view" under the SC/ST Act. The complainant and her employees had accessed the backyard without permission to perform plastering work on the adjacent house.

The appellant referred to the Supreme Court's ruling in Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand and pointed out an ongoing civil dispute between his wife and the complainant's family, arguing that the charges against him were unfounded. The State, on the other hand, argued that the trial had progressed significantly, with three out of six witnesses already examined, and requested the court not to intervene at this stage. The complainant, however, maintained that the appellant's alleged actions were driven by caste-based discrimination and clearly fell under Section 3(1) (x) of the SC/ST Act.

The Supreme Court concluded that:

1. The backyard of a private house cannot be considered a place within “public view.”

2. The individuals present during the incident, primarily the complainant's employees, cannot be categorized as “public in general.”

The Court also referenced its previous ruling in Hitesh Verma, emphasizing that civil property disputes do not automatically amount to an offence under the SC/ST Act unless there is evidence of caste-based abuse or harassment. In this case, the Court concluded that the allegations did not demonstrate such abuse. As a result, the Supreme Court overturned both the High Court's order from November 13, 2019, and the Additional Sessions Judge's order from August 2, 2019, discharging the appellant from all charges under the SC/ST Act and IPC.

Case- Rabindra Kumar vs. State of Odisha & Anr.

2. If Police Investigation Reveals No Involvement of Accused in Alleged Offence, Continuing LOC Would Violate Fundamental Rights: Rajasthan High Court

The Rajasthan High Court has ordered the quashing of the lookout circular (LOC) and standing arrest warrant issued against the petitioner, who the police determined was not involved in the alleged offence. The Court ruled that if the police were not pursuing prosecution, the issuance of the LOC would violate her fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. The petition was heard by a bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, filed by a mother and son who were challenging the order that rejected their application to withdraw the LOC issued against them in response to an FIR alleging cruelty against women.

After the FIR was filed against the petitioners, a lookout circular (LOC) and standing arrest warrants were issued during the investigation. However, the mother was found to have no involvement in the case, prompting the investigating officer to send a letter to the public prosecutor requesting the filing of an application to recall the arrest warrant. The Court noted, while reviewing the records, that it was unclear whether such an application had been filed or, if it had, whether it had been decided upon. In light of this, the petitioners approached the trial court to request the withdrawal of the LOC and arrest warrants. Their application was rejected on the grounds that the investigating officer had filed an application, which was to be decided. However, the trial court had not made a decision on this application.

After hearing the petitioners' arguments, the Court noted that the investigating officer had found no involvement of the mother in the case, and therefore, the prosecution was not interested in pursuing charges against her. As a result, the Court concluded that the LOC and arrest warrant issued against her should be recalled. The Court further observed that there were no grounds to justify the issuance of an LOC against the mother, nor was there any ongoing investigation involving her.

The Court emphasized that it is well-established law that an LOC can be issued against an accused person who is intentionally evading arrest and failing to appear in court despite non-bailable warrants and other coercive measures. Additionally, there must be a risk of the accused leaving the country to avoid trial or arrest. The Court noted that none of these conditions applied to petitioner No. 2, as there was no ongoing investigation or charge-sheet filed against her, and the Investigating Officer had requested the recall of her standing arrest warrant.

In light of this, the Court stated that fundamental rights play a crucial role in a democratic society and ruled that continuing the LOC against the mother would violate her fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21. Therefore, the Court ordered the quashing of the LOC against her.

Case- Sunny Jain & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan

3. Order 14 Rule 5 of CPC | Courts can Amend or Strike Out Issues Anytime Before Decree, But Must Hear Parties And Allow Evidence: Jammu & Kashmir High Court

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court, in addressing the scope of judicial discretion under Order 14 Rule 5(1) and (2) of the CPC, reaffirmed that courts have the authority to amend, add, or remove issues at any stage of a suit before a decree is issued. However, a bench led by Justice Javed Iqbal Wani clarified that exercising such power requires giving the parties a chance to present evidence and be heard on the amended or removed issues, even if evidence has already been presented. The Court emphasized that striking out an issue without obtaining consent or hearing the parties violates the fundamental principles of natural justice.

Commenting on the provisions, the Court stated, “This power can be exercised after the commencement of proceedings, during the argument stage, or even after the arguments have concluded. When an issue is amended, the parties must be given an opportunity to present evidence and be heard on the amended issue, even if evidence has already been presented on that issue. Similarly, when an issue is struck off, at any stage of the proceedings, it should not be removed or deleted without the consent of the parties and without giving them a chance to be heard.”

Background:

The case began when Govind Ram, the appellant, filed a suit for a permanent injunction against Sat Pal, the predecessor of respondents 1 to 4, over two kanals of land in Kathua. The appellant claimed ownership and possession, while stating that five marlas were agreed to be sold to proforma respondents in 2007. The defendant, however, denied these claims, stating he had purchased one kanal of the land in 1988 and had been in possession since then.

The trial court framed six issues, including the appellant's ownership and possession and the defendant's purchase claim. After evidence was presented, the court modified an issue related to possession and ultimately dismissed the suit in 2019, ruling the plaintiff failed to prove possession. The appellant's appeal to the Principal District Judge, Kathua, was rejected in March 2023, with the appellate court striking off certain issues and finding the defendant had proven his possession and purchase. The appellant then approached the High Court, arguing that both lower courts violated legal principles by amending and striking issues without providing an opportunity to present evidence or arguments, thus contravening the Evidence Act and Transfer of Property Act.

Court Observations:

Justice Wani reviewed the case's procedural and substantive aspects, focusing on the powers under Order 14 Rule 5 of the CPC, which allows courts to amend, add, or strike out issues at any stage of the suit before a decree. He emphasized that such powers must be exercised with procedural safeguards, including giving parties the opportunity to present evidence and arguments on amended or struck-out issues to avoid prejudice.

In this case, Justice Wani found that the trial court had violated these principles by modifying an issue after the conclusion of arguments without allowing the parties to address it. The appellate court further compounded this error by striking out issues without hearing the parties. This, the Court concluded, was a violation of procedural fairness and natural justice. As a result, the High Court set aside the judgments of both the trial and appellate courts and remanded the suit for retrial, starting from the stage of framing issues.

Case- Govind Ram vs. Vidhya Devi