24 February 2025 - Legal Updates

1. Physical Presence Not Necessary in Domestic Violence Act Proceedings: Supreme Court Quashes Magistrate’s Order To Extradite Husband From US

• Case- Vishal Shah vs. Monalisha Gupta & Ors.
• Date of Order- February 20, 2025
• Bench- Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Sandeep Mehta

Proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act: The Supreme Court observed that personal presence of a party is not required in proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act as these are quasi-criminal in nature, with no penal consequences except for a breach of a protection order under Section 31.

Case Details: The appellant (husband) and respondent (wife) had multiple legal proceedings filed against each other. The appellant's passport, which was being held in the USA, was impounded in connection with one of the domestic violence cases.

Extradition Order: A notice was issued to the appellant in a domestic violence case filed by the respondent, her mother-in-law, and other relatives. When the appellant did not appear in court, the court directed authorities to initiate extradition proceedings. The High Court affirmed this order.

Supreme Court’s Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled that the Trial Court erred in requiring the appellant's physical presence and that such proceedings do not justify his compulsory attendance. It criticized the initiation of extradition proceedings despite the appellant's passport being impounded and pointed out the illegal nature of the impounding without giving the appellant a chance to be heard, citing the Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India case.

Passport Impoundment: The Court stated the impoundment of the appellant's passport was illegal, violating natural justice principles, and directed the release of the appellant's passport within one week.

Dissolution of Marriage: The appellant had filed for dissolution of marriage based on irretrievable breakdown. The Court reviewed the facts of the case, including a short period of cohabitation (80 days) in the USA and the ongoing legal disputes between the parties. It concluded the marriage was beyond repair due to ongoing issues and strained relationships.

Alimony Decision: The Court ordered the appellant to pay Rs. 25 Lakhs as a one-time settlement for alimony after considering various factors.

Closure of Cases: The Supreme Court quashed the impugned judgment and directed the closure of all criminal and civil cases pending between the respondent and appellant.

2. Article 22(5) | Preventive Detention Order Unconstitutional if All Grounds of Detention Are not Communicated to Detenu: Orissa High Court

• Case- Nilakantha Pradhan vs. Government of India & Ors.
• Date of Order- February 19, 2025
• Bench- Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra

Preventive Detention Order: The Orissa High Court set aside a preventive detention order issued against a petitioner accused of drug peddling. The court ruled that the order violated Article 22(5) of the Constitution because the grounds of detention did not specify all the cases on which the detaining authority based its decision.

Issue of Non-Communication: The petitioner was not informed about the other five cases under the Excise Act and IPC that the detaining authority had considered when arriving at its subjective satisfaction for the detention order. This prevented the petitioner from making an effective representation.

Detaining Authority’s Failure: The High Court observed that the detaining authority considered not only the three NDPS cases mentioned in the detention order but also five other cases (under the Excise Act and IPC), which were not communicated to the petitioner. This omission violated the constitutional requirement under Article 22(5) for communicating all grounds of detention.

Legal Precedents: The Court referred to several precedents, including Khudiram Das v. State of West Bengal (1974), which emphasizes that the detaining authority must inform the detenu about all grounds for detention, and Sama Aruna v. State of Telangana (2017), which stressed that stale incidents cannot justify preventive detention.

Background of the Case: The Government of India passed the detention order on 23.07.2024 under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988, citing the petitioner’s involvement in three NDPS cases. The Central Government confirmed the detention on 18.10.2024 for one year.

Petitioner’s Argument: The petitioner argued that the detention order was unconstitutional because the grounds communicated only partially mentioned the cases under the NDPS Act, excluding other cases under the Excise Act and IPC that also influenced the detaining authority’s decision.

Court’s Findings: The Court concluded that by failing to mention all the cases considered in the detention order, the detaining authority deprived the petitioner of a reasonable opportunity to make an effective representation against the order.

Violation of Article 22(5): Since the grounds of detention were incomplete, the petitioner was unable to challenge the full basis of the detention, violating Article 22(5) of the Constitution, which requires that the detaining authority must provide a complete and clear explanation of the grounds for detention.

Outcome: The High Court quashed the detention order and its confirmation order, ruling that the petitioner was not given the opportunity to make an effective representation. The petitioner was ordered to be set at liberty.

3. Section 149 IPC | ‘Common Object’ Needs to Be Established To Charge All Individuals For Being Part of Unlawful Assembly: Telangana High Court

• Case- Gandala Laxman vs. The State of Telangana
• Date of Order- February 6, 2025
• Bench- Justice K. Surender and Justice E.V. Venugopal

Conviction for Unlawful Assembly: The Telangana High Court reduced the sentences of some of the accused who were convicted under Section 302 (murder) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for the murder of a forest official. The court found that the prosecution had failed to prove the "common object" of the unlawful assembly, meaning each individual was responsible for their own actions.

Incident Details: The incident occurred when villagers from Gouraram Village were protesting outside the forest office for the allotment of surplus forest land for cultivation. When forest officials arrived, the mob became violent, and in the chaos, the deceased forest official was killed.

FIR and Investigation: Initially, due to the shock and confusion, the forest officials did not identify the mob members in the FIR. However, during the investigation, depositions were made against accused A1 and A2, who were alleged to have attacked the deceased—A1 with an axe and A2 with a stick.

Section 149 of IPC: The trial court convicted all the accused under Section 302 of IPC based on Section 149, which holds all members of an unlawful assembly guilty if the common object of the assembly is established.

Appeal and Defense: The appellants appealed the trial court’s decision, arguing that their names were not mentioned in the FIR, and no test identification parade was conducted to confirm their involvement. The High Court dismissed this argument, noting that the officials were familiar with the villagers and no identification parade was necessary.

High Court's Ruling: The court ruled that the prosecution failed to establish the existence of a prior assembly with a common object, which meant that each accused would be individually responsible for their actions.

Conviction and Sentence Adjustments:

• A1 (who attacked the deceased with an axe) had his conviction for murder (Section 302) upheld.
• A2 (who attacked with a stick) had his conviction reduced to Section 326 (voluntarily causing grievous hurt), and his sentence was reduced to 5 years in prison.
• The remaining accused were convicted under Section 324 (voluntarily causing hurt) and sentenced to 3 years in prison.

Final Outcome: The High Court disposed of the appeals by reducing the sentences and altering the charges against some of the accused.