5 May 2025 Legal Updates

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT QUASHES 25-YR-OLD CASE AGAINST MAN BOOKED FOR MERE PRESENCE AT SCENE OF THEFT, HOUSE TRESPASS

(a) Case Title:

• Asish Kumar Sen @ Bapi v. The State of West Bengal & Anr. 

(b) Court:

• High Court at Calcutta 

(c) Date of Decision:

• 2nd May 2025 

(d) Bench:

• Hon’ble Justice Suvra Ghosh 

Facts

The petitioner sought quashing of criminal proceedings initiated against him, alleging offenses under Sections 448 (Punishment for house trespass, 379 (Punishment for theft), 461 (Dishonestly breaking open receptacle containing property), 417 (cheating) and 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the IPC.  The dispute arose from a landlord-tenant conflict between the defacto complainant (claiming tenancy) and Kishore Kumar Khaitan (landlord). The petitioner, Secretary of a Welfare Association, was accused of aiding illegal dispossession.  The FIR was lodged in 1999, but charges were yet to be framed by 2024. The petitioner argued no prima facie case existed against him, and the proceedings were delayed unjustly. 

Issues: 

• Whether the petitioner’s mere presence at the scene implicated him in the alleged offenses. 
• Whether the criminal proceedings were an abuse of process given the civil nature of the dispute. 
• Whether the delay in trial warranted quashing. 

Court’s Observations:

1. No Specific Allegations:

• The petitioner was only alleged to be present during the incident, with no evidence of active participation in trespass, theft, or conspiracy. 

2. Civil Dispute:

• The core conflict was civil (landlord-tenant), and the petitioner had no direct role in it. 

3. Delay:

• The 26-year pendency without framing charges violated the right to speedy trial (Article 21), especially with no prima facie case. 

Decision:

The High Court quashed the proceedings against the petitioner, holding: 

• No prima facie case under Sections 448/379/461/120B IPC. 
• Continuation of proceedings would be an abuse of process. 
• Inordinate delay unjustified given lack of evidence. 

KEY TAKEAWAY

Mere presence at crime scene without any specific overt act towards commission of the offence of theft, trespass or conspiracy is insufficient to charge the person for the said offences. 

INITIATING SECOND FOREIGNERS TRIBUNAL CASE AGAINST PERSON ALREADY DECLARED INDIAN IS ABUSE OF PROCESS: SUPREME COURT

(a) Case Title:

• Tarabanu Begum @ Tarabhanu Khatun v. The Union of India & Ors. 

(b) Court:

• Supreme Court of India 

(c) Date of Decision:

• 22 April 2025 

(d) Bench:

• Justices Manoj Misra and K.V. Viswanathan 

Facts:

The appellant, Tarabanu Begum, was previously declared "not a foreigner" by the Foreigners Tribunal No. 3, Nalbari, in 2016 based on evidence including voter lists and citizenship documents.  Despite this, a fresh proceeding was initiated against her in 2018, alleging she was a foreigner.  The Gauhati High Court declined to quash the fresh proceeding, prompting the appeal to the Supreme Court. 

Issues

• Whether a second proceeding on the same grounds is permissible after a prior conclusive decision by the Foreigners Tribunal. 
• Whether the principle of res judicata applies to quasi-judicial decisions under the Foreigners Act, 1946. 

Supreme Court's Decision

1. Allowed the appeal, quashing the second case against the appellant. 

2. Held that the fresh proceeding was an abuse of process since: 

• The 2016 order was final and binding. 
• The respondent could have challenged it via appeal or recall (if grounds existed) but not through a fresh proceeding. 

3. Reiterated that res judicata applies to quasi-judicial tribunals.

Key Takeaway:

Doctrine of Res Judicata: Bars re-litigation of the same issue between the same parties if a competent court/tribunal has already decided it. 

WIFE'S RIGHT TO MAINTENANCE CANNOT BE WAIVED BY WAY OF CONTRACT: KERALA HIGH COURT

(a) Case Title:

• Laju Cherian v. Tara Laju & Anr.

(b) Court: 

• High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam 

(c) Date of Decision: 

• 10th April 2025 

(d) Bench: 

• Hon’ble Mr. Justice A. Badharudeen 

Facts: 

Petitioner husband (pilot by profession) and respondent wife divorced in 2018 and wife claimed maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act. She also claimed interim maintenance under Section 20 of the PWDVA. The husband contested her claim stating that the wife had allegedly waived her right to maintenance vide a private agreement post-divorce.

Lower Courts’ Orders: 

1. Trial Court (JMFC):

• Granted interim maintenance of ₹30,000/month to the wife, noting the husband’s monthly income of ₹8.35 lakhs. 

2. Appellate Court:

• Upheld the order. 

Issues:

• Whether a waiver of maintenance rights in a private agreement is legally valid? 
• Whether a decree of divorce absolves the husband’s liability under the DV Act? 
• Criteria for determining interim maintenance. 

Court’s Analysis:

1. Waiver of Maintenance Rights: 

The Agreement waiving maintenance rights is invalid. Relying on precedents, the court held that statutory rights under Section 125 CrPC/DV Act cannot be waived via private agreements, as it violates public policy. 

2. Divorce & DV Act Liability:

Divorce does not extinguish liability. The court ruled that a divorced wife can claim maintenance under the DV Act if domestic violence occurred during marriage. 

3. Interim Maintenance Criteria: 

Applied guidelines from Rajnesh v. Neha and considered the husband’s income (₹8.35 lakh/month) and wife’s lack of proven income justified the interim maintenance.  The Court also considered the standard of living, inflation, and husband’s profession (Pilot) while granting the maintenance. 

Final Order:

• Revision Petition dismissed. 
• Husband directed to clear arrears within 30 days, failing which coercive action could be taken. 

Key Takeaway:

• Statutory rights (e.g., maintenance) cannot be waived by private agreements. 
• DV Act protections extend to divorced women if violence occurred during marriage.