High Court Can Quash FIR Even After Charge-Sheet Is Filed : Supreme Court Inbox

Supreme Court: 

In a criminal special leave petition before the Division Bench of Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ. it was pointed out by the petitioner, present in person before the Court that he did not know either of the advocates/ AORs who were representing him and that he came to know about the present proceedings filed in his name only when the Police Station of his area came to serve Court notice upon him. The Division Bench of Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ. expressed utter shock in the matter, which disclosed notarisation of fake signatures, inclusion of names of advocates/AORs who did not appear and allegations of conspiracy against a witness in a famous case. The Bench directed the Notary to file an affidavit explaining the procedure of notarizing any document, and also explaining as to why he attested the signatures.

The Court also sought explanation from the Registry as to on what basis and why the names of so many Advocates were shown in the Order Sheets who did not appear as AOR nor as arguing/ Senior Counsel.

Genesis

The present petitioner/ minor’s father had lodged an FIR on 28-06-2013 alleging that his minor daughter aged 12 years was kidnapped by her cousin brother A, A’s sister, A’s son-in-law and A’s brother. Subsequently, a criminal petition was filed before the High Court and vide order dated 31-07-2013, the arrest of the accused persons therein, was stayed. Later, the said writ petition was dismissed as infructuous, when chargesheet was filed against A for kidnapping a minor girl. The minor’s statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’) disclosed that she was in love with A, so they got married him in a temple and ran away to Ghaziabad. There she met ‘B’, who was accused of raping her.

An application was moved under Section 482 by ‘B’ for quashing the summoning and cognizance order of the Trial Court for offences under Sections 363, 366, 376 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’). The High Court noted that no date and time of the alleged rape was disclosed by the girl. The High Court on consideration of the all material and circumstances allowed the application of B and quashed and set aside the impugned orders.

SLP before Court

The Advocates in question had stated that vakalatnama signed by the petitioner was received by him from an Advocate practicing in the Allahabad High Court. To this, the petitioner’s reply was that he did not either of these Advocates. In view of the above submissions, the Court directed the Registry to issue notice to the Advocate practicing in Allahabad High Court. The Advocate from High Court submitted that he received the papers of the case along with signed vakalatnama from his client/ A, who is son-in-law of the present petitioner. It was stated that this Advocate appeared before the High Court in the recall application filed on behalf of petitioner’s daughter/ wife of A, in which it was prayed to recall the order dated 16-12-2019 passed by the High Court in the Application under Section 482. However, when the said recall application was dismissed, A wanted to file an SLP before the Court, hence, he was asked to get the vakalatnama signed from either his wife or father-in-law/ petitioner. Thereafter he had handed over all the papers along with signed vakalatnama to the Advocate practicing in the Court.

At this stage, the petitioner submitted that since his daughter had eloped and married A in 2013 he has not met them, and therefore, he could not have signed the vakalatnama in question or the papers of the SLP.

On one of the previous hearings, the Court noted the submission of the AOR and Advocate who prepared the Memo of SLP and got it attested through a Notary who sits in front of the UCO Bank, Supreme Court Compound. Hence, the Court directed this Notary, to remain present before the Court for being involved in notarizing and attesting the papers and signatures of the petitioner, even though he was not personally present before him. The Court had also directed all the advocates concerned in the matter to remain present before the Court.

Order

The Court directed the Notary to file an affidavit explaining the procedure of notarizing any document, and also explaining as to why, and under what circumstances the affidavit of the petitioner in the present case, was attested by him in his absence. Further, the Court had directed A to file an affidavit explaining the whole incident as to under what circumstances he had met his father-in-law/ present petitioner, along with the chronology of dates and events when he met his father-in-law.

The Court also sought explanation from the Registry as to on what basis and why the names of so many Advocates were shown in the Order Sheets/Record of Proceedings though, they would be neither appearing as an AOR nor as arguing/ Senior Counsel in the order dated 09-08-2024, who are also advocates in order dated 10-06-2024 in SLP(Crl.) No.7893/2024 which was filed against Delhi High Court’s decision, wherein, the present respondent ‘B’ was the only witness. The counsel for ‘B’ submitted that B had deposed against the convicted- petitioner in SLP(Crl.) No.7893/2024 and for that reason a false case was sought to be made out against the B in the present proceedings.

Motor Accident Compensation| Supreme Court Allows Compensation In Excess Of Claim On Payment Of Additional Court Fee

Read Judgment

The Supreme Court reiterated that there's no restriction upon the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (“MACT”) to award compensation exceeding the amount claimed by the claimant.

The Court said that if the claimant is entitled to a higher amount than claimed, than he's entitled to be paid the actual compensation as determined by the court.

The bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and Pankaj Mithal upon placing reliance on the judgment of Mona Baghel & Ors. vs. Sajjan Singh Yadav & Ors. reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 734 observed that since the function of the Tribunal or Court under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is to award “just compensation”, therefore is no restriction that the Court cannot award compensation exceeding the claimed amount.

“The above decision clearly lays down that there is no restriction upon the court to award compensation exceeding the amount claimed. It is the duty of the Tribunal or Court under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) to award just compensation. Since the Act is a beneficial legislation a “just compensation” is one which is fair and reasonable on the basis of the evidence adduced irrespective of the amount claimed.”, the Court said.

In the present case, the Appellant has been awarded Rs. 19,55,250/- compensation by the MACT against the claimed amount of Rs.38,34,000/-. In an appeal before the High Court against the MACT's order, the Appellant has confined its claim to Rs. 23,55,250/- i.e., Rs. 4,00,000/- in addition to the compensation determined by the MACT (Rs. 19,55,250/- plus Rs. 4,00,000/- equals Rs. 23,55,250/-).

The High Court had revised the award of compensation from Rs. 19,55,250/- to Rs.28,00,375/-, however, refused to award such compensation because of the default committed by the Appellant in not paying the court fees on Rs. Rs.28,00,375/- but had paid court fees of Rs. 23,55,250/-

The Court observed that the High Court erred in not awarding the determined compensation of Rs. Rs.28,00,375/- to the claimant, and noted that the defect of non-payment of the court fees could be rectified by paying court fees on the remaining amount (Rs.28,00,375/- minus Rs. 23,55,250/- equals to Rs. 4,45,125/-).

“In the light of the above, we permit the appellants to amend the claim amount in the appeal and to pay court fee on the additional amount of the compensation of Rs. 28,00,375/- less the amount awarded i.e. 19,55,250/- and additional amount of Rs. 4,00,000/-, on which court fee appears to be already paid, i.e. Rs. 4,45,125/-, within a period of four weeks from today whereupon the amount of compensation determined by the court shall be paid to the appellants within a further period of four weeks thereafter.”, the court said.

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed.

'Creamy Layer' Must Be Excluded From Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes For Reservations : Supreme Court

Read Judgment

While allowing states to sub-categorise SCs and STs for the sake of reservation, four of the seven judges on the constitutional bench proposed the identification of creamy layers among SCs and STs to ensure that reservation truly reaches the deserving.

Four judges of the seven-judge constitutional bench, which ruled in favour of sub-categorisation of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes for the sake of reservation, called for the identification of creamy layers among SCs and STs, so that they can be taken out of the fold of reservation.

Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma underlined that a creamy layer system akin to the one existing for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) must be put in place to ensure that reservations reach the most deserving among SCs and STs.

“State must evolve a policy to identify creamy layer among the SC ST category and take them out of the fold of affirmative action (reservation). This is the only way to gain true equality,” Justice Gavai said, according to Bar and Bench.

Justice Vikram Nath concurred with Justice Gavai. “I am also in agreement with the opinion of brother Justice Gavai that the creamy layer principle is also applicable to Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes and that the criteria for exclusion of creamy lawyer for the purpose of affirmative action could be different from the criteria as applicable to the Other Backward Classes,” Justice Nath said.

Justice Mithal too shared the same opinion. “Reservation should be meant for only the first generation among a category and if the second generation has come up then benefits of reservation shall not be given and the State should see if after reservation the second generation has come shoulder to shoulder with the general category.”

Justice Sharma too said that the identification of creamy layer among SC and STs must become “a constitutional imperative”.

Landmark ruling on SC/ST sub-categorisation 

In a landmark judgement, the Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the power of states to sub-categorise reserved groups of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes to provide wider representation for underrepresented groups.

In effect, a seven-judge bench which heard the matter overruled its own verdict of 2005 in the EV Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh case, which had ruled that SC/ST sub-classification was contrary to Article 341 of the constitution. The particular Article confers the right on the President of India to prepare the list of SCs and STs.

While six of the seven judges allowed for the sub-classification, Justice Bela M Trivedi dissented from the majority and ruled that such sub-classification is not permissible. The Constitution bench was headed by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud. The other judges on the bench were Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Bela M Trivedi, Justice Pankaj Mithal, Justice Manoj Misra, and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma.

“The members of SC/ST are not often able to climb up the ladder due to the systemic discrimination faced. Article 14 permits sub-classification of caste. Court must check if a class is homogeneous or and a class not integrated for a purpose can be further classified,” the Bench said pronouncing its majority judgment, according to Bar and Bench.

The court then went on to say there is historical evidence and social parameters to indicate clearly that all SC/STs do not constitute a homogenous class. “Historical evidence shows that depressed class were not homogenous class and social conditions show that all classes under that is not uniform. In state of Madhya Pradesh, out of 25 castes only 9 are scheduled castes,” the court added.

The court made it clear that the sub-categorisation of SCs and STs does not in any way violate Article 341 of the constitution.

“We have also established through historical evidence that Scheduled Castes notified by the President are a heterogenous class. There is nothing in Article 15, 16 and 341 which prevents sub-classification for SCs if there is a rational for distinction and there is a rational nexus for the object sought to be achieved. State can sub-classify for the inadequate representation of some class,” the court observed.

The court, however, issued a note of caution, saying that sub-classification by states has to be supported by empirical data and should be ensured that it is not based on “whims or political expediency”.

“State can adopt any measures to judge inter se backwardness. If the parameter is untouchability, it is not needed that inter se backwardness is also justified on the basis of that but State has to prove it by empirical and quantifiable data. State cannot act on its whims or political expediency and it is amenable to judicial review,” the court underlined.

The court ruling, in effect, provided legal sanctity to laws which provide for such sub-classification in Punjab, Tamil Nadu and other states.

Turkey blocks Instagram amid ‘censorship’ row

Top government official accused US-based company of blocking condolence posts on killing of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh.

Turkey has blocked access to Instagram, the national communications authority said, after a top government official slammed the social media platform for “censoring” Hamas-related content.

The communications authority BTK announced the block on Friday, without giving an explanation for the decision or stating the duration of the ban.