27th January, 2025

1). SC Directs Police to Avoid Serving Notices Through WhatsApp, Electronic Means Under S.41A CrPC/S.35 BNSS

Case Background

The Supreme Court examined whether notices issued under Section 41A of the CrPC, 1973 (now Section 35 of the BNSS, 2023) can be served through WhatsApp or other electronic means. The case emerged from ongoing efforts to monitor compliance with its earlier rulings aimed at preventing unnecessary arrests and improving bail access for undertrial prisoners.

During the proceedings, Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra, acting as amicus curiae, highlighted improper practices by police authorities regarding the mode of serving notices.

Issues in the Case

1. Can notices under Section 41A of CrPC/Section 35 of BNSS be served electronically via WhatsApp, email, or SMS?
2. Is such electronic service valid under the procedures prescribed in Chapter VI of the CrPC/BNSS?
3. Are the police required to strictly adhere to the traditional service modes specified under these laws?

Court Observations

A bench comprising Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Rajesh Bindal made the following key observations:

1. Non-Recognition of Electronic Service: The Court clarified that notices under Section 41A of CrPC/Section 35 of BNSS must follow the prescribed modes of service under Chapter VI of the CrPC/BNSS. Serving notices electronically via WhatsApp, email, or SMS is not legally valid.
2. Scope of Electronic Means under BNSS: While the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) allows electronic means for conducting trials and inquiries, it does not permit e-notices under Section 35.
3. Improper Practices by Police: The Court referred to a Standing Order dated January 26, 2024, issued by the Haryana DGP, which allowed police officers to serve notices via electronic means. The Court held this practice to be contrary to law.
4. Relevant Precedents:
   • The Delhi High Court in Rakesh Kumar v. Vijayanta Arya (DCP) (2021 SCC Online Del 5629) and Amandeep Singh Johar v. State (NCT Delhi) (2018 SCC Online Del 13448) had ruled that service of notices via WhatsApp or similar methods was invalid under Section 41A of CrPC.
   • These rulings were upheld by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022) 10 SCC 51.
5. Need for Uniform Compliance: The Court emphasized the importance of uniform compliance with its rulings across all States and Union Territories to avoid arbitrary practices.

Court Rulings and Directions

The Supreme Court issued the following directions:

1. Notices under Section 41A CrPC/Section 35 BNSS:

• All States and Union Territories must issue Standing Orders ensuring that notices are served only through prescribed modes of service under the CrPC/BNSS.
• Notices served via WhatsApp, email, or SMS are invalid.

2. Notices under Section 160 CrPC/Section 179 BNSS and Section 175 CrPC/Section 195 BNSS:

• Similar Standing Orders must be issued for these sections, requiring compliance with the prescribed service methods.

3. Role of High Courts:

• High Courts must convene their Committees for Ensuring the Implementation of Apex Court Decisions on a monthly basis.
• These committees are to ensure compliance with Supreme Court rulings and submit monthly compliance reports.

4. Affidavit Submission by States and UTs:

• Registrar Generals of High Courts and Chief Secretaries of States/UTs are directed to file compliance affidavits by February 18, 2025.
• Affidavits must be sent to a dedicated email: complianceinantil@gmail.com.

5. Next Hearing:

• The Court will review compliance on March 18, 2025.

Legal Provisions Referred

1. Section 41A CrPC (Section 35 BNSS): Notice of appearance issued by police to suspects.
2. Section 160 CrPC (Section 179 BNSS): Summons to witnesses for investigation.
3. Section 175 CrPC (Section 195 BNSS): Refusal to answer certain questions during investigation.
4. Chapter VI CrPC/BNSS: Lays down rules for issuing and serving legal notices.

Significance of the Decision

This ruling ensures:

1. Uniformity and Legality: Police authorities across India cannot bypass procedural safeguards by using unauthorized electronic methods.
2. Protection of Rights: Proper service of notices is essential to protect the rights of accused persons and uphold fair trial principles.
3. Accountability: High Courts and State Governments are tasked with ensuring strict compliance, enhancing accountability.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court has reinforced that notices under Section 41A CrPC/Section 35 BNSS must be served through the legally recognized modes prescribed in Chapter VI of CrPC/BNSS. This ensures adherence to procedural law and prevents arbitrary practices by police authorities. Regular monitoring by High Courts and compliance reporting by States/UTs will promote consistent application of this directive nationwide.

Case Name : Satender Kumar Antil v CBI

2). Violated Familial Trust: Allahabad HC Denies Bail to POCSO Accused in Illicit Relationship with Minor

Case Background

In this case, the Allahabad High Court denied bail to a man accused under multiple laws, including the POCSO Act, Indian Penal Code (IPC), and the Dowry Prohibition Act. The allegations against the accused included:

1. Harassment of his wife (complainant) for dowry.
2. Enticing his wife’s minor sister (aged 16 years) and subjecting her to aggravated penetrative sexual assault.

The complainant alleged that she married the accused six years ago. After giving birth to a daughter, her husband became unhappy and harassed her for dowry. Unable to endure the harassment, she moved to her parental home. The accused allegedly lured her minor sister in February 2023, leading to an FIR and his arrest. Despite being released on bail, he repeated the offense in August 2023.

The accused sought bail, but the High Court refused, citing the seriousness of the charges and the gravity of the alleged conduct.

Issue of the Case

Whether the accused should be granted bail considering:

1. The allegations of harassment for dowry and sexual assault against a minor.
2. The provisions of Section 29 of the POCSO Act, which presume guilt unless proven otherwise.

Court Observations

A single-judge bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh made the following observations:

1. Nature of the Accused’s Conduct:

• The accused’s actions represented a serious breach of the marital relationship and the sacred bond of marriage.
• His conduct also caused severe emotional trauma to his wife and her minor sister, disrupting familial harmony.

2. Significance of Marriage:

• The Court emphasized that marriage is a cornerstone of societal and familial harmony.
• Any act undermining this bond causes psychological harm and leads to family discord.

3. Gravity of the Offense:

• The accused was involved in two incidents of luring the minor victim, aged 16-17 years, who was also his sister-in-law.
• The Court noted that the victim's consent was immaterial, as she was a minor under the law.

4. Legal Presumptions under POCSO Act:

• Under Section 29 of the POCSO Act, the Court must presume the guilt of the accused unless he proves otherwise.
• This presumption added to the seriousness of the charges against the applicant.

5. Victim's Statement and Affidavit:

• Although the victim had recorded a statement supporting the accused and submitted an affidavit in his favor, the Court held that such statements do not negate the allegations, as she is a minor, and her consent is irrelevant under the law.

Court Rulings and Decisions

The Court concluded that the allegations against the accused, combined with the legal presumption of guilt under Section 29 of the POCSO Act, made this a serious case warranting denial of bail.

Key Considerations for Denial:

1. Gravity of the Allegations: The offenses involved aggravated penetrative sexual assault under the POCSO Act and harassment for dowry under the IPC.
2. Repeat Offense: The accused was alleged to have enticed the minor victim twice, in February 2023 and August 2023.
3. Public Interest and Societal Harm: The accused’s actions disrupted not only the marital bond but also family relationships, causing emotional and psychological harm.
4. Presumption Against the Accused: Section 29 of the POCSO Act shifted the burden of proof onto the accused.

Legal Provisions Referred

1. Sections of IPC:
   • 498A: Cruelty by husband or relatives. (Section 85 of BNS)
   • 376(2)(N): Repeated rape of the same woman.(Section 64 of BNS)
   • 363, 366A: Kidnapping and luring of minors. (Section 137, 96 of BNS)
   • 323, 504, 506: Causing hurt, criminal intimidation, and insult. (Section 118(1), 352, 353 of BN)
2. POCSO Act:
   • Section 5(L)/6: Aggravated penetrative sexual assault and punishment for the same.
   • Section 29: Presumption of guilt in cases of sexual assault unless disproven by the accused.
3. Dowry Prohibition Act:
   • Sections 3/4: Giving, taking, or demanding dowry.
4. Section 161 and 164 CrPC: Provisions for recording the victim’s statement. (Section 180 & 183 of BN)

Significance of the Decision

1. Upholding the Sanctity of Marriage and Family

• The Court emphasized that marriage is a sacred bond and a cornerstone of societal and familial harmony.
• The decision highlights the need to address breaches of trust and moral integrity within families to maintain societal stability.

2. Protection of Minors under the POCSO Act

• The judgment reinforces the strict interpretation of Section 29 of the POCSO Act, which presumes the guilt of the accused in cases of sexual assault against minors.
• By emphasizing that a minor’s consent is immaterial under the law, the decision strengthens the protection framework for children against exploitation.

Conclusion

The High Court denied bail to the accused, emphasizing the seriousness of the offenses and the impact on the victim and her family. It upheld the principle that minor victims’ consent is irrelevant under the law and relied on the presumption of guilt under Section 29 of the POCSO Act. This decision reinforces the importance of protecting minors and maintaining the sanctity of familial relationships while ensuring strict adherence to legal provisions in cases of sexual offences and dowry harassment.

Case Name - Devideen vs. State Of Up And 3 Others 2025 

3). No Contraband Found: Delhi HC Says Bail Not Barred Under NDPS Act for Accused in Contact with Co-Accused

Case Background

The case arose from an FIR registered in 2022 by the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) under Sections 8(c), 21(c), 22(c), 23, 25, 27A, and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985.

• The NCB had seized 50 kg of heroin, 47.06 kg of suspected narcotics, and Rs. 30 lakh cash from the house of a co-accused.
• Based on disclosure statements of the co-accused, the applicant (an accused in this case) was arrested.
• The prosecution alleged that the applicant had brought a container to a godown where heroin was allegedly manufactured and had connections with the co-accused persons.

The applicant contended that:

1. No recovery of contraband or cash was made from him.
2. The evidence against him consisted only of his alleged contact with co-accused persons.
3. He could not be prosecuted for a single act in multiple complaint cases filed by the NCB.
4. He had been in custody since May 19, 2022, and the trial was yet to begin.

Issue in the Case

Whether the mere contact of the applicant with co-accused persons found in possession of contraband could justify denial of bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

Court Observations

The case was heard by Justice Amit Mahajan.

1. Prosecution Evidence:
   • The prosecution's evidence primarily consisted of:
     • Disclosure statements of the co-accused persons and the applicant.
     • Call detail record (CDR) connectivity between the applicant and the co-accused persons.
   • The Court observed that this evidence, at the present stage, did not prove the applicant’s involvement in any illegal activity with the co-accused persons.
2. Lack of Recovery from the Applicant:
   • No contraband or cash was recovered from the applicant.
   • Mere association or contact with co-accused persons who possessed contraband was insufficient to establish guilt in the absence of substantive evidence.
3. Section 37 of the NDPS Act:
   • Section 37 imposes strict conditions for bail in NDPS cases.
   • The Court held that the bar on bail under Section 37 does not apply when:
     • No substantive material is found against the accused.
     • There are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence.
4. Detention Period and Trial Delay:
   • The applicant had been in custody since May 2022, and charges were yet to be framed.
   • The Court noted that an accused should not remain incarcerated for the entire trial period, especially when the trial is likely to take a long time.

Court Ruling/Decision

• The Court granted bail to the applicant, emphasizing that:
  1. No Recovery: No contraband or cash was recovered from the applicant.
  2. Lack of Substantive Evidence: The only evidence against the applicant was his alleged contact with co-accused persons, which could not be treated as corroborative material.
  3. Bar of Section 37 Not Attracted: In such circumstances, the twin conditions under Section 37 were not satisfied, allowing the Court to grant bail.

The Court stated:

• “Mere contact with other co-accused persons who were found in possession of contraband cannot be treated as corroborative material in the absence of substantive material.”

Legal Provisions

• Section 37 of NDPS Act: Imposes strict conditions for granting bail, requiring the accused to prove:
  1. Reasonable grounds that they are not guilty of the offence.
  2. That they are unlikely to commit an offence if released on bail.
• Sections 8(c), 21(c), 22(c), 23, 25, 27A, and 29 of NDPS Act: Deal with possession, transportation, and abetment of narcotic drug offences.

Significance of the Decision

1. Protection of Individual Rights:
   • The judgment highlights the importance of individual liberty and safeguards against indefinite detention in cases where evidence is insufficient.
2. Judicial Interpretation of Section 37 NDPS Act:
   • It clarified that the strict conditions under Section 37 apply only when substantive evidence exists against the accused.
   • Mere contact or association with co-accused persons is not sufficient to deny bail.
3. Prevention of Prolonged Detention:
   • The Court emphasized that accused persons should not remain incarcerated for long periods while awaiting trial, especially when trials are delayed.
4. Balancing Individual Liberty and Societal Interest:
   • The decision strikes a balance between safeguarding individual rights and ensuring effective enforcement of NDPS laws.

Conclusion

The Delhi High Court’s decision in this case reaffirms the principle that mere suspicion or weak evidence cannot justify prolonged incarceration, even under the stringent provisions of the NDPS Act. The ruling underscores the need for substantive evidence to establish an accused's involvement in narcotic-related offences and highlights the judiciary’s commitment to upholding individual rights while maintaining the integrity of the justice system.

Case Name: ABDUL RAB v. NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU

4). Allahabad HC: Mutual Incompatibility Not Sufficient to Dissolve Hindu Marriage Within 1 Year Without 'Exceptional Hardship'

Case Background

The case involved a couple who had filed for divorce by mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, within one year of their marriage.

• The Principal Judge, Family Court, Saharanpur, rejected their application on the ground that the one-year limitation under Section 14 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 had not passed.
• Dissatisfied with the decision, the parties approached the Allahabad High Court.

Issue in the Case

Can a marriage between two Hindus be dissolved within one year of marriage on grounds of mutual incompatibility, without showing exceptional hardship or exceptional depravity under Section 14 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955?

Court Observations

The case was heard by a division bench of Justice Ashwini Kumar Mishra and Justice Donadi Ramesh.

1. One-Year Limitation under Section 14:
   • Section 14 of the Hindu Marriage Act places a restriction on filing a divorce petition within one year of marriage, except under extraordinary circumstances involving exceptional hardship or exceptional depravity.
   • The Court emphasized the legislative intent behind this provision, which aims to preserve the sanctity of marriage and prevent hasty decisions for divorce.
2. Grounds in the Present Case:
   • The couple cited mutual incompatibility as the reason for seeking divorce within one year of marriage.
   • However, the Court observed that no evidence of exceptional hardship or exceptional depravity was provided.
3. Lack of Exceptional Circumstances:
   • The Court noted that mutual incompatibility is a routine issue in marriages and does not meet the threshold for "exceptional hardship or depravity."
   • Therefore, the proviso to Section 14 could not be invoked in this case.
4. Marriage as a Sacrosanct Institution:
   • The Court reiterated that marriage under Hindu law is sacrosanct and its dissolution cannot be granted lightly.
   • The one-year limitation ensures that couples give their marriage a fair chance before seeking dissolution.

Court Ruling/Decision

• The Court upheld the order of the Family Court, dismissing the couple’s appeal.
• The Court left it open for the parties to file a fresh application for divorce after the completion of the one-year period prescribed under Section 14 of the Act.

Legal Provisions

1. Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955:
   • Provides for divorce by mutual consent.
2. Section 14 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955:
   • Bars the filing of a divorce petition within one year of marriage unless:
     • Exceptional hardship to the petitioner, or
     • Exceptional depravity by the respondent is proved.
   • The proviso allows the Court to entertain such petitions in extraordinary cases.

Significance of the Decision

1. Upholding Legislative Intent:
   • The judgment underscores the importance of the one-year limitation under Section 14 to prevent impulsive decisions and promote stability in marriages.
2. Sanctity of Marriage:
   • The decision reinforces the view that marriage is a sacred institution in Hindu law and should not be dissolved without genuine efforts to reconcile.
3. High Threshold for Exceptions:
   • The ruling clarifies that only exceptional hardship or depravity—beyond routine marital issues—can justify a divorce petition within one year of marriage.
4. Guidance for Family Courts:
   • The judgment serves as a precedent for family courts to strictly adhere to the conditions under Section 14 before allowing such petitions.

Conclusion

The Allahabad High Court emphasized the importance of Section 14 in safeguarding the institution of marriage. It ruled that mutual incompatibility alone does not qualify as an exceptional circumstance to dissolve a marriage within one year. The decision ensures that couples are encouraged to make sincere efforts to resolve differences before seeking divorce. The appeal was dismissed, leaving the parties free to refile their application after the one-year period.

Case Name: Sri Nishant Bhardwaj v. Smt. Rishika Gautam [FIRST APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 12 of 2025]

5). Delhi High Court Allows Filing of Counter-Claims Related to Primary Dispute Before Tribunal Under Section 23 of Arbitration Act

Case Background

The case involved a dispute between AKN Developers (claimant) and Premsons Southend (counter-claimant) arising from a lease agreement.

• Lease Agreement:
  The claimant (AKN Developers) leased the first floor of its property to the counter-claimant (Premsons Southend) for three years.
• Dispute:
  AKN Developers alleged that Premsons Southend defaulted on monthly rent payments. To resolve the dispute, the claimant invoked arbitration under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and a sole arbitrator was appointed.
• Arbitration Proceedings:
  • The claimant filed its statement of claim before the arbitrator.
  • The counter-claimant filed a Statement of Defence (SoD) and also lodged a counter-claim.
  • The claimant challenged the counter-claim under Section 16 of the Act, seeking its rejection on the ground that it was outside the arbitrator’s jurisdiction.
  • The sole arbitrator dismissed the application, holding that the counter-claim was maintainable.
  • Aggrieved by the arbitrator's decision, the claimant approached the Delhi High Court.

Issue of the Case

Was the counter-claim filed by the respondent maintainable, and did it fall within the jurisdiction of the arbitrator?

Court Observations

The case was heard by Justice Manoj Jain of the Delhi High Court.

1. Interconnectivity Between Claims and Counter-Claims:
   • The Court held that if there is a strong connection or linkage between the claim and counter-claim, they can be treated as part of the same transaction.
   • In this case, the lease agreement and the counter-claim were related to the same primary dispute between the parties.
2. Section 23 of the Arbitration Act:
   • The respondent had a statutory right to file a counter-claim under Section 23 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
   • The counter-claim was related to the lease agreement, specifically Clause 6 of the agreement, which provided for dispute resolution through arbitration.
3. Avoiding Multiplicity of Proceedings:
   • The Court emphasized that rejecting the counter-claim would lead to multiplicity of legal proceedings, forcing the counter-claimant to approach a civil court.
   • To ensure a just and fair resolution of disputes, the arbitrator must evaluate the counter-claim along with the original claim.
4. Relevance of Evidence:
   • The Court observed that issues like the validity of the lease agreement and the agreement-to-sell are matters of trial and cannot be conclusively determined at this preliminary stage.

Court Rulings/Decisions

1. The Court dismissed the claimant’s petition, upholding the sole arbitrator’s decision to entertain the counter-claim.
2. It ruled that the counter-claim was maintainable and fell within the jurisdiction of the arbitrator.
3. The Court highlighted the importance of considering the counter-claim to ensure a fair resolution of the dispute.

Legal Provisions

1. Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996:
   • Provides for the appointment of an arbitrator to resolve disputes.
2. Section 16 of the Act:
   • Allows a party to challenge the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal.
3. Section 23 of the Act:
   • Grants the respondent the right to file a counter-claim during arbitration proceedings.

Significance of the Decision

1. Broadening the Scope of Counter-Claims:
   • The judgment clarifies that counter-claims do not need to arise from the exact same cause of action but must be strongly connected to the primary dispute.
2. Efficiency in Dispute Resolution:
   • By allowing interconnected claims and counter-claims to be decided together, the decision promotes efficiency and reduces the burden on courts.
3. Fairness in Arbitration:
   • The ruling ensures that both parties can present their claims comprehensively, enabling fair adjudication of disputes.
4. Avoidance of Multiplicity of Proceedings:
   • The judgment discourages fragmented litigation by allowing arbitrators to address related disputes within the same proceedings.

Conclusion

The Delhi High Court upheld the decision of the sole arbitrator to entertain the counter-claim, emphasizing its interconnection with the primary dispute. The judgment ensures fairness and efficiency in arbitration, affirming that interconnected disputes should be resolved together to avoid unnecessary litigation. This ruling provides clarity on the scope of counter-claims under Section 23 of the Arbitration Act and underscores the arbitrator’s jurisdiction in such cases.

Case Name: M/S. Akn Developers Private Limited Versus M/S. Premsons Southend

Case Number: CM(M) 131/2024 & CM APPL. 4130/2024

Add-On

SC Criticizes Overuse of S.144 CrPC Orders During Protests, Calls It a Wrong Signal

Background of the Case

The case stemmed from a protest held in 2023 by BJP leaders in Jharkhand against the state government.

• Key Accused:
  Among the accused were prominent BJP leaders, including Nishikant Dubey, Arjun Munda, and Babulal Marandi.
• Allegations by the State of Jharkhand:
  The protest allegedly violated a Section 144 CrPC order (prohibiting gatherings of more than four people), leading to injuries to police officers, public servants, and journalists during a violent demonstration.
• High Court’s Ruling:
  The Jharkhand High Court quashed the cases against the accused, stating there were no specific allegations linking the leaders to acts of stone pelting or breaking police barricades.

The State of Jharkhand then challenged this decision in the Supreme Court.

Key Issue

Was the High Court correct in quashing the cases against the BJP leaders, and was Section 144 CrPC being misused to curb protests?

Supreme Court’s Observations

A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan heard the case and raised concerns about the misuse of Section 144 CrPC.

1. Misuse of Section 144 CrPC: (Section 163 of BNSS)
   Justice Oka orally observed:
   • There is a growing tendency to issue Section 144 orders whenever there are protests or demonstrations.
   • Such misuse of Section 144 sends a wrong signal and restricts the democratic right to protest unnecessarily.
2. Requirement of Section 144 Orders:
   The Court questioned the necessity of invoking Section 144 CrPC when individuals or groups plan to hold peaceful demonstrations.
3. No Grounds to Interfere:
   The bench stated there was no reason to interfere with the High Court’s decision, as no direct evidence linked the accused leaders to violent acts.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by the State of Jharkhand, upholding the High Court’s ruling that quashed the cases.