Latest news with #BharatiyaNagrikSurakshaSanhita
The Hindu
29-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
Can FIR be quashed under Section 528 of BNSS? Allahabad High Court refers matter to nine-judge Bench
The Allahabad High Court has referred to a nine-judge Bench legal questions concerning the High Court's power to quash an FIR under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), now Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). A seven-judge Bench held in the case of Ramlal Yadav and others vs State of U.P. and others (1989) that for quashing the FIR, a plea under Section 482 of the CrPC would not be maintainable and an appropriate remedy would be to file a plea under Article 226 (writ jurisdiction) of the Constitution. The single Bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, while respectfully disagreeing with the seven-judge Bench ruling, referred the matter to a nine-judge Bench invoking the spirit of "judicial discipline" and the need to uphold the doctrine of stare decisis. Stare decisis, a Latin term meaning "to stand by things decided", is a legal principle that directs courts to adhere to precedent. The court found the seven-judge Bench ruling "obsolete" in light of the Supreme Court's decisions in State of Haryana & others vs Bhajan Lal & others (1990) and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt Ltd vs State of Maharashtra and others (2021). "This court respectfully acknowledges that the legal principles established in the full Bench decision of Ramlal Yadav may no longer be applicable due to recent developments in the law as interpreted by the apex court. "Nevertheless, in the spirit of judicial discipline and to uphold the doctrine of stare decisis as emphasised in the cases of Shanker Raju and Mishri Lal, the court is inclined to refer this matter to a larger bench comprising nine judges," Justice Deshwal noted in its 43-page order passed on May 27. The court added that this referral was necessary as the judgement in the Ramlal Yadav case, which had not been explicitly reversed or overruled but had become "obsolete", was rendered by a Bench of seven judges. The court was essentially dealing with a plea under Section 528 of BNSS (inherent powers of high court) challenging the order passed by CJM, Chitrakoot, under Section 175(3) of the BNSS (Section 156 (3) CrPC) by which the police were directed to register an FIR against the petitioners. The petitioners also sought quashing of the FIR under sections 498A (harassment), 323, 504, 506, 342 of the IPC read with Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The additional government advocate raised a preliminary objection that in view of the full bench judgement in the case of Ramlal Yadav, the instant plea (corresponding to Section 482 CrPC) for quashing the FIR is not maintainable as the same could be challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Though the single judge noted that in the judgement of Bhajan Lal, the apex court considered almost all the judgements considered by the full bench in the case of Ramlal Yadav and had expanded the scope of interference by the High Court during the investigation, he deemed it appropriate to refer the above-mentioned questions to a nine-judge Bench. The court noted that in the exercise of its power under Section 482 of the CrPC, the High Court can interfere with the investigation, in the case seeking quashing of FIR, not only in cases where the FIR does not disclose cognizable offence but also on fulfilment of other conditions as mentioned in Bhajan Lal and Neeharika Infrastructure. In this regard, the court also referred to the apex court's recent judgement in the case of Imran Pratapgadhi vs State of Gujarat (2025), wherein it was held that there is no absolute rule preventing a high court from quashing an FIR by exercising its power under Section 482 of CrPC (or Section 528 BNSS), merely because the investigation is at a nascent stage.
The Print
29-05-2025
- Politics
- The Print
Can FIR be quashed under Section 528 of BNSS? Allahabad HC refers matter to 9-judge bench
The single bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, while respectfully disagreeing with the seven-judge bench ruling, referred the matter to a nine-judge bench invoking the spirit of 'judicial discipline' and the need to uphold the doctrine of stare decisis. A seven-judge bench in the case of Ramlal Yadav and others vs State of UP and others (1989) had held that for quashing the FIR, a plea under Section 482 CrPC would not be maintainable and an appropriate remedy would be to file a plea under Article 226 (writ jurisdiction) of the Constitution. Prayagraj, May 28 (PTI) The Allahabad High Court has referred to a nine-judge bench legal questions concerning the high court's power to quash an FIR under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), which is now Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita. The court found the seven-judge bench ruling 'obsolete' in light of the Supreme Court's decisions in State of Haryana & others vs Bhajan Lal & others (1990) and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt Ltd vs State of Maharashtra and others (2021). 'This court respectfully acknowledges that the legal principles established in the full bench decision of Ramlal Yadav may no longer be applicable due to recent developments in the law as interpreted by the apex court. 'Nevertheless, in the spirit of judicial discipline and to uphold the doctrine of stare decisis as emphasised in the cases of Shanker Raju and Mishri Lal, the court is inclined to refer this matter to a larger bench comprising nine judges,' Justice Deshwal noted in its 43-page order passed on May 27. The court added that this referral was necessary as the judgement in Ramlal Yadav, which though not explicitly reversed or overruled but had become 'obsolete', was rendered by a bench of seven judges. The court was essentially dealing with a plea under Section 528 of BNSS (inherent powers of high court) challenging the order passed by CJM, Chitrakoot, under section 175(3) of BNSS (Section 156 (3) CrPC) by which the police were directed to register an FIR against the petitioners. The petitioners also sought quashing of the FIR under section 498A (harassment), 323, 504, 506, 342 of IPC read with Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The additional government advocate raised a preliminary objection that in view of the full bench judgement in the case of Ramlal Yadav, the instant plea (corresponding to Section 482 CrPC) for quashing the FIR is not maintainable as the same could be challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Though the single judge noted that in the judgement of Bhajan Lal, the apex court considered almost all the judgements considered by the full bench in the case of Ramlal Yadav and had expanded the scope of interference by the high court during the investigation, he deemed it appropriate to refer the above-mentioned questions to a nine-judge bench. The court noted that in the exercise of its power under section 482 CrPC, the high court can interfere with the investigation, in the case seeking quashing of FIR, where not only cases where FIR does not disclose cognizable offence but also on fulfilment of other conditions as mentioned in Bhajan Lal and Neeharika Infrastructure. In this regard, the court also referred to the apex court's recent judgment in the case of Imran Pratapgadhi vs State of Gujarat (2025), wherein it was held that there is no absolute rule preventing a high court from quashing an FIR by exercising its power under section 482 of CrPC (or Section 528 BNSS), merely because the investigation is at a nascent stage. PTI COR RAJ KVK KVK This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.
Hindustan Times
28-05-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Can FIR be quashed under Section 528 of BNSS? Allahabad HC refers matter to 9-judge bench
Prayagraj, The Allahabad High Court has referred to a nine-judge bench legal questions concerning the high court's power to quash an FIR under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code , which is now Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita. A seven-judge bench in the case of Ramlal Yadav and others vs State of UP and others had held that for quashing the FIR, a plea under Section 482 CrPC would not be maintainable and an appropriate remedy would be to file a plea under Article 226 of the Constitution. The single bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, while respectfully disagreeing with the seven-judge bench ruling, referred the matter to a nine-judge bench invoking the spirit of "judicial discipline" and the need to uphold the doctrine of stare decisis. The court found the seven-judge bench ruling "obsolete" in light of the Supreme Court's decisions in State of Haryana & others vs Bhajan Lal & others and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt Ltd vs State of Maharashtra and others . "This court respectfully acknowledges that the legal principles established in the full bench decision of Ramlal Yadav may no longer be applicable due to recent developments in the law as interpreted by the apex court. "Nevertheless, in the spirit of judicial discipline and to uphold the doctrine of stare decisis as emphasised in the cases of Shanker Raju and Mishri Lal, the court is inclined to refer this matter to a larger bench comprising nine judges," Justice Deshwal noted in its 43-page order passed on May 27. The court added that this referral was necessary as the judgement in Ramlal Yadav, which though not explicitly reversed or overruled but had become "obsolete", was rendered by a bench of seven judges. The court was essentially dealing with a plea under Section 528 of BNSS challenging the order passed by CJM, Chitrakoot, under section 175 of BNSS CrPC) by which the police were directed to register an FIR against the petitioners. The petitioners also sought quashing of the FIR under section 498A , 323, 504, 506, 342 of IPC read with Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The additional government advocate raised a preliminary objection that in view of the full bench judgement in the case of Ramlal Yadav, the instant plea for quashing the FIR is not maintainable as the same could be challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Though the single judge noted that in the judgement of Bhajan Lal, the apex court considered almost all the judgements considered by the full bench in the case of Ramlal Yadav and had expanded the scope of interference by the high court during the investigation, he deemed it appropriate to refer the above-mentioned questions to a nine-judge bench. The court noted that in the exercise of its power under section 482 CrPC, the high court can interfere with the investigation, in the case seeking quashing of FIR, where not only cases where FIR does not disclose cognizable offence but also on fulfilment of other conditions as mentioned in Bhajan Lal and Neeharika Infrastructure. In this regard, the court also referred to the apex court's recent judgment in the case of Imran Pratapgadhi vs State of Gujarat , wherein it was held that there is no absolute rule preventing a high court from quashing an FIR by exercising its power under section 482 of CrPC , merely because the investigation is at a nascent stage.
Mint
28-05-2025
- General
- Mint
The split-up: How to protect your assets before and after marriage
When marriages end in divorce, it can get quite ugly, especially when it comes to dividing property and assets. The courts award both interim maintenance and final settlement amounts, even in the case of mutual divorce. These can impose a heavy burden upon one of the spouses. According to lawyers that Mint spoke to, several solutions are available. While none of them is foolproof, each can reduce the risk in litigation. Why you should protect your assets Marriage is generally entered into with the thought of living 'happily ever after' and few imagine that things will go sour. However, a certain percentage of marriages fail every year. There are no defined laws on the division of assets and court judgments can vary hugely according to the view taken by the judge overseeing the case. One spouse does not automatically get 50% of the assets and property. The courts aim to maintain the same standard of living for both spouses after separation, which could mean the spouse who brought a large number of assets into the marriage may suddenly find himself or herself compelled to pay a large sum as maintenance or final settlement. Also Read | Can divorce impact your credit score adversely? We explain here In the absence of defined laws, divorce cases can drag on for several years. A family lawyer, on condition of anonymity, told Mint it is a common practice to file interim maintenance applications under the Hindu Marriage Act, Domestic Violence Act and Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (now replaced by the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita or BNSS). Once interim maintenance is granted, it can take five to seven years for a final decree. Prenuptial agreements In the case of marriages under the Hindu Marriage Act, the courts do not generally recognize prenuptial agreements. These are considered as opposed to public policy and hence void under the Indian Contract Act, 1872. "The law views Hindu marriage as a sacrament and not a contract. In the past, courts have taken a view that prenuptial agreements can be considered as promoting separation or divorce and are hence against public policy," said Varun Sriram, a partner at J Sagar Associates. Moreover, conditions in a prenuptial agreement that deny a spouse alimony or maintenance will be considered invalid because it overrides their statutory rights. However, the chances of recognition of prenups, or at least their persuasive value, are higher in the case of Muslims, Christians and Parsis, who are governed by different laws that recognize the contractual element in marriage. 'If you look at the Nikah namah under Muslim law or the Indian Divorce Act for Christians, there are some differences compared to the Hindu Marriage Act. Nikah namah, an Islamic marriage contract, can have certain terms and conditions of marriage, which can be considered in the nature of a prenup," Sriram said. Similarly, an ante-nuptial contract is explicitly recognised in the Divorce Act, 1869, which applies to Christians, said Ankur Borwankar, founder of Prenup India, a platform to create prenuptial agreements online with legal experts. The Portuguese Civil Code, 1867, which applies to persons domiciled in Goa, also recognizes ante-nuptial agreements. Prenups have a higher chance of recognition for Hindus marrying under the Special Marriage Act (SMA). 'Where parties are married under the Special Marriage Act, prenups in a relative sense may have more value since they wouldn't be considered violative of any personal law, otherwise applicable," said Sriram of JSA. A couple keen on entering a prenuptial agreement can consider registering their marriage under the SMA. This doesn't prevent them from having a separate wedding ceremony as per their customs. However, it should be noted that in such cases, succession laws will apply as per the Indian Succession Act. The personal laws of the spouses, regardless of their religion, will not determine inheritance. Sriram of JSA said in the recent past, family courts have looked at prenups more liberally to understand the context and intentions of the parties, which have helped them to avoid long-drawn contests and effectively conclude such matters. One such case is the Commissioner of Income Tax v Mansukhrai More (1988). The Calcutta High Court had to decide whether a trust created by the assessee for his children was for adequate consideration or not for income tax purposes. Also Read | Why is it essential to update child insurance policies after a divorce? Here are 6 key reasons The court held that the assessee was bound to create the trust under a prenuptial contract with his wife's mother and hence not liable for the additional assessed income. Thus, the court indirectly accorded recognition to prenuptial agreements. According to Sriram, under certain circumstances, it may be good for couples to consider and enter into prenuptial agreements to provide for and preempt certain aspects and protect their assets, especially related to pre-marriage assets and other inheritances. 'These agreements can be executed with nominal stamp duty and credible witnesses. Notarization, video recording, or registration are additional options if required," said Sriram. How can a trust help Forming a private trust before a marriage can help in separating and protecting pre-marital assets, including inherited property, from potential matrimonial disputes and division of assets in divorce proceedings. Dhanashree Datar, a legal advisor at LegaLogic, said under Indian matrimonial laws, assets acquired before marriage generally remain separate property, but complications arise when such assets are used for family purposes during the marriage. 'Such assets often commingle with marital property. A pre-marital trust creates a distinct legal entity that holds title to the settlor's (in this case the spouse who is creating the trust) assets, ensuring clear demarcation between pre-marital wealth and assets acquired during marriage. This structure provides protection against claims under Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act or similar provisions in other personal laws, as trust assets remain legally separate from the spouse's personal estate," she said. Also Read | Do NRI marriages abroad impact succession rights in India? Sriram said while a trust is an option, it could have limitations. 'In settlement of immovable property, the restriction is that stamp duty remissions wouldn't apply even if the beneficiaries are related," said Sriram of JSA. Postnuptial agreements Can a postnuptial agreement be upheld in court? According to legal experts, they are not treated differently from prenup agreements. More importantly, when a marriage has already turned sour and the matter has reached the court already, any attempt to 'dispose of' or move assets into a separate entity can be regarded by the court as a deliberate attempt to frustrate alimony or divorce-related judgments about money. This includes creating a trust and transferring assets to parents or siblings. However, there are three assets that cannot be attached by the courts even if there is an adverse judgment against you. These are the balances in your Employees Provident Fund, Public Provident Fund and National Pension System. Another solution is to sign a postnuptial memorandum of understanding on how assets will be divided in the event of a divorce. While this, too, may not be enforced by the court, it can have persuasive value, according to Borwankar.
Hindustan Times
28-05-2025
- Hindustan Times
Ghaziabad: Mob attacks shop of man accused of kidnapping woman
Ghaziabad: The Ghaziabad police on Tuesday registered a first information report (FIR) against 50-60 unidentified people for vandalising a 29-year-old man's shop late Monday evening in a locality that falls under the Indirapuram police station. According to police, the shop, a common service centre, was operated by the man whose name featured in an FIR on May 25 for alleged wrongful confinement and abduction of a 22-year-old woman. The two belong to different communities and are known to each other. 'A mob gathered in the same locality on May 26 late evening, demanding immediate action against the man and vandalised and damaged the man's shop. Police teams rushed to the spot and controlled the situation. In connection with the shop's damage, we took cognizance and registered an FIR against unidentified people. An investigation is underway,' said assistant commissioner of police (ACP) (Indirapuram circle) Abhishek Srivastava. Police said that the woman operated a beauty parlour at one of the shops hired on rent from the man, who also operated a shop nearby. On May 25, at 12.22am, the woman's father had registered an FIR, alleging that the man snatched the chain of his wife and also took away his 22-year-old daughter around 6pm on May 24. 'Within 3–4 hours of the FIR, our teams recovered the woman and also the man in Ghaziabad. She was handed over to her family and the man was arrested and sent to jail under Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita section for arrest to prevent commission of cognizable offences, and not under sections levied in the FIR lodged by the woman's father,' the ACP added. A few videos later surfacing online purportedly showed the woman claiming that she knew the man for nine years and married him three years ago. Although the police said that they recovered the woman within hours on May 25, they are yet to get her statements recorded before a magistrate. 'The videos that have surfaced hold no significance as the entire case now depends on the statements which the woman gives before a magistrate… The man will face sections of the FIR (lodged by the woman's father) if the woman gives her statements against him,' the ACP added.
