10/08/2025
*Musheer Alam V. State of UP (2025 SC)*
1. Investigation over, chargesheet filed and Magistrate has already taken cognizance. Now, the Police arresting the accused makes no sense.
2. Anticipatory Bail application disposed with the direction to the Accused to appear before the Court and get Court-Bail.
Note:
1. *Siddharth V. State of UP (2021 SC)*: It is not mandatory for police to arrest and produce the accused at the time of filing of the chargesheet.
2. *Satender Kumar Antil V. CBI (2021 SC)*: the SC issued guidelines to prevent the routine arrest of accused persons, especially those who were not arrested during investigation or had cooperated with the investigation, upon the filing of the charge-sheet.
3. *Tarsem Lal V. ED (2024 SC)*: ED cannot arrest an accused after the trial court has taken cognizance of the chargesheet.
*Sri Mahesh V. Sangram (2025 SC)*
1. “A” died in 1982 leaving behind 2 widows- B and C. Both widows entered into a compromise and a decree of partition was passed. “B” acquired 9/32 of A’s property. By virtue of S.14(1) HSA, “B” became the Absolute owner of that property.
2. B adopted “D” in 1994. Thereafter, B sold half of her 9/32 property to “E” in 2007. And gifted half property to F. “D” filed the present suit to set aside the sale and the gift as he is the Legal Heir of “A” and his consent was not taken.
3. Doctrine of Relation Back: An adoption by a widow would relate back to the date of death of her husband, creating an immediate coparcenary interest in the joint property, meaning that the adopted child is treated as if they were born to the deceased husband, thus entitled to inherit his property.
4. However, S. 12(c) of HAMA says that the adoption is effective from the date of adoption and the adopted child shall not divest any person of any estate already vested in him before the adoption.
5. Mulla: “The rights of an adopted son arise for the first time on his adoption. He may, by virtue of his rights as adopted son, divest other persons in whom the property vested after the death of the adoptive father, but all lawful alienations made by previous holder would be binding on him. His right to impeach previous alienations would depend upon the capacity of the holder who made the alienation as well as on the nature of the action of alienation".
6. Hence, the sale deed is held to be binding upon D. By virtue of the Compromise deed and S.14(1) HSA, the property vested in B absolutely and she has lawfully sold it.
7. S. 122 TPA: Gift has to be accepted during the lifetime of the donor and while he is still capable of giving. A gift, if not so accepted, is void. When the property was neither delivered nor the possession was given during the lifetime of the donor, the gift cannot be said to be valid.
8. The gift was set aside due to S.122 TPA (and not due to the doctrine of relation back).
Note: Important for Haryana and Punjab as they ask family law in detail.
Daljit Singh V. State of Haryana (2025 SC)*
1. S.82 CrPC falls under Ch-VI i.e. “process to compel appearance”. It’s purpose is to ensure that a person whose appearance is required before the court, appears before it.
2. S.174A IPC, inserted in 2005, provides for punishments if a person doesn’t appear before the court when a proclamation has been published/declared against him u/s.82 CrPC. Its purpose is to ensure penal consequences for defiance of a court order requiring presence.
3. S.174A IPC is an independent, substantive offence, that can continue even if the proclamation under S. 82 CrPC is extinguished. It is a stand-alone offence.
Issue 1: Whether the status of Proclaimed Offender u/s.82 CrPC subsists if the accused is acquitted in the main offence?
SC: No. Since, the accused got exonerated, his presence is no longer required before the court.
The proceedings u/s.82 CRPC got nullified.
Issue 2: Whether subsistence of the proclamation order u/s. 82 CrPC is required for the authorities to proceed against the accused for the offence committed u/s.174A IPC?
SC: Yes. The prosecution can still proceed against him for not appearing before the court when the process was in effect. So, while proceedings u/S.174A IPC cannot be initiated independent of S.82 CrPC i.e. can only be started post the issuance of proclamation, they can continue if the said proclamation is no longer in effect.
However, the Trial Court can still take note of the fact that the accused is acquitted in the main offence and can close the proceedings u/s.174A IPC if such prayer is made and circumstances so warrant. Finally, SC closed the proceedings u/s.174A IPC.
