Top News Headlines 10th Mar 2022: Order 21 Rule 34 CPC Cannot Be Done Away With

Order 21 Rule 34 CPC Cannot Be Done Away With: Executing Court Has To Invite Objections From Judgement Debtor: SC

• The Hon’ble SC, in Rajbir vs. Suraj Bhan has observed that the Court, under Order 21 Rule 34 is duty-bound to invite objections from the judgement-debtor to the draft deed which has been submitted by the decree holder. 
• It is pertinent to note here that Order 21 Rule 34 of CPC provides that where the decree is for the execution of a document and the judgement debtor refuses to obey the decree, then the decree holder will prepare a draft of the document and will deliver it to the Court. The Court will then cause the draft to be served upon the judgement debtor and will also serve upon him a notice, requiring him to submit his objections to be made within the time fixed by the Court. 
• In the instant case, the decree holder, in whose favour a decree of specific performance had been passed, filed an execution petition. The Trial Court had rejected the objections of the judgement debtor and had directed the execution of the sale deed after approving the draft sale deed. The sale deed was thus executed.
• The appellant/judgement debtor contended before the Apex Court that the executing Court did not call for his objections to the draft sale deed and thus violated the provisions of Order 21 Rule 34 of CPC.
• The Hon’ble SC observed that the contention raised by the appellant that the decree itself is inexecutable would not excuse the Court from proceeding with the matter of considering the draft sale deed and the objections raised against it. 
• The Court also observed that once an objection is raised that the draft sale deed is not in conformity with the decree, it becomes the duty of the executing Court to apply its mind and make alterations in the draft. 
• It was also observed that departure from the provisions of Order 21 Rule 34 of CPC would cause serious prejudice not only to the interests of the parties, but also those people who would deal with the parties in the future and can lead to multiplicity of litigation as well. 
• Thus, the appeal was allowed and the Executing Court was ordered to comply with the provisions of Order 21 Rule 34 CPC.

Settlement B/w Parties Led To Quashing Of FIR U/S 354, 498A IPC; Extreme Injustice If FIR Wasn't Quashed: Himachal Pradesh HC

• In Ajay Kumar v. the State of Punjab And Others, Justice Sandeep Sharma ruled that the petitioner's offenses were relatively trivial, including neither moral depravity nor a heinous crime. Thus, the Court deemed it reasonable to quash the FIR and the subsequent proceedings, especially given that the two parties have found equitable grounds to settle the matter among themselves by compromising, in which case the prospect of conviction is bleak, and there would be no productive purpose in continuing with the proceedings.
• In the present matter, a case was brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Himachal Pradesh HC requesting the Court to quash the FIR that the wife (Respondent) had lodged against her husband (Petitioner), under Section 498A, Section 354, aligned with Section 34 of the IPC and subsequent procedures. The wife claimed that her husband and other family members frequently tortured her since she brought a small amount of money for a dowry. After the probe, the police brought a challan in the Court, but before it could be pursued, the Respondent indicated that she reached a deal with the petitioner. The Petitioner's attorney argued that allowing the FIR to be dismissed as subsequent procedures pending before the Court if continued, would serve no useful purpose. Based on a settlement between the parties, the Hon'ble HC awarded relief to a husband by quashing the FIR brought against him.
• Section 498(A) addresses the penalty to be delivered if a husband or husband's relatives are proven to be cruel to the wife; they would be imprisoned for three years with a fine.
• Section 354 signifies that if a person assaults or uses criminal force on any woman, intending to outrage or knowing that they are likely to outrage her modesty, a punishment of imprisonment of either description for a term not less than one year, that may extend up to five years, shall be awarded to them. They can also be held liable for a fine. 
• Section 34 talks about when a group of people performs a criminal act in furtherance of a common objective, each of them is accountable for that crime in the same way as if he did it alone.
• Section 482 of CrPC deals with preserving the High Court's inherent powers. It states that the HC has inherent powers to make such orders as may be necessary to carry out any order made under this Code to prevent abuse of any Court's process or otherwise secure the ends of justice.
• Section 320 of CrPC prevails to encourage friendly relations between the parties to restore peace. Compounding of Offenses refers to reaching an agreement between two parties in which the complainant agrees to have the accusations against the accused dismissed.
• In State of Rajasthan v. Shambhu Kewat, (2104) 4 SCC 149, it was decided that a crime under Section 307 IPC (Murder attempt) is a severe offense and should not casually be quashed by the HC when exercising its powers under Section 482 CrPC on the grounds that the parties had settled their issues.
• Furthermore, in Narinder Singh v. the State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, the Hon'ble Apex Court invalidated the proceedings under Section 307 IPC, citing the ruling in the State of Rajasthan v. Shambhu Kewat, (2104) 4 SCC 149.
• In another notable case, State of MP v. Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC 688, while keeping in mind the conflict of opinion in the above two decisions, it was observed that the powers conferred on the HC under Section 482 CrPC could be exercised while keeping in mind the injuries sustained, inter-alia.
• The Hon'ble Court relied on the SC decision in Narinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab, which held that criminal cases with an overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or matrimonial relationship or family disputes, should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire dispute among themselves. It was also decided that when exercising their powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, courts must consider the nature and seriousness of the crime and its societal consequences.
• The Hon'ble Court held that the HC has inherent power to quash criminal proceedings even in non-compoundable cases, but such power is to be exercised with great caution. It also ruled that the possibility of conviction was remote and bleak, and by continuing the proceedings, it would be subjecting the accused to great oppression and prejudice, and extreme injustice would be done to him by not quashing.
• Therefore, the plea for quashing the FIR was accepted by the Hon'ble Apex Court to provide absolute justice.