Ans.2) Yes, court can exercise the inherent power u/s 151. Under S.

151 there are two major

principles the court must take into consideration while exercising its inherent powers. The first is
that the powers are to be exercised only for the ends of justice and second, it should be to prevent
abuse of process of the court. Such power must not be exercised when prohibited or excluded by
the Code or other statutes and in situations when there exist specific provisions in the Code
applicable to the litigation at hand. The decision of the Supreme Court in the ease of Manohar
Lal Chopra v. R.B. Rao, AIR 1962 SC 527. It was contended that special provisions such as
Order XLI Rule 19 in the present ease would not bar the court from exercising its inherent
jurisdiction under Section 151 of the C. P. C. provided of course there was no conflict between
the provisions of the C. P. C. and the exercise of such inherent jurisdiction and that the bar of
limitation, in an extraordinary case, would justify the court in overcoming it by invoking its
inherent jurisdiction.

Ans.3) In a recent decision of Amardeep Singh vs. Harveen Kaur (12.09.2017 - SC):
MANU/SC/1134/2017 the apex court had a chance to interpret the law regarding mandatory
'cooling off' period in cases of divorce by mutual consent of the parties described under sec.
13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. the Supreme Court held that minimum period of 6
months stipulated under Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for a motion for
passing decree of divorce on the basis of mutual consent isn't mandatory & can be waived by the
Courts depending on the facts & circumstances of the case. If the Court dealing with a matter is
satisfied that a case is made out to waive the statutory period Under Section 13B (2), it can do so
after considering the following:

i. The statutory period of six months specified in Section 13B(2), in addition to the
statutory period of one year Under Section 13B(1) of separation of parties is already over
before the first motion itself;
ii. All efforts for mediation/conciliation including efforts in terms of Order XXXIIA Rule 3
Code of Civil Procedure/Section 23(2) of the Act/Section 9 of the Family Courts Act to
reunite the parties have failed and there is no likelihood of success in that direction by
any further efforts;
iii. The parties have genuinely settled their differences including alimony, custody of child
or any other pending issues between the parties;
iv. The waiting period will only prolong their agony.

The waiver application can be filed one week after the first motion giving reasons for the prayer
for waiver. If the above conditions are satisfied, the waiver of the waiting period for the second
motion will be at the discretion of the concerned Court. The Court can also use the medium of
video conferencing and also permit genuine representation of the parties through close relations
such as parents or siblings where the parties are unable to appear in person for any just and valid
reason as may satisfy the Court, to advance the interest of justice.

Ans.4) Facts: ‘A’ instigates B through a letter to kill X. The letter however is lost in transit and
never reaches B
Provision laid: Section 107 of Indian Penal Code which defines abetment as: 

“A person is said to abet the doing of a thing, who: 

1. Instigates any person to do that thing,

2. Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of
that thing,
3. Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.

Explanation: if any person provokes, allures, persuade, threatens, conspires, commands or

intentionally helps any person in doing an illegal act or those acts which are recognised as crime
is said to abet that person.”

Abetment by instigation is of two types. They are:

1. Direct instigation – an act which is done on the direct command and active simulation
of another person. 
2. Instigation by letter – an act committed by instigation through posts or letters. The
offence of instigation completes as soon as the addressee i.e., the person who is being
abetted comes to know of such a thing.

Conclusion: As the letter which instigates B to kill X was lost in transit and never reaches B and
the process of instigation was not completed because in case of instigation by letter The offence
of instigation completes as soon as the addressee i.e., the person who is being abetted comes to
know of such a thing. So, is not liable for any offence. In case of SheoDail Mal, 1894, It was
held that instigation may be direct or it may be through letter. Where A writes a letter to B
instigating thereby to murder C, the offence of abetment by instigation is complete as soon as the
contents of letter becomes now to B.