151. Execution of decree -- Objections -- An objection petition under Section 47 should not invariably be treated as a commencement of a new trial -- Jurisdiction lies in a narrow compass -- Object of Section 47 is to prevent unwarranted litigation and dispose of all objections as expeditiously as possible -- There is a steady rise of proceedings akin to a retrial which causes failure of realization of the fruits of a decree, unless prima facie grounds are made out entertaining objections under Section 47 would be an abuse of process. (SC) Decided on: 03.11.2025

152. Suit for specific performance – Terminaiton of contract – Effect of – Declaration that termination of contract was invalid – Requirement of -- By accepting Rs.1,95,000 after expiry of six months, D-1 and D-2, firstly, waived their right, as available to them under the contract, to forfeit the advance consideration/ earnest money, Secondly, by such acceptance and endorsement on the back of the agreement they treated the contract as subsisting and, thirdly, by transferring part of the subject matter of the agreement in favour of D-3, even before serving a forfeiture notice, they committed a breach of the contract. In such circumstances, the plaintiff had an option to treat the contract as subsisting and sue for specific performance more so when termination was a void act, no longer permissible under the varied contract -- Suit for specific performance was maintainable even without seeking a declaration that termination of the contract was invalid in law. (SC) Decided on: 29.10.2025

153. Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Violation of terms of Permit – Principe of pay and recover -- Offending vehicle did not have the permit to enter the City, where the accident took place -- Purpose of an insurance policy in the present context is to shield the owner/ operator from direct liability when such an unforeseen/unfortunate incident takes place -- To deny the victim/ dependents of the victim compensation simply because the accident took place outside the bounds of the permit and, therefore, is outside the purview of the insurance policy, would be offensive to the sense of justice, for the accident itself is for no fault of his -- High Court applying the pay and recover principle, is entirely justified and requires no interference. (SC) Decided on: 29.10.2025

154. Rejection of plaint – Res-judicata -- Suit being barred under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC or by res judicata, the trial Court rightly held that the same was a matter of evidence and the plaint could not have been rejected on the said ground. (P&H HC) Decided on: 29.10.2025

155. Advalorem Court fees – Executant of Sale deed – Role of -- Legal position is well settled that where a person, who is not a party to a sale deed, seeks to avoid the same, he may pay a fixed court fee under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 -- However, when the executant of the document himself seeks its cancellation, he must pay ad valorem court fee on the value of the property or consideration mentioned in the document -- This principle is based on the reasoning that an executant, having executed the document, cannot claim it to be void without first paying the fee on the transaction he himself created -- Plea that the sale deeds were obtained by fraud or that full consideration was not paid does not alter their status as executants -- Court Fee Act does not make any distinction between voluntary execution and execution allegedly induced by fraud. (P&H HC) Decided on: 29.10.2025

156. Omission by Investigation officer – Effect of -- Any omission on the part of the investigating officer cannot go against the prosecution’s case. Story of the prosecution is to be examined dehors such omission by the investigating agency. Otherwise, it would shake the confidence of the people not merely in the law enforcing agency but also in the administration of justice. (SC) Decided on: 28.10.2025

157. Corruption case -- Acquittal by trial Court – Conviction in appeal by High Court -- Demand of illegal gratification and Acceptance – Proof of – Sole basis of the prosecution to prove demand and acceptance is the narration of the complainant, a close scrutiny of which reveals serious infirmities -- Both, the DSP and the Inspector of ACB, admit they did not question the complainant on this point, and till date no explanation has ever been offered for keeping Mediator/ R out of the room -- They also admit that they did not question any of the other office staff or visitors -- Other mediator B was not examined by the prosecution at all -- These circumstances are nowhere addressed by the High Court -- Such omissions cannot be brushed aside lightly, as they strike at the root of the prosecution version and cast serious doubt on whether demand and acceptance were proved beyond reasonable doubt – Order of acquittal restored. (SC) Decided on: 28.10.2025

158. Threatening Witness – Offence u/s 195A IPC – FIR by police -- Permissibility of -- Section 195A IPC was conceptualized as an offence distinct and different from those u/ss 193 IPC, 194 IPC, 195 IPC and 196 IPC -- Those offences require a complaint to be made only by those named in Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC and they were all non-cognizable offences -- However, an offence u/s 195A IPC was a cognizable offence -- Threatened witness or other person may take immediate steps by either giving oral information of the commission of this cognizable offence to the concerned police officer, u/s 154 CrPC, or by making a complaint to a jurisdictional Magistrate, u/s 195A CrPC, so as to set the process of criminal law in motion. (SC) Decided on: 28.10.2025

159. Award of the Arbitrator contains an elaborate examination of the terms of contract and a plausible view is taken by way of a reasoned award after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties -- Limited scope available to High Court u/s 37 of the Act -- View taken by the Arbitrator is clearly a permissible view and is in consonance with the Clauses of the NITs/contract – Appeal dismissed. (P&H HC) Decided on: 28.10.2025

160. Abetment to suicide -- Refusal to marry – Quashing of FIR -- Appellant could not be said to have intended the consequences of his act namely suicide -- It is possible that she might have felt hurt -- Mere refusal to marry even if true by itself would not amount to instigation as explained under Section 107 of the IPC -- First Information Report quashed. (SC) Decided on:27.10.2025

161. Sale deed – Challenge to -- Agriculture land – Plea of -- Ad-valorem court fee -- Petitioner has not, at any stage, pleaded that the court fee is liable to be computed on the basis of the land revenue assessed or payable in respect of the suit property -- Instead, the petitioner has affixed court fee treating the suit as one seeking a mere declaration – Held, petitioner, being the executant of the impugned sale deed, is liable to pay advalorem court fee on the sale consideration mentioned therein. (P&H HC) Decided on: 27.10.2025

162. Impleadment as party – Suit for declaration and permanent injunction --Dominus litis – Argument as to Plaintiff/ Petitioner, being dominus litis, is free to choose his defendants, cannot prevail when the relief claimed directly affects third-party rights reflected in the public records -- Petitioner's suit seeks declaration of nullity of a rapat entry and correction of revenue records may have an impact upon any person claiming interest through existing entries or documents. (P&H HC) Decided on: 27.10.2025

163. Culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Sentence – Appellant rushed to a nearby house, picked up an axe and struck a blow on the neck of deceased -- Sessions court in ordered imprisonment of the appellant for 10 (ten) years -- High Court has been indulgent towards the appellant and granted relief to him by reducing the term sentence by 8 (eight) years – Appellant was about 20 years of age at the time of the incident and that there may have been some exasperation in his mind -- Nevertheless, the courts are obligated to adopt a balanced and principled approach in matters of sentencing -- Undue leniency can cause public confidence in the justice system to plummet, while excessive severity may lead to injustice – Held, sentence imposed by the High Court does not call for any interference and that the appellant is not entitled to any relief. (SC) Decided on: 17.10.2025

164. Transfer of suit -- Suit for groundless threat of infringement instituted by the petitioner before the Bombay High Court on 01.07.2025 is prior in time to the institution of the suit for infringement by the respondent no.1 on 07.07.2025 at Delhi High Court -- Jurisdiction at Delhi was invoked by the respondent no.1 by purchasing the product from an online portal and getting it delivered in Delhi -- Question of fact, law, and the issues to be determined in the suit for groundless threat of infringement instituted by the petitioner and the suit for infringement instituted by the respondent no. 1 are substantially overlapping -- In the interest of saving precious judicial time and to avoid duplication and multiplicity of proceedings, it would be expedient to transfer the suit for infringement instituted by the respondent no.1 pending before the Delhi High Court to the Bombay High Court where the suit instituted by the petitioner for Groundless Threat of Infringement is pending – Transfer petition allowed. (SC) Decided on: 17.10.2025

165. Award of Lok Adalat – Refund of Court fee – Right of -- Once a settlement has been arrived at between the parties to the lis before the Permanent Lok Adalat, the entire Court Fee needs to be refunded. (P&H HC) Decided on: 15.10.2025

166. Rejection of plaint – Suit barred by law -- While considering rejection of the plaint thereunder only the averments made in the plaint and nothing else is to be considered to find out whether the suit is barred by law -- At this stage, the defense is not to be considered -- Thus, whether the suit is barred by any law or not is to be determined on the basis of averments made in the plaint. (SC) Decided on: 15.10.2025

167. Interpretation of law -- Clarifications/ circulars/ instructions issued by Government are not binding upon Courts which are supposed to interpret and rely upon statutory provisions (P&H HC) Decided on: 15.10.2025

168. Terminaiton of arbitration proceedings – Whether can be considered as an award -- An order u/s 25(a) does not and cannot amount to an Award as it does not deal with the rights of the parties before the Arbitrator -- Such an order merely terminates the arbitral proceedings on account of the claimant’s default in filing the statement of claim and does not involve any adjudication or determination of the rights or obligations of the parties -- For an order to qualify as an Award, it must decide, either finally or on an interim, an issue forming part of the dispute referred to arbitration -- An order under Section 25(a), being procedural in nature and not addressing the substantive lis between the parties, lacks the essential attributes of an Arbitral Award -- Order terminating the proceedings for non-filing of a statement of claim cannot be considered an award under Sub-section 2 of Section 32. (Delhi HC) Date of Decision: 14.10.2025

169. Permanent injunction – Plaintiff paying Betai -- Rent agreement of tenancy – Requirements of – Suit decreed by both the Courts Trial Court as well First Appellate Court -- Plaintiff duly proved his possession over the suit land by producing extensive revenue record in the form of Jamabandis, Khasra Girdawaris from which it is evident that the plaintiff is in cultivating possession of the suit property -- In the Jamabandi it is also recorded that plaintiff is paying ‘Batai’ – Held, if plaintiff is paying Batai, there is no requirement for the plaintiff to produce rent slip or any Agreement in respect of his tenancy -- From the revenue record, it is also established that the plaintiff is in possession of suit property as Gair Marusi -- Plaintiff has shown his possession over the suit property since 1970 -- Defendants have not only been unable to dispute or controvert the above said comprehensive evidence by way of revenue record produced by the plaintiff – No ground made out to interfere in the impugned judgments and decrees – RSA dismissed. (P&H HC) Decided on: 14.10.2025

170. Gratuity to AFC employee -- Ceiling for gratuity as per AFC’s internal regulations not in sync with the Act -- State Government employees ceiling enhanced to Rs.15,00,000/- -- Interpretation of the regulation must be made which is in favor of the employees -- Regulation 107 of the 2007 Regulations states ‘…maximum of Rs.3.50 lacs or as notified by the Govt. of Assam from time to time…’ -- Appellant’s submission that the payment of enhanced pay scale / allowances must first be approved by the Board of Directors rejected – Held, in case where the limit prescribed by the State Government is higher than the limit set by the AFC, the import of Regulation 107 has to be interpreted in such a manner that the benefit of the higher limit set by the State Government has to be given to the employees of the AFC – High Court granted benefit of the enhanced gratuity in terms of the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 – Appeal of AFC dismissed. (SC) Decided on: 14.10.2025

171. Witness through video-conference – Ld. Trial Magistrate allowed the examination of two witnesses, who are residing in New Zealand and Canada respectively through Video conferencing – Specific direction issued to verify the identity of the witnesses and counsel for complainant directed to furnish the passport and one ID proof of the witnesses as per Government of India/ State Government rules and to furnish details regarding nearest office of the Consulate General of India to the witnesses for necessary further action -- All necessary precautions have been taken while passing the impugned order, thus, does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity and no interference in the impugned order is called for – Petition dismissed. (P&H HC) Decided on: 14.10.2025

172. Additional evidence – Expert-examination by Plaintiff in rebuttal – Permissibility of -- Once defendant-respondent No.1 had not denied her signatures/ thumb impression in the written statement and for the first time denied the same in her cross-examination, the plaintiff-petitioner ought to have been given an opportunity to lead additional evidence to counter the same – In the absence of any such stand having been taken, there was no question of the plaintiff-petitioner leading any evidence to prove that the signatures were hers – Plaintiff-petitioner granted one effective opportunity to lead his evidence. (P&H HC) Decided on: 13.10.2025

173. BNSS Sec. 349 -- Voice sample – Ritesh Sinha’s case (2019) 8 SCC 1 and Kathi Kalu Oghad’s case AIR 1961 SC 1808 permit furnishing of handwriting, signature and finger impressions – Mere furnishing of a sample of the fingerprint, signature or handwriting would not incriminate the person as such – It would have to be compared with the material discovered on investigation, which alone could incriminate the person giving the sample, which would not fall under a testimonial compulsion, thus not falling foul of the rule against self-incrimination – Said sampling is similar to voice sampling, as now possible by reason of the advancing technology – Magistrate allowed voice sample, High Court reversed the order – Appeal allowed reversing the order of the High Court and restoring that of the Magistrate. (SC) Decided on: 13.10.2025

174. Land Acquisition case -- Reference to District judge -- Full particulars of total land acquired not given – Effect of – Petition for amendment in the description of land preferred was allowed – Challenge to -- Landowner not required to give any details; and it was the job of the Collector to provide the complete details of the land of the aggrieved landowner – LAC cannot raise any grievance against direction to pay the amount of enhanced market value of the land, particularly so; because there is not even an argument that the land which was left out of mention in the Reference filed by the landowner, was having a different market value; than the land qua which the market value was determined by the Reference Court – Revision dismissed. (P&H HC) Decided on: 13.10.2025

175. Conviction in two cheque bounce complaints -- Both the cheques were issued for the discharge of single liability – Substantive sentence imposed ordered to run concurrently -- However, the sentence of payment of compensation shall remain intact in each case. (P&H HC) Reserved on: 09.10.2025 Decided on: 13.10.2025

176. Appeal beyond the statutory period of limitation of 30 days – Condonation of delay – Applicability of Section 5 of Limitation Act -- General provisions of the Limitation Act cannot be invoked -- Payment of Wages Act, being a beneficial and self-contained legislation, prescribes not only the manner and mode of appeal but also the conditions precedent for its maintainability, including the mandatory requirement u/s 17(1A) of furnishing a certificate of deposit of the amount payable under the direction appealed against -- This requirement is not directory but mandatory in nature, as it seeks to protect the rights of the workman and ensure that the employer does not frustrate the benefit of the award by filing dilatory appeals. (J&K&L HC) Reserved on: 07.10.2025 Decided on: 10.10.2025

177. Constitution of India, Article 233 (2) – Appointment of Additional District Judge – Direct recruitment process/ Advocate Quota – Eligibility of Judicial officer – Reference answered: (i) Judicial Officers who have already completed seven years in Bar before they were recruited in the subordinate judicial service would be entitled for being appointed as a District Judge/Additional District Judge in the selection process for the post of District Judges in the direct recruitment process; (ii) The eligibility for appointment as a District Judge/Additional District Judge is to be seen at the time of application; (iii) Though there is no eligibility prescribed under Article 233(2) for a person already in judicial service of the Union or of the State for being appointed as District Judge, in order to provide a level playing field, direction given that a candidate applying as an in-service candidate should have seven years’ combined experience as a Judicial Officer and an advocate; (iv) A person who has been or who is in judicial service and has a combined experience of seven years or more as an advocate or a Judicial Officer would be eligible for being considered and appointed as a District Judge/Additional District Judge under Article 233 of the Constitution; (v) In order to ensure level playing field, further direction given that the minimum age for being considered and appointed as a District Judge/Additional District Judge for both advocates and Judicial Officers would be 35 years of age as on the date of application. (vi) It is held that the view taken in the judgments of this Court right from Satya Narain Singh (1985) 1 SCC 225 till Dheeraj Mor (2020) 7 SCC 401, which take a view contrary to what has been held hereinabove do not lay down the correct proposition of law. The reference answered accordingly Consequently, all such rules framed by the State Governments in consultation with the High Courts which are not in accordance with the aforesaid answers shall stand quashed and set aside -- It is directed that all the State Governments in consultation with the High Courts shall frame/amend the rules in accordance with what has been held by us hereinabove, within a period of three months. (SC) Decided on: 09.10.2025

178. Release of murder convict / child after completion of three year custody – Writ jurisdiction – Incident of 2nd November, 1981 -- Petitioner was 12 years 5 months old on the date of the incident -- Sessions Court recorded conviction against the petitioner by taking aid of Section 149 of the IPC -- Purpose for which the Sessions Court directed the petitioner to be kept in a children’s home is no longer feasible now – Petitioner absconded and could be arrested only on 19th May, 2022, and is still in custody -- On the plain terms of Section 7-A, the courts are under an obligation to consider the plea of juvenility and to grant appropriate relief if, at all, in an enquiry it is found that the convict was a juvenile on the date of offence -- Petitioner’s date of birth and his age as on date of the offence are not disputed by the respondent and, thus, no enquiry is needed to ascertain his age -- Petitioner having been behind bars for more than 3 years, his liberty has been curtailed not in accordance with procedure established by law -- Breach of the right guaranteed by Article 21 is writ large and, hence, the benefit of release from detention ought to be extended -- Petitioner ordered to be released, if not wanted in any other case – Writ petition allowed. (SC) Decided on: 09.10.2025

179. Termination – Violation of Natural justice -- Marks in vacation subject – Value of -- Three Intermediate Trained Teachers terminated after the authorities excluded marks obtained in vocational subjects while calculating their total percentage – Held, marks secured in the vocational subject is a way for a candidate to improve his/her overall percentage of marks -- A vocational subject, though optional, would place an additional burden on an examinee which he/she shoulders in the fervent hope of improving his/her overall percentage. (SC) Decided on: 09.10.2025

180. Definition of word ‘dependent’ in Section 2(1)(d)(iii)(d) means “a minor brother or an unmarried sister or a widowed sister if a minor” – In the present time, no one will normally find a widowed sister who is a minor, especially after enactment of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Held, matter needs to be considered by the Law Commission of India for suitable amendment of the aforesaid provision or any other in the 1923 Act. (SC) Decided on: 09.10.2025

181. Severability of contract – Performance of part of contract -- Agreement for construction of eight flats – Agreement was contrary to law and therefore unenforceable – Trial Court applied Section 12 of the Specific Relief Act, directing transfer of the ‘rights over the land’ to the Plaintiff, subject to compliance with the Building Regulations limiting construction to three flats -- Held, Trial Court was not justified in reworking the agreement to make it enforceable by removing its essential object-namely, the construction of eight flats on the subject land -- Trial Court re-wrote the agreement, which it could not have done since the very essence of the agreement was the construction of eight flats -- Respondent is a public sector bank and it is not expected from the State or its instrumentalities to enter into camouflage agreements and especially where the object of the agreement would result in law being violated – Suit dismissed. (SC) Decided on: 09.10.2025

182. Resjudicata in execution proceedings -- Principles of res judicata available in Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code are not applicable to the execution proceedings. (Orissa HC) Decided on: 09.10.2025

183. Parole – To accompany his ailing wife who is suffering from various diseases and maintain social ties with his daughter who is settled in Australia – Held, parole serves a reformative and humanitarian purpose by preserving family ties and supporting rehabilitation -- Despite directions dated 16.09.2025 requiring a decision on his parole within two weeks, the authorities failed to comply -- Such administrative delay cannot be allowed to prejudice the petitioner’s rights -- While parole, no doubt, is a concession, but it is, in essence, a reformative measure grounded in Article 21 of the Constitution, ensuring the right to life with dignity even during incarceration -- Petitioner ordered to be released on parole for four weeks. (Delhi HC) Decided on: 09.10.2025

184. Commercial suit – Written statement not filed – Right to cross-examine survives -- After the examination-in-chief of PW1 was closed, the cross-examination of Defendant no. 1 was taken as “Nil” by the Trial Court on the ground that defendant had failed to file their written statement within stipulated time -- Said reason is absolutely perverse and is contrary to the right of defence available to the defendant -- Purpose of cross-examination is to elicit the truth from the witness and impeach its credibility -- When the WS was not allowed to be taken on record, the denial of the right to cross-examine cannot be taken away. Ranjit Singh’s case 2024 INSC 724 relied. (SC) Decided on: 08.10.2025

185. Acquittal – Cheque bounce complaint dismissed in default -- Appeal against an order of acquittal in a proceeding u/s of the N. I. Act preferred by the complainant squarely falls within the ambit of proviso to Section 372 of Cr.P.C. -- Petition along with the accompanying application ordered to be remitted to the Court of learned Sessions Judge. (P&H HC) Decided on: 08.10.2025

186. Conviction in cheque bounce complaint – Compromise at revision stage – Setting aside of conviction/ sentence -- Acquittal -- In case of dishonour of cheque, accused convicted, there is no stage prescribed for compounding of offence -- Petitioner permitted to compound the offence -- Considering the mitigating circumstances of the petitioner cost reduced to Rs.5,000/- -- Judgment of conviction/ order of sentence recorded by the trial Court and affirmed by the appellate Court set aside -- Petitioner acquitted. (P&H HC) Decided on: 01.10.2025

187. Cheque bounce complaint -- Jump of bail – Proclaimed person – Primary object of every Court is only to examine the commission of crime in question before it viz-a-viz the person/ accused, who is subjected to such proceedings, and if possible justice be imparted at the earliest without unnecessary delay -- Not expected that undue time would be devoted in securing the presence of absconded accused and also to waste energy by enforcing the special mechanism to arrest such accused -- When the petitioner came to know about passing of the impugned order, the petitioner immediately moved the petition, showing his inclination to submit himself before the trial Court – Impugned order set aside to the extent of declaring the petitioner as ‘proclaimed person’ -- Petitioner ordered to be released on bail. (P&H HC) Decided on: 01.10.2025

188. Additional evidence -- Documents which respondent-plaintiff is allowed to be proved by way of additional evidence are mutations and copy of amended site plan along with mutation which is official record and cannot be manipulated and as regards site plan is concerned, the same is also on record and it will definitely help the Court in arriving at the just conclusion and to effectively dispose of the litigation between the parties – Held, the learned Civil Judge has not exercised the jurisdiction in perverse manner and has not committed any material illegality or irregularity warranting interference by this Court -- Finding no merits, revision petition dismissed. (P&H HC) Decided on: 30.09.2025

189. Anticipatory bail – Visa by illegal means -- Rs. 50 lacs paid for sending son to USA directly -- Donkey method adopted -- Although the complainant also knew that they were paying money to obtain a Visa through illegal means, and undoubtedly later cried foul, it is akin to the kettle calling the pot black -- However, a con cannot seek bail because of the victim’s stupidity or cunningness and shrewdness -- A perusal of the bail petition and the documents attached primafacie points towards the petitioner’s involvement and does not make out a case for anticipatory bail -- Impact of crime would also not justify anticipatory bail – Bail declined. (P&H HC) Reserved on: 01.09.2025 Decided on: 30.09.2025

190. Appointment of Lambardar – Ld. Single Judge by giving details of both the candidates has found that the respondent No.4 was better suited than the appellant coupled with the fact that respondent No.4 has been working for the last 28 years, it will not be in the interest to dislodge the respondent No.4 from the said post -- No perversity in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge -- Mere passage of time can, on occasion, give rise to judicial discretion to be exercised by the Courts, which has rightly been exercised by the learned Single Judge – Respondent No.4 is more educated than the appellant and both almost are having same land holding in the village and respondent No.4 has worked as Sarbara Lambardar at the time when he was appointed -- LPA dismissed. (P&H HC) Decided on: 29.09.2025

191. Appointment of Lambardar – Age – Land holding -- Appointed candidate/ Respondent No.4 has the land in the village of which he has been appointed as Lambardar and his name was recommended by the Tehsildar as well as by the Sub Division Magistrate, which was accepted by the all the authorities, whereas no land is owned by the appellant in the village -- Appellant is 24 years of age and respondent No.4 is 30 years of age -- Six years difference between the age is not such that it will tilt the pendulum in favour of the appellant -- No ground made out for interference – LPA dismissed. (P&H HC) Decided on: 29.09.2025

192. Rent laws -- Tenancy -- Oral assertions regarding subsistence of tenancy was not rebutted at all -- Defendant has not even appeared in the witness box -- Petitioner has placed on record house tax assessment showing that petitioner/ tenant was recorded as a tenant on monthly rent of Rs.1,750/- therein -- If the ocular account given by landlord is appreciated in the light of other material i.e. sale deed in favour of his parents, electricity connection in tenanted premises in his name and house rent assessment where respondent is shown as tenant, the conclusion would be regarding existence of tenancy. (P&H HC) Decided on: 26.09.2025

193. Culpable homicide not amounting to murder -- Evidence of PW-1 reveal that even though the accused appellants were having sharp weapons (pike, spear, etc.), they had only used the blunt side of the said weapons -- PW-2 son of deceased turned hostile -- Medical evidence would also show that all the three deceased persons had lacerated and contused wounds only and there were no incised wounds -- No material on record to show that they had the intention to kill them -- There was prior enmity over the measurement of agricultural fields -- Conviction u/s 302 IPC would not be tenable and is liable to be converted to one under Section 304 Part I of IPC – Accused/ appellants have already undergone sentence of more than 12 years – Sentence reduced to already undergone. (SC) Decided on: 26.09.2025

194. Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Not permissible in law for the High Court to apply the parameters under Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 regarding fixing of income when the compensation was assessed and fixed by the Tribunal in a claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V. Act by applying principles under the said Act. (SC) Decided on: 26.09.2025

195. Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Injury case – Death of injured – Right of Legal Heirs – Right to claim compensation for the injuries caused in a motor vehicle accident survives on the legal representatives of the injured even if the injured dies in the course of the proceedings for reasons not relatable to or having any nexus with the injuries sustained. (SC) Decided on: 26.09.2025

196. Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Proof of accident -- Registration of FIR -- It is on preponderance of probabilities that the proof of accident is looked at in a motor accidents claim -- An FIR registered as against the driver of the offending vehicle can be relied on to find the accident having been caused by the driver of the offending vehicle, that too by his rash and negligent driving as reported at the first instance -- However, the preponderance of probabilities that arise from such an FIR registered would not have the same probity if there is a valid suspicion raised on the registration of the FIR and the falsity of the claim being clearly discernible from the evidence led itself. (SC) Decided on: 26.09.2025

197. Abetment to suicide – Anticipatory bail -- Deceased is husband of the petitioner -- No suicide note had been recovered -- Petitioner was having matrimonial discord and was residing separately from the deceased husband since the last about one year -- Deceased tried to commit suicide about six months ago also -- No such allegation that the deceased immediately consumed poisonous substance after alleged quarrel at his in-laws’ house at Kathua itself -- Custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required for any purpose and nothing is to be recovered from her -- No useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner behind the bars – Bail allowed. (P&H HC) Decided on: 26.09.2025

198. Civil suit pending – Maintainability of Writ petition -- Writ petition is not maintainable, dismissed -- Dismissal would have no bearing on the pending civil suit. (P&H HC) Decided on: 26.09.2025

199. Motive -- Disclosure statement – Reliance upon -- For drawing an inference pertaining to motive, the trial Court relied upon the document which was a disclosure made by respondents -- Manifestly, the use of the said document was limited to the extent permitted u/s 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 -- Inculpatory narrative recited therein could not have been used to draw any inference regarding motive, which was required to be established from substantive evidence. (SC) Decided on: 26.09.2025

200. Quashing of FIR -- Parameters -- If the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint, even when taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out any case against the accused, quashing of the proceedings would be justified. (SC) Decided on: 26.09.2025