951. Statements recorded u/s 161 of CrPC cannot be used for any purposes in a trial due to the embargo placed u/s 162 CrPC, however, the power of the Trial Court u/s 165 Evidence Act is wide enough to put questions based on the statement u/s 161 CrPC to any witness or party at any stage to secure the ends of justice. (SC) Decided on: 28.04.2025

952. Arbitration award – Scope of interference -- If two views are possible, there is no scope for the court to re-appraise the evidence and to take the view other than the one taken by the arbitrator -- View taken by the arbitral tribunal is ordinarily to be accepted and allowed to prevail – Scope of interference in arbitral matters is only confined to the extent envisaged u/s 34 of the Act – Court exercising powers u/s 34 has perforce to limit its jurisdiction within the four corners of Section 34 -- It cannot travel beyond Section 34 -- Proceedings u/s 34 are summary in nature and not like a full-fledged civil suit or a civil appeal -- Award as such cannot be touched unless it is contrary to the substantive provisions of law or Section 34 of the 1996 Act or the terms of the agreement -- Arbitral autonomy must be respected and judicial interference should remain minimal otherwise it will defeat the very object of the 1996 Act. (SC) Decided on: 28.04.2025

953. Rape – Refusal to marry – Quashing of FIR -- Relationship was not merely of knowing each other but of living together as a couple under one roof in a rented accommodation -- FIR does not allege that physical relationship was established only because there was a promise of marriage -- Besides, physical relationship continued for over two years without a complaint in between -- A presumption would arise of there being a valid consent – In a long drawn live-in relationship, occasions may arise where parties in that relationship express their desire or wish to formalize the same by a seal of marriage, but that expression of desire, or wish, by itself would not be indicative of relationship being a consequence of that expression of desire or wish – On ground of refusal to marry, the appellant cannot be subjected to prosecution for the offence of rape -- First information report and the consequential proceedings quashed. (SC) Decided on: 28.04.2025

954. Cancellation of bail -- Denying bail – Parameters for denying bail and cancelling bail are quite varied -- Denial of bail is a matter of discretion and can be decided upon without inspecting the details of the matter -- If the Court is of the opinion that the accused is likely to misuse the liberty granted to him, it can deny bail simply on the basis of gravity of the offence -- However, cancellation would amount to curtailment of the liberty already granted to an under trial accused, which cannot be embarked upon in a cursory fashion -- Only if a grave error is highlighted in the order granted bail or it is evident that the accused is misusing the concession, can the Court consider cancellation. (P&H HC) Decided on: 25.04.2025

955. Abetment to suicide -- Jurisprudence regarding the offence of abetment to suicide u/s 306 of the IPC is settled that the offence requires an active act or omission which led the deceased to commit suicide, and this act or omission must have been intended to push the deceased into committing suicide -- Deceased was repeatedly tortured and abused by the accused on account of dowry demand to the extent that the deceased had to return to her parental home seeking refuge -- Went back to her matrimonial home hoping that the events would take an upturn -- However, the abuses hurled at the deceased by the appellant on the day of the incident, acted as a straw that broke the camel’s back and led her to committing suicide -- Guilt of the appellant u/s 306 of the IPC has been proved beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction and sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment upheld. (SC) Decided on: 25.04.2025

956. Breach of Residence / Monetary/ Custody order – FIR for non-compliance – Quashing of FIR -- Penalty for breach of protection order – Mandate of -- The words in Section 31 are plain and ambiguous -- They only mention the protection and interim protection order -- Applying the literal rules of interpretation, Section 31 applies only to the breach of protection orders mentioned in Section 18 and not to residence orders mentioned in Section 19, monetary reliefs mentioned in section 20, custody orders mentioned in Section 21, and compensation orders mentioned in Section 22 -- Had the legislature intended to apply Section 31 to these orders, it would have mentioned them specifically. (H.P. HC) Reserved on: 26.3.2025 Decided on: 25.04.2025

957. Police report – Further invitation – Power of -- Magistrate can exercise the powers for directing further investigation only in exceptional and extraordinary circumstances when there is a serious defect or deficiency in the investigation which is likely to result in miscarriage of justice -- There is no other way to remedy such deficiency or defect in primary investigation. (P&H HC) Reserved on: 20.03.2025 Decided on: 24.04.2025

958. Joint Hindu Family property – Proof of -- Self acquired property – Alienation of -- Plaintiff not in possession of any document to show that he was the owner of the suit property or that the suit property had been purchased out of joint Hindu family funds -- Except for the oral evidence, no documentary evidence was produced in this regard – Once the plaintiff was not able to prove that the suit property had been purchased out of joint Hindu family funds, it can be safely concluded that defendant No.1 was the absolute owner of the suit property and the same was his self-acquired property, he was, therefore, duly competent to alienate the same. (P&H HC) Decided on: 24.04.2025

959. Additional evidence – Rebuttal evidence -- Plaintiff-petitioner is setting up entirely a new case by way of leading additional evidence qua which there are no pleadings -- Jamabandi, which is now sought to be produced to show the possession of the plaintiff-petitioner, was to be produced in the affirmative as the onus was upon plaintiff -- Having not led the evidence in the affirmative, the plaintiff-petitioner cannot now be permitted to fill in the lacuna in the case by leading the said evidence as additional evidence -- Question of permitting the judgment to be produced as additional evidence qua which there are no pleadings would not arise. -- Application itself is totally bereft as to why the said evidence was not led earlier. -- There is not even a whisper that the plaintiff-petitioner was not aware of this evidence at the time of leading his evidence in the affirmative. Application for additional evidence dismissed by Trial court – No fault, revision dismissed. (P&H HC) Decided on: 24.04.2025

960. Appointment of Lambardar -- Acquittal in criminal case – Effect of -- Although the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal cases, however, once a person with clean image/ antecedents available, then no fault can be found in the choice of the Collector in appointing respondent No.4 as lambardar. (P&H HC) Decided on: 24.04.2025

961. Mobile snatching case – Acquittal -- Delay of 5 days in FIR – Non providing of ownership of mobile -- Appellants were not named in the FIR – No Test identification parade/ TIP – If no test identification parade is held, then it will be totally unsafe to rely upon the bare testimony regarding the identification of an accused for the first time in the Court -- Small recovery of sums of Rs.1600/- and Rs.1400/- -- Inordinate and unexplained delay in reporting the matter to the police -- Recovery of money is not sufficient to prove the allegations of snatching -- Held, the trial Court had committed a grave error in convicting the appellants-accused – Conviction and sentence u/s 379-A read with Section 34 of IPC set aside. (P&H HC) Decided on: 24.04.2025

962. Compromise decree – Challenge to – Bar to appeal -- Proviso to Order XXIII Rule 3 is not optional; it is the exclusive first port of call for any party on record who denies the compromise -- Order XLIII Rule 1-A does not create a new right of appeal; it merely enables an appellant, already before the Appellate Court, to attack the decree on the ground that the compromise should not have been recorded -- When the fact of compromise is not disputed, the bar in Section 96(3) is absolute. (SC) Decided on: 23.04.2025

963. Additional evidence – Additional Issue – Remitting back of appeal – Permissibility of -- First Appellate Court is a Court of fact and law both and the application for additional evidence can be allowed -- First Appellate Court erred in remitting the matter back to the trial Court after framing additional issue and permitting the plaintiff to lead additional evidence -- First Appellate Court has neither set aside the judgment of the trial Court on merits nor it has formed an opinion that re-trial of the case is necessary -- Hence, the impugned order passed by the First Appellate Court to the limited extent of remitting the matter back to the lower Court set aside and the first appeal is restored to its original number -- Court will proceed in accordance with Order 41 Rule 25 of the CPC. (P&H HC) Decided on: 22.04.2025

964. Suit for partition – Hindu Undivided Family property -- Suit property already stood partitioned -- Partition effected between the members of the Hindu Undivided Family by their own volition and with their consent cannot be reopened unless it is shown that it was obtained by fraud, coercion, misrepresentation or undue influence, for which strict proof is required -- Plaintiff failed to prove that execution of the family settlement was the result of any fraud – Trial Court dismissed the suit and Appellate Court affirmed the same – Regular Second Appeal dismissed. (P&H HC) Decided on: 22.04.2025

965. Muslim Member of Bar Council – Appointment as member of Waqf Board – Challenge to – Appellant been elected as a member of Bar Council – As such elected as a Member of the Board, in accordance with Section 14(1)(b)(iii) of the 1995 Act -- Respondent No. 3, who is no longer holding the said post of a Muslim Member of the Bar Council, cannot be allowed to contend that even after he had ceased to be a Member of the Bar Council, he would be entitled to continue as a Member of the Board -- Appellant is the only Muslim Member in the Bar Council, a fact that has been rightly taken note of by the State of Manipur, while appointing him as a Member of the Board -- No dispute with respect to the appellant’s eligibility to be a Member of the Board – Appointment upheld. (SC) Decided on: 22.04.2025

966. Regular Second Appeal – Scope of interference -- When the First Appellate Court in exercise of its jurisdiction has considered the entire evidence and rendered a finding, the High Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence just because another view is possible, when the view taken by the First Appellate Court is plausible and does not suffer from vice in law -- When the determination of the High Court is only by way of re-appreciation of the existing evidence, without there being any legal question to be answered, it would be axiomatic that not even a question of law is involved, much less a substantial one. (SC) Decided on: 22.04.2025

967. Quashing of defamation complaint – Appellant-homebuyers, dissatisfied with the services provided by developer, erected a banner detailing their grievances -- Peaceful and orderly protest made without using offensive or abusive language -- It could not be said that the appellants transgressed into the offending zone -- Their case wholly falls within the sweep, scope and ambit of exception 9 to Section 499 -- Their peaceful protest is protected by Article 19(1)(a) (b) and (c) of the Constitution of India -- Criminal proceedings levelled against them, if allowed to continue, will be a clear abuse of process -- Complaint along with the order issuing summons to the appellants u/s 500 read with Section 34 of the IPC quashed and set aside. (SC) Decided on: 17.04.2025

968. Notice for arbitration – Impleadment of parties to whom notice not issued – Power of Arbitration Tribunal – Summary of Conclusions: I. A notice invoking arbitration under Section 21 of the ACA is mandatory as it fixes the date of commencement of arbitration, which is essential for determining limitation periods and the applicable law, and it is a prerequisite to filing an application under Section 11. However, merely because such a notice was not issued to certain persons who are parties to the arbitration agreement does not denude the arbitral tribunal of its jurisdiction to implead them as parties during the arbitral proceedings. (SC) Decided on: 17.04.2025

969. Conviction in cheque bounce complaints – FIR u/s 420 IPC by accused against complainant party – Quashing of FIR – Finding recorded by the jurisdictional criminal court in 138 NI Act proceedings between the parties would be binding to both the parties in any subsequent proceedings involving the same issue – He cannot maintain a prosecution on the basis of allegations which were precisely his defence in the earlier proceedings wherein he was an accused -- Criminal proceedings deserve to be quashed on this ground alone -- Impugned criminal proceedings instituted against the appellant for offences under Section 420 of the IPC, quashed. (SC) Decided on: 16.04.2025

970. Damages to public property – Encroachment over Gram Panchayat land – Adjudication of rights -- Necessity of -- Quashing of criminal proceedings -- As far as criminal proceeding for illegal encroachment, damage or trespass over the land belonging to Gram Sabha is concerned, the same can be undertaken but it would be subject to the adjudication of rights of the parties over the land in dispute as the said determination can be done only by the revenue court -- Continuation of criminal proceedings, being an abuse of process of the Court, ends of the justice requires that the said proceedings be quashed -- Entire proceedings of the Criminal Case quashed. (All. H.C.) Decided on: 15.04.2025

971. Anticipatory bail – Serious Economic offences – SFIO investigated over 125 companies and filed a criminal complaint involving Rs. 4120 crores in fraudulent loans -- The Special Court issued bailable and later non-bailable warrants against the accused, many of whom deliberately evaded service -- Proclamation proceedings u/s 82 CrPC were initiated -- Despite prior knowledge of the case many accused concealed themselves and avoided appearance -- High Courts granted anticipatory bail to several accused. Held, High Courts should also consider the factum of issuance of non-bailable warrants and initiation of proclamation proceedings seriously and not casually, while considering the anticipatory bail application of such accused -- As per Section 212 (6), the offence covered under Section 447 of the Companies Act not entitled to be released on bail or on his bond, unless twin conditions mentioned therein are satisfied. The twin conditions are:- (i) that a Public Prosecutor should be given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release; and (ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. These twin conditions are mandatory in nature. Economic offences constitute a class apart, as they have deep rooted conspiracies involving huge loss of public funds, and therefore such offences need to be viewed seriously -- Impugned orders passed by the High Court granting anticipatory bail set aside. (SC) Decided on: 09.04.2025

972. POCSO – Rape – Compromise quashing of FIR -- Parties have settled the dispute amicably and have also verified the contents of the compromise -- Cognizance/ summoning order, charge-sheet as well as the entire proceedings quashed. (UK HC) Decided on: 09.04.2025

973. Dowry case -- Summoning of additional accused – Quashing of -- Acquittal of main accused – Effect of -- If main accused are acquitted, no criminal proceedings can be sustained against other co-accused on the same set of witnesses – Whenever, there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction valuable time of the Court should not be wasted -- Criminal proceedings cannot be permitted to continue – Petition allowed, summoning the accused u/s 319 Cr.P.C. for facing trial quashed. (UK HC) Decided on: 09.04.2025

974. Recruitment initiated – Advertisement made – Non-challenge to – Effect of -- Private respondent did not challenge the advertisement in its entirety (nor did anyone else) -- Hence, the advertisement holds the field and it is only under this advertisement that the respective rights of the appellant and private respondent can be determined. (SC) Decided on: 09.04.2025

975. Acquittal of main accused – Trial of co-accused u/s 120B IPC -- Quashing of -- Main accused persons acquitted of the charges levelled against them u/s 386 and 120B IPC -- Applicant charge-sheeted only for the offence u/s 120B IPC for the same incident -- No fruitful purpose would be served, if the trial is proceeded against the present applicant -- Petition allowed -- Summoning order as well as the entire proceedings quashed. (UK HC) Decided on: 09.04.2025

976. Limitation – Pleadings -- Where the pleadings are silent, then it becomes the duty of the Court to ascertain from the evidence and the overall facts of the case, as pleaded by either party, and to render a finding on limitation where the question of limitation is to be treated as a question of law, since the Court cannot entertain frivolous or stale claims -- Question of law can be raised at any stage. (SC) Decided on: 09.04.2025

977. Minimum sentence prescribed – Effect of -- Section 9 does not prescribe a minimum sentence for the offence punishable under it -- By amendment minimum sentence made 2 years -- Amendment came into effect on 1st October 2012, whereas the offence was committed on 17th June 2010 and the order of sentence was issued on 11/13th November 2010 -- Said amendment would not be applicable -- Appellant has already been granted remission for the main offence u/s 302 IPC -- However, following the date of remission, the appellant has undergone an additional incarceration of approximately 10 months -- Sentence already undergone would subserve the ends of justice for the offence punishable under the Prisoners Act, 1988. (SC) Decided on: 08.04.2025

978. Construction of deed -- Court must look at the words used in the contract unless they are such that one may suspect that they do not covey the intention correctly -- If the words are clear, there is very little the court can do about it -- In constructing a deed, looking at the surrounding circumstances and subject matter is legitimate only if the words used are doubtful. (SC) Decided on: 08.04.2025

979. Opportunity to file objection -- NGT abdicated its adjudicatory role and let the GPCB and CPCB to proceed and act on their own reports -- GPCB called upon the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs. 8,16,30,000 in terms of the directions of the NGT -- Before accepting the reports and issuing directions based upon it, NGT ought to have given an opportunity to the appellant to rebut the report and question the compensation assessed therein -- This was not done -- Such action of the NGT cannot be countenanced – Order set aside, O.A. before NGT restored. (SC) Decided on: 08.04.2025

980. Cognizance by court -- Summoning order in printed form – Effect of -- Summoning order passed in a printed proforma by filing up the blanks which reveals that the Trial Court has not applied its judicial mind and in a very cursory manner the Trial Court took cognizance -- Summoning order is cryptic -- Cognizance/ summoning order quashed, Trial Court directed to exercise discretionary power and decide afresh while taking cognizance on the charge sheet after taking into consideration the entire materials and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. (UK HC) Decided on: 08.04.2025

981. Interim custody of the Excavator JCB Machine – Magistrate declined custody for want of registration certificate -- Machine was seized in connection with Crime alleging commission of the offence in relation to an incident, in which the operator of the machine died, when the machine accidentally fell from a height while engaged in the process of removing pieces of rubber wood from a property -- Seizure is of a machine and not a vehicle -- As such, there cannot be an insistence on production of registration certificate along with the application seeking its release -- Magistrate shall reconsider. (Kerala HC) Decided on: 08.04.2025

982. Hindu girl conducted marriage under Christian Marriage Act -- Chairman of Town Panchayat -- Reservation as Scheduled caste – Effect upon -- Having voluntarily embraced Christianity, she cannot blow hot and cold, claiming to be a Scheduled Caste for the purpose of 'public employment' -- She cannot identify herself a 'Hindu' after solemnization of marriage under the Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872 -- Conferment of scheduled caste communal status to the 4th respondent, who is a Christian by religion, is nothing but a fraud on the Constitution -- To retain the socio-religious identity of a personality in case of marriages between two persons from two different religions, the only way out which could be adopted by the persons concerned to retain their original religion is to resort to a civil marriage under the Special Marriage Act, 1954. (Madras HC) Reserved on: 08.01.2025 Decided on: 08.04.2025

983. Defamation – Essential proof – To attract the offence of defamation there must be publication of imputation intending to harm reputation of the person who felt defamed -- The person, involving whom such publication is made, must prove that in estimation of others his moral or intellectual character is lowered down as a result of such false imputation -- Further, to prove the said aspect it is the duty cast on the complainant to lead all necessary evidence before whom his image is ill-effected and lowered -- Albeit the complainant-PW.1 in his private complaint and the evidence stated that, the imputations as per Exs.P1(a) to P1(d) sullied his reputation, however, that in itself would not suffice to attract the offence under Section 499 of IPC -- The damage of the reputation can be ascertained and determined by other persons’ estimation. (Karnataka HC) Date of Decision: 08.04.2025

984. Registration of sale deed – Refusal to register -- Power of Registrar – Rule 55A(i) declared ultra vires the 1908 Act -- None of Clauses (a) to (j) of Section 69 provides for framing Rules conferring power on the registering authority to refuse registration of a document of transfer -- No provision under the 1908 Act confers power on any authority to refuse registration of a transfer document -- Unless documents are produced evidencing title as required by Rule 55A(i), registration of the sale deed shall be refused. Held, registering officer is not concerned with the title held by the executant -- He has no adjudicatory power to decide whether the executant has any title -- Even if an executant executes a sale deed or a lease in respect of a land in respect of which he has no title, the registering officer cannot refuse to register the document if all the procedural compliances are made and the necessary stamp duty as well as registration charges/fee are paid – Rule-making power u/s 69 cannot be exercised to make a Rule that is inconsistent with the provisions of the 1908 Act -- Due to the inconsistency, Rule 55A(i) declared ultra vires the 1908 Act. (SC) Decided on: 07.04.2025

985. Rape – Promise to marry -- Discharge of accused -- Appellant and the Complainant came in contact in 2014, during the pendency of matrimonial disputes arising out of the Complainant’s marriage -- It is from day one, she had knowledge and was conscious of the fact, that the Appellant was in a subsisting marriage, though separated – Complainant was receiving financial help from the Appellant for herself and her son -- Complainant cannot plead ‘misconception of fact’ or ‘rape on the false pretext to marry’ -- No evidence to conclude that there was any fraudulent or dishonest inducement – No criminal intimidation -- There is a growing tendency of resorting to initiation of criminal proceedings when relationships turn sour -- Every consensual relationship, where a possibility of marriage may exist, cannot be given a colour of a false pretext to marry, in the event of a fall out -- It is such lis that amounts to an abuse of process of law -- Court deemed fit to terminate the proceedings at the stage of charge itself – Appeal allowed. (SC) Decided on: 07.04.2025

986. Rape – Discharge of accused – Rape – Promise to marry -- Mere fact that physical relations were established pursuant to a promise to marry will not amount to a rape in every case -- An offence u/s 375 IPC could only be made out, if promise of marriage was made by the accused solely with a view to obtain consent for sexual relations without having any intent of fulfilling said promise from the very beginning, and that such false promise of marriage had a direct bearing on the prosecutrix giving her consent for sexual relations – Ingredients of offences u/s 375/ 506 IPC not established -- Trial Court discharged the accused – High Court in revision set aside the order of discharge has undertaken an exhaustive analysis of the allegations in the FIR, and the Charge-sheet, while failing to consider that at the stage of framing of charges, the court must only adjudicate on the basis of material on record – Order of High Court set aside – Criminal proceedings terminated. (SC) Decided on: 07.04.2025

987. Judgment on admissions – Mandatory or discretionary -- Provisions of Rule 6 are enabling, discretionary and permissive -- They are not mandatory, obligatory or peremptory -- If the court is of the opinion that it is not safe to pass a judgment on admissions, or that a case involves questions which cannot be appropriately dealt with and decided on the basis of admission, it may, in exercise of its discretion, refuse to pass a judgment and may insist upon clear proof of even admitted facts. (SC) Decided on: 07.04.2025

988. Murder of wife – Plea of alibi -- Circumstantial evidence -- Acquittal of husband by Trial court -- High Court emphasized that the accused and the deceased were living together and hence, the accused should have an explanation regarding the death of his wife u/s 106 of the Act, 1872 reversed the acquittal without anything other than a finding on alibi having not been proved -- The alibi being a possible and probable explanation, the accused cannot also be found to be in the teeth of Section 106 of the Evidence Act -- Not enough material to upset the order of acquittal of the Trial Court, especially when there was also no evidence led regarding the death being a result of homicide -- No circumstance leading to the guilt of the accused -- Order of the High Court set aside -- Order of acquittal of the Trial Court restored. (SC) Decided on: 07.04.2025

989. Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Liability of Insurance company -- FIR against an unknown vehicle – Effect of – Mere fact that initially the FIR records the vehicle as unknown would not be fatal for the prosecution/ claimants -- Police upon investigation submitted a charge-sheet against the driver of the car -- Inspection report prepared by the Motor Vehicle Inspector discloses a bent on the front right side of the bumper of the car to indicate that it dashed against something, which could have been the scooter of the deceased -- MACT’s Award fastened liability jointly and severally on the owner of the vehicle and the insurance company -- Liability of the respondent no.1/ Insurance company set aside by High Court -- Owner has neither appeared before the MACT nor before the High Court and not even before Supreme Court despite valid service of notice -- Court left with no option but to presume that the owner of the alleged offending vehicle which was the cause of the accident had no defence to offer -- During the police investigation owner of the vehicle admitted to the accident in question having occurred – Appeal allowed, order of the High Court set aside and the order of the MACT restored. (SC) Decided on: 07.04.2025

990. Land acquisition – Corruption – Conspiracy – Quashing of FIR by High Court – Challenge to – Respondent/ Managing Director of the Cooperative Society obtained the lands after verification of the rights on the land from the Collector of the District – Acquisition was for a purpose of developing the land; which has already been completed and allottees of such lands have raised a residential colony in the location – No action u/s 28-A has been taken by the State to repossess the lands – No allegation against the respondent but for a bland allegation of connivance with the officers of the State – No personal benefit even alleged to have accrued to the party respondent – No reason to interfere with the well-reasoned order of the learned Single Judge of the High Court – Special Leave Petition dismissed. (SC) Decided on: 07.04.2025

991. Desertion – Divorce – Desertion is not withdrawal from a particular place, but it is withdrawal from a particular state of things i.e., cohabitation – Desertion is a continuing course of conducts and not a single act – Desertion is deemed complete when the period prescribed in law expires, and a petition for remedy is filed on its ground – However, if the deserter returns before the expiry of the prescribed period, the desertion stands terminated. (Patna HC) Decided on: 07.04.2025

992. Mens rea -- Promoting/ creating or promoting enmity, hatred or ill-will between classes -- Mens rea is a necessary ingredient for the offence u/s 153A -- Mens rea is an equally necessary postulate for the offence u/s 505(2) also -- Balwant Singh and another vs. State of Punjab (1995 3 SCC 214) relied -- Main distinction between the two offences is that publication of the word or representation is not necessary under the former, such publication is sine qua non u/s 505 IPC -- The words "whoever makes, publishes or circulates" used in the setting of Section 505(2) cannot be interpreted disjunctively but only as supplementary to each other. (P&H HC) Decided on: 05.04.2025

993. Criminal Law – Murder – Circumstantial Evidence – Acquittal – Last seen theory -- Prosecution relied on last seen evidence, extra-judicial confessions, and circumstantial evidence including recovery of articles and fingerprints –PW-2 (alleged eyewitness) and PW-12 (last seen witness) disbelieved due to delayed statements – Extra judicial confessional statements disbelieved by High court – Recovery of slippers and a wheel spanner with alleged fingerprints of the accused was held insufficient to establish guilt in absence of a complete and credible chain of circumstantial evidence – Benefit of doubt extended to appellant – Conviction u/s 302 IPC set aside, holding prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence. (SC) Decided on: 04.04.2025

994. Objection u/s 34 of Arbitration Act -- Limitation of three calendar months as opposed to 90 days -- Statutory language of Section 34(3) clearly stipulates the limitation period as “three months”, as opposed to the condonable period as “thirty days” -- This difference in language unambiguously demonstrates the legislative intent that the limitation period is 3 calendar months as opposed to 90 days -- Argument that 3 months must be read as 90 days in the context of Section 34(3), rejected. (SC) Decided on: 03.04.2025

995. Default bail after 60 days – Non-prescribing of minimum punishment/ maximum upto 14 years -- Non-filing of challan -- Effect of -- Section-3 of the Act though, prescribes maximum punishment up to 14 years, there is no minimum punishment provided under the said provision -- Punishment prescribed for the offence punishable us/ 5 of the said Act, is maximum up to three years -- Since, the investigation was not completed in sixty days, the Respondent had become entitled to the default bail under Section 167(2)(a) of Cr.P.C -- High Court has rightly followed the Rakesh Kumar Paul vs. State of Assam, (2017) 15 SCC 67 and released the Respondent on bail. (SC) Decided on: 03.04.2025

996. Rejection of plaint – Non-existence of cause of action – Ground of -- A plaint can never be rejected for non-existence of cause of action, but, a plaint can be rejected for non-disclosure of cause of action -- Non-disclosure of cause of action in a plaint would fall within the ambit of Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C. for rejection of the plaint, but, whereas, non-existence of cause of action would not fall within the ambit of Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C. for rejection of plaint. (Orissa HC) Decided on: 03.04.2025

997. Loss of confidence in employee – Non-approval by Labour Court -- Discharge/ Dismissal from service – Effect upon -- If the approval sought by the employer under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act is not granted by the learned Labour Court, then nothing more is required to be done by the employee as it will have to be deemed that the order of discharge or dismissal was never passed and consequence of it is that the employee is deemed to be in continuous service, entitling him all the benefits. (H.P. HC) Decided on: 03.04.2025

998. Prosecution of Public servant/ police officers – Sanction from Government not taken – Ground of – Quashing of summoning order: (1) abuse of official authority by the accused persons in allegedly implicating the complainant in fabricated criminal cases, purportedly driven by malice or vendetta; (2) physical assault and ill-treatment of the complainant by the accused persons, constituting acts of alleged police excess; (3) wrongful confinement of the complainant; and (4) criminal intimidation of the complainant. Allegations levelled against the accused persons, though grave, squarely fall within the ambit of "acts done under colour of, or in excess of, such duty or authority," and “acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty,” as envisaged under Section 170 of the Police Act and Section 197 of the CrPC respectively -- Summoning order quashed. (SC) Decided on: 03.04.2025

999. Cheating – Quashing of FIR -- Mere breach of promise to repay per se does not infer dishonest intention -- Appellant had clarified he had suffered continuous business setbacks -- Due to losses, he was unable to pay the 2nd non-applicant -- He had sold the coal to a brick manufacturer and suffered losses thereto -- Failure to pay due to unfortunate business losses cannot be clothed with culpability and the process of criminal law utilized to recover outstanding dues -- Proceeding arising out of FIR quashed. (SC) Decided on: 02.04.2025

1000. Cheque bounce complaint -- Financial capacity of Complainant -- Burden of proof -- Loan of Rs.22,00,000/- to accused – Cheque is dated 17.03.2010 -- Complainant is not required, at threshold, to prove his financial capacity unless accused specifically disputes it -- Complainant clearly stated that he had withdrawn amount from bank, accused did not seriously contest said claim – Presumption of High Court that it was obligatory on the part of the complainant to establish his case on the basis of evidence by giving the details of the bank account as well as the date and time of the withdrawal of the said amount and also the date and time of the payment made to the accused, including the date and time of receiving of the cheque is erroneous -- High Court erred in overturning the concurrent findings of guilt and consequential conviction by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court – Conviction restored -- Considering age, the accused may be only subjected to fine and not imprisonment – Sentence modified to only payment of a fine restricted to Rs.32,00,000/- (SC) Decided on: 02.04.2025