***

Court fee -- Refund of excess court fee -- Issue of court fee is a matter between plaintiff and Court -- Issuance of notice to defendants and affording them opportunity of hearing not necessary.

***

Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870), Sections 10 and 11 -- Refund of court fee -- Excess court fee -- Issue of court fee is a matter between plaintiff and Court -- Defendants have no role to play in adjudication of claim for refund of excess court fee -- Issuance of notice to defendants and affording them opportunity of hearing not necessary.

(Para 9, 10)

***

Co-sharer property -- Purchaser from co-sharer acquires only such rights and possession as vendor himself possessed and cannot claim exclusive possession unless vendor was in exclusive possession of specific khasra numbers.

***

Permanent injunction -- Joint property -- Co-sharer in joint possession is not entitled to injunction restraining other co-sharers from alleged interference on basis of claim of exclusive possession not proved.

***

Revenue record -- Exclusive possession -- Burden of proof -- Failure to produce revenue record showing vendor's exclusive possession prior to sale deed is fatal to claim of exclusive possession by vendee.

***

Additional evidence -- Relevancy -- Sale deed relating to different khasra numbers and executed by a person not party to suit is neither relevant nor necessary for adjudication of dispute and cannot be permitted in appeal.

***

A. Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 8 -- Co-sharer property -- Sale by co-sharer -- Vendor being co-sharer in joint property could transfer only such rights and possession as he himself possessed -- Purchaser cannot claim exclusive possession unless vendor was established to be in exclusive possession of specific khasra numbers at time of sale.

(Paras 13 to 16)

B. Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 38 -- Permanent injunction -- Joint possession -- Vendor not proved to be in exclusive possession of suit land -- Purchaser held only a co-sharer in joint possession -- Not entitled to injunction restraining other co-sharers from interference with suit property.

(Paras 14 to 16)

C. Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 34 -- Revenue record -- Khasra Girdawari -- Exclusive possession -- Khasra Girdawari reflected possession of different co-sharers and joint possession of suit land -- Absence of any revenue record showing exclusive possession of vendor prior to execution of sale deed negatived purchaser's claim of exclusive possession.

(Paras 14 and 15)

D. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), Order 41 Rule 27 -- Additional evidence -- Additional evidence sought to be produced related to different khasra numbers and purchase of share from a person not party to suit -- Evidence neither relevant nor necessary for adjudication of appeal -- Application rightly dismissed.

(Para 16)

***

Ancestral property -- Estate inherited by unmarried and issueless brother from common ancestor attained character of self-acquired property in his hands.

***

Ancestral property -- Father could not suffer consent decree in favour of one son to exclusion of other son having a right by birth in the property.

***

Ancestral property -- Property in which plaintiff had a right by birth could not be subjected to family settlement excluding him.

***

A. Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (30 of 1956), Section 6 -- Property inherited from ancestor -- Nature of property -- Estate inherited by unmarried and issueless brother from common ancestor attained character of self-acquired property in his hands.

(Para 15)

B. Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (30 of 1956), Section 6 -- Ancestral property -- Consent decree -- Father had no authority to suffer consent decree in favour of one son to exclusion of other son in respect of ancestral property -- Plaintiff acquired right in property by birth -- Decree not binding to extent of plaintiff's share.

(Para 16)

C. Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (30 of 1956), Section 6 -- Ancestral property -- Family settlement -- Subject matter of family settlement being ancestral property in which plaintiff had a right by birth could not be subjected to family settlement excluding plaintiff.

(Para 16)

***

Execution proceedings -- Conditional warrants of arrest -- Where decree provides recovery by sale of mortgaged property, arrest of judgment-debtor cannot be resorted to without first proceeding against mortgaged property.

***

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), Section 51, Order 21 Rule 37 -- Execution of decree -- Arrest of judgment-debtor -- Decree directing recovery of amount through sale of mortgaged property first -- Execution Court is required to proceed against mortgaged property before resorting to coercive arrest of judgment-debtor -- Conditional warrants of arrest held unsustainable.

(Paras 4 to 6)

***

Withdrawal of suit -- Suit for injunction based on alleged construction is disputed by defendant and material on record shows no such construction -- Withdrawal with liberty to refile cannot be permitted.

***

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), Order 23 Rule 1 -- Withdrawal of suit with liberty to institute fresh -- Suit for injunction based on alleged construction is disputed by defendant and material on record shows no such construction -- Withdrawal with liberty to refile cannot be permitted -- Dismissal of application upheld.

(Paras 6 to 9)

***

Status quo order -- Allegation that respondents/plaintiffs violated status quo by starting business/working in shops -- Even then, petitioner/defendant cannot unilaterally seal shops during subsistence of status quo order.

***

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 -- Status quo order -- Allegation that respondents/plaintiffs violated status quo by starting business/working in shops -- Even then, petitioner/defendant cannot unilaterally seal shops during subsistence of status quo order -- Such action held unsustainable and direction for de-sealing upheld.

(Paras 2 and 3)

***

First appeal -- Substantial compliance with Order 41 Rule 31 CPC -- Detailed reappreciation by First Appellate Court sufficient to sustain reversal of Trial Court decree.

***

Fraud -- Registered GPA-based sale transactions – Plaintiff failed to establish that transactions were mere loan-security arrangements or were vitiated by fraud – Burden of proof remains on plaintiff; in absence of foundational facts, presumption of genuineness of registered sale transactions stands.

***

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Act No. V of 1908), Section 96 read with Order 41 Rule 31 – First Appellate Court, being the final court on facts, is required to independently reappreciate entire evidence and assign reasons while reversing Trial Court decree – Requirement is of substantial compliance and not mere technical formality – Detailed reappreciation of oral and documentary evidence, including loan transactions, Exs. B7 and B9, possession, mutation entries, limitation and conduct of parties, held sufficient compliance – Judgment not liable to be interfered with on ground of alleged non-compliance with Order XLI Rule 31 CPC.

(Para 40-42)

B. Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (Act No. IV of 1882), Sections 53A, 54 and 55 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Act No. 1 of 1872), Sections 101 to 103 – Registered GPA – Execution of sale deeds pursuant to GPAs – Fraud alleged -- Burden of proof – Appellant executed registered GPAs in favour of respondents; original title deeds were handed over and registered sale deeds executed followed by mutation entries and subsequent transfers – Burden to prove that transactions were only loan-security arrangements and not genuine sale transactions lies upon the plaintiff – Mere allegation of fraud or fiduciary misuse is insufficient without foundational facts – Burden does not shift to respondents unless foundational facts are first established.

(Paras 43, 44)

C. Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (Act No. IV of 1882), Sections 54 and 55 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Act No. 1 of 1872), Sections 101 to 103 and 114 – Registered sale deeds pursuant to GPA – Fraud alleged – Delay and conduct – Appellant executed registered GPAs and sale deeds in 1998; mutation entries continued for several years and multiple subsequent transactions were effected – No cancellation of GPAs or legal action for nearly a decade – Explanation of delayed knowledge rejected in view of appellant and PW-1 being engaged in real estate business – Non-examination of appellant and attesting witnesses to receipts and GPAs – No expert evidence of forgery or interpolation – Plea of forgery of Exs. B7 and B9 rejected – Appeal dismissed.

(Paras 45-58)

***

Lambardar -- Appointment upheld as proclamation was duly conducted and petitioner failed to apply in time; Collector’s choice found non-perverse -- Writ petition dismissed.

***

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 13, 16 – Constitution of India, Articles 226/227 – Appointment of Lambardar – Mustri munadi/proclamation – Challenge to appointment – Record showing due proclamation in village including entry in rojnamcha and statements of Panchayat members – Petitioner failed to apply within prescribed time and thus has no locus standi – Financial Commissioner upheld Collector’s order after comparative assessment of candidates and found no perversity in Collector’s decision – Choice of Collector in Lambardar appointment not to be interfered with unless perverse – Writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 not to be exercised to re-appreciate merits – Writ petition dismissed.

(Paras 7 to 9)

***

Partition of land -- Challenge to concluded partition proceedings under Haryana Land Revenue Act -- No objection raised at stage of mode of partition/Naksha Bey/Naksha Jeem -- Tubewell land already allotted and landlocked khasra not entitled to separate Rasta -- Partition upheld as involving equitable adjustment and not mathematical precision -- Writ petitions dismissed.

***

Haryana Land Revenue Act, 1887 (Act No. XVII of 1887), Sections 111, 114, 116, 118, 121, 122 and 125 -- Constitution of India, Articles 226/227 -- Partition proceedings -- Mode of partition -- Clause providing that partition will be carried out while maintaining possession -- Petitioners challenging partition on ground of violation of mode of partition, non-allotment of tubewell land, absence of Rasta and unfair partition -- Petitioners already allocated area where tubewell installed has been allotted to them -- No reasonable basis to claim entire Killa number -- Claim for separate Rasta rejected as land found landlocked and not abutting any existing revenue passage -- No occasion for providing Rasta to land locked area -- Petitioners did not raise objections to mode of partition or Naksha Bey and Naksha Jeem at relevant stage -- Partition proceedings completed with Sanad Taksim -- Partition cannot be carried out with mathematical precision and adjustments are required depending upon various factors including possession, location, nature and value of land and passage -- Writ petitions dismissed.

(Paras 7 to 12)

***

Circumstantial evidence -- Murder -- Last seen together theory, extra-judicial confession and recoveries failed to establish a complete chain of incriminating circumstances linking accused to the murder -- Conviction set aside and accused acquitted.

***

Circumstantial evidence -- Last seen together theory -- Where time gap is large and possibility of intervening circumstances exists, last seen circumstance cannot be treated as an incriminating circumstance against accused.

***

Extra-judicial confession -- Weak piece of evidence -- Exculpatory statement implicating co-accused and made while accused were detained by villagers lacks credibility and cannot form basis of conviction.

***

Recovery of weapon -- Recovery from an open and accessible place without proof of concealment does not satisfy requirements of Section 27.

***

Murder -- Circumstantial evidence -- Motive -- Absence of motive assumes significance where chain of circumstances is not complete and raises a reasonable doubt.

***

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 302 and 34 -- Murder -- Circumstantial evidence -- Last seen together theory, extra-judicial confession and recoveries failed to constitute a complete chain of incriminating circumstances pointing only to guilt of accused -- Conviction set aside and accused acquitted.

(Paras 18 and 20)

B. Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Sections 3 and 114 -- Circumstantial evidence -- Last seen together theory -- Proximity between last seen circumstance and death is essential -- Where time gap is large and possibility of intervening circumstances exists, last seen circumstance cannot be treated as an incriminating circumstance against accused.

(Paras 7 to 9)

C. Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Sections 24 and 30 -- Extra-judicial confession -- Weak piece of evidence -- Exculpatory statement absolving maker and implicating co-accused is inherently unreliable -- Alleged confession made while accused were detained by villagers under accusation of murder lacked credibility and could not form basis of conviction.

(Paras 10 and 11)

D. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 27 -- Recovery of weapon -- Concealment and knowledge of accused are crucial ingredients of discovery under Section 27 -- In absence of any statement regarding concealment, recoveries made from an open and accessible place do not qualify as recoveries under Section 27 -- Recoveries are of no avail.

(Paras 12 to 15)

E. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 -- Murder -- Circumstantial evidence -- Motive -- Though motive is not imperative where chain of circumstances is so complete as to establish only a hypothesis of guilt, absence of motive assumes significance where prosecution case raises a reasonable doubt.

(Para 17)

***

Attempt to murder -- No material suggesting prior planning, preparation or concerted intention to cause death -- Incident having occurred suddenly when complainant intervened in ongoing altercation, prosecution failed to establish requisite intention or knowledge under Section 307 IPC -- Conviction altered from Section 307/34 IPC to Section 325/34 IPC.

***

Attempt to murder -- Ingredients of offence -- Intention or knowledge to commit murder coupled with an overt act towards its commission are essential -- Nature of injury is not decisive and even simple injuries may attract Section 307 IPC where requisite mens rea is established.

***

Grievous hurt -- Ocular version corroborated by medical evidence -- Participation of accused in causing injuries proved beyond reasonable doubt -- Fractures in both parietal bones near midline with neurological complications and prolonged hospitalization constituted grievous hurt -- Conviction under Section 325/34 IPC justified.

***

Attempt to murder -- Intention -- Words "such intention" in Section 307 IPC refer to intention contemplated under Section 300 IPC -- In absence of proof of intention to cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, conviction under Section 307 IPC cannot be sustained, though such intention may be inferred from weapon used, motive, part of body targeted, nature of injuries and surrounding circumstances.

***

Attempt to murder -- Injury dangerous to life -- Gravity of injury by itself is not determinative of offence under Section 307 IPC and intention to commit murder cannot be presumed merely because injuries were opined to be dangerous to life.

***

Attempt to murder -- Weapons used were ordinary lathis which, in facts of case, could not be regarded as inherently deadly weapons -- No conduct indicative of determined effort to cause death -- Offence held to fall under Section 325 IPC and not Section 307 IPC.

***

Sentence -- Conviction altered from Section 307 IPC to Section 325 IPC -- Accused having undergone substantial period of imprisonment and remained on bail for long period, sentence reduced to period already undergone -- Fine of Rs.50,000/- each directed to be paid to injured, with six months' simple imprisonment in default.

***

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 307 and 325 -- Attempt to murder -- Voluntarily causing grievous hurt -- No material suggesting prior planning, preparation or concerted intention on part of accused to cause death of complainant -- Incident occurred suddenly when complainant intervened in ongoing altercation -- Assault arose in heat of moment and as spontaneous reaction rather than pursuant to any pre-conceived intention to eliminate complainant -- Prosecution failed to establish requisite intention or knowledge necessary to attract Section 307 IPC -- Conviction altered from Section 307/34 IPC to Section 325/34 IPC.

(Paras 33 to 38)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 307 -- Attempt to murder -- Ingredients of offence -- To constitute offence under Section 307 IPC, prosecution must establish both intention or knowledge to commit murder and an overt act towards commission thereof -- Conviction can be sustained only where, had death ensued from such act, offence of murder punishable under Section 302 IPC would have been made out -- Nature of injury not determinative -- Accused cannot be acquitted merely because injuries inflicted were simple in nature, intention or knowledge being the decisive factor.

(Paras 26 and 27)

C. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 320 Seventhly, 320 Eighthly and 325, 34 -- Grievous hurt – Common intention -- Injured witness and eyewitness consistently attributed specific roles to accused -- Ocular version corroborated by medical evidence -- Participation of accused in causing injuries proved beyond reasonable doubt -- Fractures in both parietal bones near midline accompanied by neurological complications and prolonged hospitalization -- Conviction under Section 325/34 IPC justified.

(Paras 29, 36, 37)

D. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 307 and 300 -- Attempt to murder -- Intention -- Words "such intention" occurring in Section 307 IPC refer to intention contemplated under Section 300 IPC -- Intention to cause death, intention to cause such bodily injury as offender knows to be likely to cause death, or intention to cause bodily injury sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death must be established -- In the absence of proof of intention, a conviction under this provision cannot be sustained -- Intention, however, can be inferred from surrounding circumstances, such as the type of weapon employed, the words spoken by the accused at the time of the incident, the motive behind the act, the parts of the body targeted, the nature and extent of the injuries inflicted, as well as the force and manner in which the blows were delivered.

(Paras 31 and 32)

E. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 307 -- Attempt to murder -- Injury dangerous to life -- Gravity of injury by itself cannot be determinative of offence under Section 307 IPC -- Intention to commit murder cannot be presumed merely because injuries were ultimately opined to be dangerous to life.

(Para 35)

F. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 307 and 325 -- Attempt to murder -- Weapons used were ordinary lathis -- Though capable of causing grievous hurt depending upon manner of use, could not in facts of case be regarded as inherently deadly weapons -- No conduct indicative of determined effort to cause death -- Offence held to fall under Section 325 IPC.

(Paras 34 and 38)

G. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 325 -- Sentence -- Conviction altered from Section 307 IPC to Section 325 IPC -- Accused had undergone substantial period of imprisonment and remained on bail for long period -- Sentence reduced to period already undergone -- Fine of Rs.50,000/- each imposed payable to injured, with six months' simple imprisonment in default.

(Paras 40 to 42)

***

Anticipatory bail -- Complainant induced to part with Rs.3.55 crores towards purchase of property and thereafter property transferred to third party -- Civil remedy no ground to dilute criminal allegations -- Anticipatory bail, cancelled.

***

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 482 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506, 120-B and 34 -- Anticipatory bail -- Cancellation of -- Allegation of inducing complainant to part with Rs.3.55 crores towards purchase of property and thereafter transferring property to third party -- High Court granted anticipatory bail on grounds that agreement to sell was unregistered, entire sale consideration had not been paid and complainant had sought refund of amount paid -- Criminal antecedents of accused, seriousness of allegations, magnitude of economic offence and requirements of investigation not considered -- Mere availability of civil remedy or demand for refund does not efface allegations of cheating and fraud -- Grant of anticipatory bail held to be an improper exercise of discretion -- Anticipatory bail, cancelled.

(Paras 14 to 22)

***

Dishonour of cheque -- Vicarious liability -- Complaint must be read as a whole -- Participation in antecedent financial transactions and execution of documents constitutes sufficient foundation for prosecution under Section 141 N.I. Act -- Mere status as office-bearer, without specific role in transaction, insufficient to attract liability.

***

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Sections 138, 141 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 482 -- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 528 -- Dishonour of cheque -- Vicarious liability -- Society -- Office-bearers -- Quashing of complaint -- High Court quashed proceedings against Vice-President, Treasurer, Executive Member and Manager of borrowing Society on ground of absence of specific averments -- Complaint alleging respondents were in-charge of and responsible for affairs of Society -- MoU, promissory notes and allied financial documents showing participation of Vice-President, Treasurer and Manager in underlying borrowing transaction -- Treasurer also signatory to dishonoured cheque -- Complaint required to be read as a whole and not in isolated fragments -- Participation in antecedent financial transactions and execution of documents constituted sufficient foundational material for continuation of prosecution against Vice-President, Treasurer and Manager -- No specific role, document or material connecting Executive Member with transaction -- Mere status as office-bearer, without specific role in transaction, insufficient to attract liability -- Quashing set aside qua Vice-President, Treasurer and Manager and upheld qua Executive Member.

(Paras 27 to 43)

***

Further investigation -- Third round of further investigation without leave of Magistrate -- Civil dispute given criminal colour -- Abuse of process of law -- FIR and chargesheet quashed.

***

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 173(8) -- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 193(9) -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 406, 420, 468, 471 and 34 -- Further investigation -- Permission of Magistrate -- Requirement of -- Closure reports filed twice recording dispute to be civil in nature -- Third round of further investigation undertaken and chargesheet filed without obtaining leave of Magistrate -- Permissibility of -- Business dispute relating to alleged joint venture, investment and sharing of profits -- Allegations arising out of commercial relationship between parties -- No satisfactory explanation for delayed allegations of forgery -- Held, obtaining leave of Magistrate for further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C./Section 193(9) BNSS is a necessary requirement -- Chargesheet founded on unauthorized further investigation unsustainable -- Dispute predominantly civil in nature and continuation of criminal proceedings amounted to abuse of process of law -- FIR, chargesheet and all consequential proceedings quashed.

(Paras 8 to 15)

***

Appeal against acquittal -- Reversal of acquittal -- Conviction by appellate court -- Sentencing -- Appellate court cannot remit matter to trial court for hearing on sentence and imposition of sentence after recording conviction.

***

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Sections 235(2), 386(a) -- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Sections 258, 427 -- Appeal against acquittal -- High Court reversed acquittal and convicted appellant under Sections 376 and 312 IPC -- Instead of hearing appellant on question of sentence, High Court directed trial court to take appellant into custody and impose sentence after hearing him -- Permissibility of -- Appellate court convicting accused for first time after reversing acquittal is itself required to hear him on question of sentence and thereafter pass sentence according to law -- Judicial function of sentencing cannot be delegated to trial court -- Direction remitting matter to trial court for imposition of sentence set aside -- Matter remitted to High Court for hearing appellant on sentence and passing appropriate sentencing order.

(Paras 12 to 22)

***

Promotion -- Non-communication of ACRs -- Destruction of service records during pendency of litigation -- Award of fractional marks without enabling provision -- Adverse inference against employer -- Prejudice in consideration for promotion -- Entitlement to notional promotion and pensionary benefits.

***

Constitution of India, Articles 14, 16 -- Service Law – Promotion -- Non-communication of ACRs -- Destruction of service records -- Appellant's ACR entries were never communicated despite specific request -- Relevant service records/ ACRs weeded out during pendency of judicial proceedings though required to be preserved till conclusion of litigation -- Selection Committee awarded appellant 19.5 marks though promotion policy contemplated only whole-number grading and no provision for fractional marks existed -- Adverse inference liable to be drawn against respondents -- Cumulative effect of non-supply of ACRs, destruction of service records and unexplained award of fractional marks established prejudice in consideration for promotion -- Appellant held entitled to notional promotion to HAG grade and consequential refixation of pensionary benefits -- Arrears of salary for period prior to retirement declined.

(Paras 13 to 19)

***

Cruelty -- General and omnibus allegations -- Letters allegedly written by deceased -- Handwriting not proved and contents vague -- No reliance can be placed thereon -- Conviction cannot be sustained in absence of specific instances, particulars or reliable evidence.

***

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 498-A and 304-B -- Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961), Section 4 -- Cruelty -- Dowry demand -- Suicide by wife -- Acquittal -- Trial Court acquitted accused under Section 304-B IPC holding that demand of dowry was not proved -- Conviction under Section 498-A IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act recorded on basis of oral testimony and letters allegedly written by deceased -- Allegations of dowry demand and cruelty found general and omnibus without specific instances, particulars or identification of persons making demands -- Alleged letters not proved in accordance with law, handwriting of deceased not established and contents did not disclose any definite harassment or cruelty -- Held, evidence fell short of establishing cruelty or unlawful demand within meaning of Section 498-A IPC -- Conviction unsustainable -- Judgments of Trial Court and High Court set aside -- Appellant acquitted.

(Paras 2, 5 to 12)

***

Rejection of plaint -- Cause of action -- Res judicata -- Plaint disclosed cause of action challenging sale deed on grounds of fraud and absence of consideration -- Plea of res judicata held premature at stage of Order VII Rule 11 CPC -- Revision dismissed.

***

Constitution of India, Article 227 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 -- Rejection of plaint -- Cause of action -- Res judicata -- Defendant sought rejection of plaint on grounds that no cause of action was disclosed and suit was barred by principle of res judicata due to pendency of another suit and counter-claim -- Plaintiff sought declaration that sale deed was null and void on account of fraud and absence of consideration -- Held, plaint clearly disclosed cause of action and truthfulness of averments cannot be examined at stage of Order VII Rule 11 CPC -- Whether suit is barred by res judicata requires consideration of evidence and relevant judgment/decree and cannot be decided at preliminary stage before framing of issues and leading of evidence -- No ground made out for rejection of plaint -- Revision petition dismissed.

(Paras 3 to 6)

***

Civil suit -- Expeditious disposal -- Issues framed in year 2022 -- No witness examined till date -- Trial Court directed to decide suit expeditiously and avoid unnecessary adjournments.

***

Constitution of India, Article 227 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908) -- Civil suit -- Delay in trial -- Petitioner sought direction for time-bound disposal of civil suit -- Issues framed on 30.11.2022 -- Thereafter parties kept filing various applications resulting in no progress of suit -- No witness examined till date -- Held, continued delay likely to prolong adjudication of suit -- Trial Court directed to dispose of suit as expeditiously as possible without granting unnecessary adjournments -- Revision petition disposed of.

(Paras 4 and 5)

***

Consumer complaint -- Execution proceedings -- Expeditious disposal -- Execution application pending since 2020 -- State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission requested to decide execution application expeditiously in light of directions of Supreme Court regarding time-bound execution.

***

Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (35 of 2019), Sections 71 and 72 -- Constitution of India, Article 227 -- Execution proceedings -- Delay in disposal -- Petitioner sought directions for expeditious decision of execution application arising out of consumer complaint -- Execution application pending since year 2020 -- Held, in view of directions issued by Supreme Court for time-bound conclusion of execution proceedings, Executing Commission obligated to make sincere efforts for expeditious disposal -- State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab requested to decide execution application as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law -- Revision petition disposed of.

(Paras 4 to 6)

***

Ex parte decree -- Setting aside of -- Limitation -- Application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC filed nearly three years after passing of ex parte decree -- Limitation in case of defendant having appeared in proceedings runs from date of decree and not from date of knowledge -- Mere engagement of counsel does not absolve litigant from duty to remain vigilant and monitor litigation -- Application rightly held barred by limitation -- Revision dismissed.

***

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 9 Rule 13 -- Ex parte decree -- Setting aside of -- Limitation -- Petitioner sought setting aside of ex parte judgment and decree on plea that counsel ceased appearing without informing her and she acquired knowledge of decree only upon receipt of communication during execution proceedings -- Application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC filed nearly three years after ex parte proceedings and without any application under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay -- Held, where defendant has appeared in proceedings, limitation for filing application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC runs from date of decree and not from date of knowledge -- Litigant cannot shift entire burden upon counsel and remains under obligation to remain vigilant and maintain contact with engaged counsel -- No sufficient cause shown for inordinate delay -- Application rightly held barred by limitation -- No illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in appellate order -- Revision petition dismissed.

(Paras 11 to 15.1)

***

Senior citizen -- Maintenance Tribunal/Appellate Tribunal -- Coram non judice -- Tribunals required to comprise three members as per Haryana Government notification -- Orders passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate and District Magistrate alone held without proper coram -- Matter remanded for fresh decision.

***

Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (56 of 2007), Sections 7 and 15 -- Maintenance Tribunal -- Appellate Tribunal -- Composition of Tribunal -- Coram non judice -- Challenge to orders cancelling transfer deeds -- Haryana Government Notification dated 08.12.2020 prescribed three-member Maintenance Tribunal and Appellate Tribunal consisting of one official member and two non-official members under chairmanship of Sub Divisional Magistrate and District Magistrate respectively -- Impugned orders passed solely by Sub Divisional Magistrate and District Magistrate -- Held, orders passed without the mandatory coram and therefore void being coram non judice -- Impugned orders set aside -- Matter remanded to Maintenance Tribunal for fresh decision after affording opportunity of hearing to parties -- Tribunal directed to decide matter through complete coram in accordance with notification.

(Paras 2 to 4)

***

Senior citizen -- Transfer in favour of minor grandson -- Cancellation of transfer deed -- No obligation of maintenance could reasonably be expected from minor transferee -- Proceedings under Act found to be misuse of process arising out of matrimonial/custody dispute.

***

Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (56 of 2007), Sections 4, 16 and 23 -- Cancellation of transfer deed -- Transfer in favour of minor grandson -- Petitioner sought cancellation of transfer deed executed in favour of minor grandson on ground that her son was not maintaining her and there was apprehension of alienation of property -- Transfer deed executed when transferee was about 7-8 years of age -- Held, no obligation of maintenance could reasonably be expected from a minor child dependent upon others for his own sustenance -- Grounds pleaded by petitioner did not satisfy requirements of Section 23 of the Act -- Proceedings under Act found to have genesis in matrimonial/custody dispute after custody of minor was handed over to his mother -- Invocation of provisions of Act amounted to misuse of process -- Petitioner, however, entitled to reside in house during her lifetime and property not to be alienated during her lifetime.

(Paras 7 to 12)

***

Life imprisonment -- Modification of sentence -- Appellant convicted under Section 302 IPC and having undergone 23 years, 6 months and 3 days of actual imprisonment -- Held, sentence modified to period already undergone.

***

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 302, 53 and 45 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Sections 433-A, 386 and 401 -- Murder -- Life imprisonment -- Modification of sentence -- Appellant convicted under Section 302 IPC and having undergone 23 years, 6 months and 3 days of actual imprisonment -- Whether life sentence can be modified to a fixed-term sentence -- Held, life imprisonment ordinarily means imprisonment for the remainder of natural life subject to constitutional and statutory remission powers -- However, Supreme Court and High Courts are empowered to impose a modified or fixed-term sentence exceeding fourteen years and may convert life imprisonment into a specified term of incarceration -- Considering that appellant was about 21 years of age at the time of occurrence, incident was of the year 1998 and appellant had already undergone more than 23 years of actual imprisonment, sentence modified to period already undergone while maintaining conviction -- Appeal partly allowed.

(Paras 8 to 18)

***

Criminal Appeal against Acquittal -- Hostile prosecutrix -- Prosecution evidence insufficient -- Truncated trial justified -- No perversity in acquittal.

***

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Sections 161, 164, 378 -- Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000), Section 67 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 376-D, 509, 506, 120-B, 201 -- Appeal against acquittal -- Truncated trial -- Sexual assault case -- Prosecutrix turned hostile and categorically denied rape, stating allegations were based on mistaken belief regarding fake photographs/videos -- No credible material to support charge under Section 67 IT Act as FSL report uncorroborated and electronic evidence not proved – Alleged relationship found to be consensual on record – Trial Court truncated proceedings and acquitted accused holding further trial would be an empty formality – Prosecution evidence is wholly insufficient  -- Acquittal based on appreciation of evidence calls for no interference – Acquittal upheld.

(Paras 9-20)

***

Quashing of FIR -- Multiple proceedings -- Where FIR and complaint are founded on identical substratum of facts, continuation of parallel proceedings before different fora is impermissible and amounts to abuse of process.

***

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 156(3) -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 469, 505 -- Constitution of India, Articles 20(2) and 21 – Quashing of FIR – Multiple proceedings – Test of sameness – Abuse of process – Where FIR and complaint proceedings arise from the same substratum of facts, continuation of parallel proceedings is impermissible and amounts to abuse of process of law -- It is well settled that there cannot be multiple FIRs in respect of the same occurrence, and splitting of a single transaction by changing the nomenclature of offences is not permissible – Held, the substratum of allegations in the impugned FIR and the earlier complaint before the Ld. CJM, Srinagar, being identical and arising from the same alleged social media activity, continuation of the FIR is unsustainable -- FIR and consequential proceedings quashed.

(Paras 6, 14 to 22)

***

Anticipatory Bail -- POCSO offences – Rape with minor (S.65 BNS) -- Subsequent statement of prosecutrix before Magistrate that FIR was lodged under influence of relatives and police and that she has married the petitioner and has no objection to bail -- Bar under Section 482(4) BNSS not attracted -- Bail granted.

***

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023), Section 482 -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Sections 4, 6, 12, 15 -- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Sections 64, 65, 75, 351, 352 -- Anticipatory bail – Rape with minor (S.65 BNS) -- Sexual exploitation of minor by accused, serving in Indian Army -- Prosecutrix subsequently recorded statement before Magistrate stating she was in love with petitioner, FIR was lodged under influence of relatives and police officials and that she has now married the petitioner -- Prosecutrix expressed no objection to grant of bail -- Held, in view of changed circumstances and stand of prosecutrix, petitioner entitled to be released on bail in the event of arrest -- Bail granted subject to conditions -- Bar under Section 482(4) BNSS not attracted in facts of the case.

(Paras 1 to 12)

***

Quashing of FIR -- Inherent powers of High Court -- Proceedings can be quashed where they are manifestly mala fide or instituted with ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance or private grudge, to prevent abuse of process of law and secure ends of justice.

***

Quashing of FIR -- Election speech -- Allegations of abusive remarks against Prime Minister of India -- Ingredients of Sections 125 of Representation of the People Act and 504 IPC not made out -- FIR and proceedings quashed.

***

A. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023), Section 528 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Inherent powers of High Court – Quashing of FIR -- Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him/her due to private and personal grudge, High Court, while exercising power under Section 482 Cr.PC can proceed to quash the proceedings.

(Para 11)

B. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023), Section 528 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Representation of the People Act, 1951 (43 of 1951), Section 125 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 504 -- Quashing of FIR -- Allegations that petitioner made abusive remarks against Prime Minister of India during election speech and violated Model Code of Conduct -- Final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. contains vague and omnibus allegations without specific particulars of words used -- Held, ingredients of Section 125 R.P.C. Act not satisfied as there is no material showing promotion of enmity or hatred between different classes of citizens on grounds of religion, race, caste, community or language -- Further held, essential ingredients of Section 504 IPC missing as no material to show intentional insult with intent or knowledge to provoke breach of public peace -- Complainant not the person allegedly provoked, allegations vague and unsupported by material evidence -- Powers under Section 528 BNSS/Section 482 Cr.P.C. reiterated to be exercised to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice -- FIR and consequential proceedings held to be an abuse of process of law and quashed.

(Paras 18 to 24)

***

Senior Citizen -- Three-member Maintenance Tribunal – Validity of order passed by sole Sub-Divisional Magistrate -- Held, order passed is without jurisdiction as statutory composition not followed – Matter remanded back to Maintenance Tribunal.

***

Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (56 of 2007), Section 7 -- Haryana Government notification dated 17.11.2016 – Three members Maintenance Tribunal -- Order passed by Maintenance Tribunal solely by Sub-Divisional Magistrate assailed -- Held, order passed coram non judice and without jurisdiction as statutory composition not followed -- Such order is a nullity in the eyes of law -- Appellate Tribunal also erred in upholding such order and dismissing appeal -- Both orders set aside -- Matter remanded to the Maintenance Tribunal for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.

(Paras 2 to 7)

***

Physical possession of secured asset – Continued non-execution of order under Section 14 defeats very object and purpose of SARFAESI Act and is contrary to settled legal position -- Costs of Rs.50,000/- each imposed upon States of Haryana and Punjab -- Respondent No.2 directed to hand over physical possession within two months

***

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (54 of 2002), Sections 14 and 17 -- Constitution of India, Article 226 – SARFAESI -- Physical possession of secured asset -- Order passed by District Magistrate under Section 14 remained unexecuted for approximately nine months despite repeated notices and communications seeking police assistance -- Respondent authorities failed to implement order passed under Section 14 -- Held, role of District Magistrate under Section 14 is administrative in nature and not adjudicatory -- Any dispute or challenge raised by borrower against action of secured creditor lies within exclusive jurisdiction of Debt Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of Act -- Continued non-execution of order under Section 14 defeats the very object and purpose of SARFAESI Act and is contrary to settled legal position -- Costs of Rs.50,000/- each imposed upon States of Haryana and Punjab -- Respondent No.2 directed to hand over physical possession within two months subject to there being no subsisting stay or prohibitory order passed by competent Court or Tribunal -- Liberty granted to petitioner to move appropriate application in case of non-compliance.

(Paras 7 to 20)

***

Senior Citizens -- Appellate Tribunal -- District Magistrates/Presiding Officers of Appellate Tribunal are not authorized to sub-delegate quasi-judicial functions and powers vested in them under Act of 2007.

***

Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (56 of 2007), Sections 7, 15 -- Appellate Tribunal -- Quasi-judicial powers – Delegation of – Permissibility of -- District Magistrates/Presiding Officers of Appellate Tribunal constituted under notification dated 15.07.2008 are not competent to delegate or sub-delegate quasi-judicial functions and powers to any subordinate or other officer irrespective of rank or competence -- Order passed by Additional District Magistrate set aside and matter remanded to District Magistrate-cum-Appellate Tribunal for fresh adjudication under Section 16 of Act of 2007.

(Paras 4-6)

***

Promotion -- Eligibility -- Employee already working as Junior Engineer (O&M) (Civil) prior to 2020 Amendment Rules held entitled to consideration for promotion notwithstanding non-recognition of diploma obtained through part-time/distance mode.

***

Promotion -- Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) -- Delay in holding meeting -- Right to be considered for promotion is a fundamental right and employees cannot be made to suffer on account of failure of authorities to convene DPCs regularly and timely.

***

A. Punjab Municipal Corporation Services (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) (Amendment) Rules, 2020 -- Promotion -- Assistant Corporation Engineer (O&M) (Civil) -- Eligibility -- Petitioner promoted as Junior Engineer (O&M) (Civil) prior to coming into force of 2020 Amendment Rules -- Proviso to Rules specifically protected existing members of service notwithstanding educational qualification -- Respondents wrongly held petitioner ineligible on ground that diploma obtained through part-time/distance mode was not recognized -- Petitioner held entitled to consideration for promotion after completion of seven years’ service as Junior Engineer.

(Paras 11 to 14)

B. Constitution of India, Articles 14, 16, 226, 227 -- Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) -- Delay in holding DPC -- Right to be considered for promotion – Fundamental right -- DPCs required to be convened regularly and timely to avoid stagnation and ensure career progression of eligible employees -- Right to be considered for promotion is a fundamental right under Article 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution -- Delay in convening the DPC not only causes financial loss to the concerned officers on account of delayed promotion to the next higher grade, but also adversely impacts their future career progression, as it correspondingly postpones their eligibility for further advancement – Held, respondents are mandated to hold DPCs every three months (quarterly) during every calendar year so that employees can get promotions against vacant posts in time.

(Paras 14 to 18)

***

Kidney transplantation -- Swap donation -- Near relative -- Mother-in-law held to fall within definition of “near relative” for purpose of swap transplantation.

***

Kidney transplantation -- Swap donation -- Non-near relative -- Object of 1994 Act is to prevent misuse of organs of poor persons and there is no bar on transplantation of organ of a human being into non-near relative.

***

A. Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994 (42 of 1994), Sections 2(i), 9(3), 9(3-A) -- Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Rules, 2014, Rule 7 -- Swap donation -- Near relative -- Mother-in-law -- Authorization Committee rejected request for swap transplantation on ground that mother-in-law does not fall within definition of “near relative” -- Expression “means” used in Section 2(i) cannot be interpreted narrowly and definition cannot be treated as exhaustive -- Considering object of Act, prevailing family structure and purposive interpretation, mother-in-law held to be covered within expression “near relative” for purpose of swap donation under Section 9(3-A) -- PGIMER directed to proceed with transplantation subject to compliance of legal and medical formalities.

(Paras 7, 10 to 15, 19)

B. Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994 (42 of 1994), Sections 9(3), 9(3-A) -- Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Rules, 2014, Rule 7(3), 7(4) -- Kidney transplantation -- Non-near relative -- Swap donation -- Donation of human organ to non-near relative permissible with approval of Authorization Committee -- Object of 1994 Act is to prevent misuse of organs of poor persons and there is no bar on transplantation of organ of a human being into non-near relative -- Matter required to be examined on parameters laid down under Rule 7(3).

(Paras 16 to 18)

***

MACT -- Negligence -- In a claim under Section 163A, negligence is not required to be proved and it is sufficient that injury is reasonably connected with motor vehicle in question.

***

MACT -- Standard of proof -- Claim petition under Act to be decided on touchstone of preponderance of probability and not proof beyond reasonable doubt and discrepancies in record cannot defeat claim when occurrence of accident and injuries sustained by claimant stand established.

***

MACT – 100% Permanent disability – Claim under section 163A -- Supreme Court in exercise of powers under Article 142 determined compensation by drawing guidance from principles governing claims under Section 166.

***

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 163A -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Negligence -- In a claim under Section 163A, negligence is not required to be proved and it is sufficient that injury is reasonably connected with motor vehicle in question.

(Para 8)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 163A -- Injuries sustained in accident -- Standard of proof -- Claim petition under Act to be decided on touchstone of preponderance of probability and not proof beyond reasonable doubt -- Discrepancies in FIR, medical record, vehicle number or treatment papers not sufficient to defeat claim when police investigation, chargesheet and evidence on record establish occurrence of accident and injuries sustained by claimant -- Absence of perfect proof cannot be ground to deny compensation under welfare statute.

(Paras 7 to 19, 23)

C. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Sections 163A, 166 -- Constitution of India, Article 142 -- Permanent disability -- Claim under Section 163A -- Claimant suffered 100% permanent disability and died during pendency of proceedings -- Strict confinement to Section 163A held not to serve interests of justice -- Supreme Court in exercise of powers under Article 142 determined compensation by drawing guidance from principles governing claims under Section 166 -- Compensation of Rs.14,90,000/- with 6% interest awarded.

(Paras 20 to 28)

***

Probate of Will -- Criminal investigation -- Testamentary jurisdiction -- High Court while exercising testamentary jurisdiction does not cease to be Constitutional Court possessing inherent and plenary powers and can exercise constitutional powers to protect estate.

***

Probate of Will -- Perjury -- Section 340 of the Code held applicable to all proceedings in all Courts in criminal cases or civil cases irrespective of fact whether matter involves offence mentioned in Section 195 Cr.P.C.

***

A. Indian Succession Act, 1925 (39 of 1925), Sections 247, 269, 300 -- Constitution of India, Article 215 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 340 -- Probate of Will -- Testamentary jurisdiction -- Administrator pendente lite -- Court-monitored investigation -- Jurisdiction of High Court -- Challenge to order of High Court directing court-monitored criminal investigation into affairs of deceased -- Primary function of Probate Court is to adjudicate execution and genuineness of Will -- However, High Court while exercising testamentary jurisdiction does not cease to be Constitutional Court possessing inherent and plenary powers -- If High Court notices glaring irregularities or element of mischief played by executor, it cannot remain silent spectator and can exercise plenary and constitutional powers to protect estate.

(Paras 29 to 41)

B. Indian Succession Act, 1925 (39 of 1925), Sections 247, 269, 300 -- Constitution of India, Article 215 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 340 -- Probate of Will -- Perjury -- Exercise of powers by High Court -- Under Section 340(3)(a), where Court making complaint is High Court, an officer of that Court may be appointed to make complaint -- Since High Court was exercising testamentary jurisdiction, it was permissible for officer of High Court registry to make complaint -- Object and scope of Section 340 is to institute enquiry and ascertain whether any offence affecting administration of justice has been committed in relation to any document produced or given in evidence in Court -- Section 340 of the Code held applicable to all proceedings in all Courts in criminal cases or civil cases irrespective of fact whether matter involves offence mentioned in Section 195 Cr.P.C.

(Para 41)

***

Circumstantial evidence -- Acquittal -- High Court found prosecution failed to establish complete chain of circumstances and allowed appeal and set aside conviction --Supreme Court declined interference under Article 136.

***

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 364, 302, 396, 201 and 120-B -- Constitution of India, Article 136 -- Circumstantial evidence -- Murder -- Appeal against acquittal -- Prosecution case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence including last seen theory, recoveries and alleged disclosure statements -- High Court found prosecution failed to establish complete chain of circumstances and allowed appeal and set aside conviction -- Non-examination of independent witness allegedly present at time of recovery of dead body created serious doubt regarding prosecution claim that recovery was made pursuant to disclosure statement of accused -- Recoveries of tape recorder, wrist watch and towel not connected with crime through legally admissible evidence -- Suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute proof -- When two views are possible and High Court adopts plausible view, Supreme Court would not interfere with acquittal unless findings are perverse or result in miscarriage of justice -- Appeals dismissed.

(Paras 24 to 43)

***

Senior citizen -- Appellate Tribunal -- District Magistrates/Presiding Officers not authorized to sub-delegate quasi-judicial functions and powers vested under Act of 2007.

***

Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (56 of 2007), Section 16 -- Instructions dated 27.10.2025 -- Appellate Tribunal -- Delegation of powers -- Permissibility of – Impugned order not passed by the statutory authority, i.e. District Magistrate, but by an authority exercising sub-delegated powers, i.e. Additional Deputy Commissioner – Held, District Magistrates/Presiding Officers of Appellate Tribunals not authorized to sub-delegate quasi-judicial functions and powers vested in them by statute – Impugned Order set aside and matter remitted to District Magistrate-cum-Appellate Tribunal concerned for adjudication afresh in accordance with Section 16 of Act of 2007 -- Alienation of property in question ordered to remain stayed till final decision in appeal.

(Paras 3 to 10)

***

Senior citizen -- Right to residence -- Willingness of petitioner to keep mother with him subject to condition that petitioner’s siblings would not be permitted to enter house in question -- Writ petition dismissed with costs.

***

Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (56 of 2007), Section 23 -- Senior citizen -- Right of entry and residence -- Maintenance Tribunal directed son to vacate one room situated on ground floor, construct a separate bathroom within period of three months and provide basic amenities -- Appellate Tribunal affirmed order -- Willingness of petitioner to keep mother with him subject to condition that petitioner’s siblings would not be permitted to enter house in question -- Petitioner unable to point out any illegality or infirmity in exercise of power by Maintenance Tribunal -- Writ petition dismissed with costs of Rs.50,000/-.

(Paras 1 to 13)

***

Murder and dowry cruelty -- Deceased subjected to persistent harassment for motorcycle and cash demand -- Medical evidence proving homicidal hanging -- Husband failed to explain injuries sustained by deceased in matrimonial home -- Conviction under Sections 302 and 498A IPC upheld.

***

Burden of proof -- Murder inside matrimonial home -- Husband failed to explain homicidal death of wife -- Adverse inference rightly drawn under Section 106 of Evidence Act.

***

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 302 and 498A – Murder -- Dowry demand and cruelty -- Deceased repeatedly subjected to torture for motorcycle and cash demand -- Several panchayat meetings and resolutions effected for compromise -- Direct evidence of father and other witnesses regarding persistent cruelty and harassment -- Deceased found hanging in matrimonial home where appellant-husband was present -- Medical evidence proving simulated hanging/homicidal hanging -- Appellant failed to offer any explanation regarding injuries sustained by deceased prior to death -- Defence of suicide belied by overwhelming medical evidence -- Conviction under Sections 498A and 302 IPC upheld.

(Paras 25 to 31)

B. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 106 -- Murder inside house -- Burden of proof -- Where offence takes place inside privacy of house, corresponding burden lies upon inmates of house to give cogent explanation as to how victim succumbed -- Appellant-husband failed to discharge burden or explain homicidal death of wife inside matrimonial home -- Adverse inference rightly drawn against appellant.

(Paras 29 to 31)

***

Circumstantial evidence -- Murder -- Recovery of articles -- Recovery of empty phials of calmpose injection, clothes worn and rope at instance of appellant proved through testimony of Investigating Officer -- Viscera report showing diazepham present -- Merely because panch witnesses turned hostile cannot be ground to discard important piece of evidence if recovery is proved through Investigating Officer -- Conviction under Section 302 IPC upheld.

***

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 302 and 149 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 27 -- Murder -- Circumstantial evidence -- Recovery of articles -- Empty phial of calmpose injection, clothes worn by appellant and rope recovered at instance of appellant -- Prosecution case that accused persons initially administered calmpose injection to deceased persons and thereafter caused injuries resulting in death -- Postmortem report showing shock due to external and internal injuries on vital parts and excessive blood loss -- Viscera report showing diazepham present -- Recovery not vitiated merely because panch witnesses failed to support prosecution case -- Recovery proved through testimony of Investigating Officer -- Recovery held proved -- Conviction upheld.

(Paras 15 to 21)

***

Criminal medical negligence -- Anaesthetist giving telephonic post-operative pain management advice after duty hours cannot be held criminally liable for subsequent procedural lapse committed by staff nurse in administering injection -- Criminal proceedings quashed.

***

Criminal negligence -- In absence of direct proximate nexus between telephonic painkiller advice and death caused by acute coronary insufficiency due to 80% coronary blockage, criminal liability of appellant-anaesthetist not sustainable.
***

Medical negligence -- Constitution of expert panel without anaesthetist in case involving epidural anaesthesia rendered medical opinion unreliable and contrary to safeguards laid down in Jacob Mathew, (2005) 6 SCC 1 -- Criminal prosecution unsustainable.

***

Criminal proceedings and civil proceedings -- Exoneration in civil proceedings -- Appellant-doctor having been exonerated on merits by Consumer Forum and such finding attaining finality, continuation of criminal prosecution on identical allegations held abuse of process of law.

***

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 304-A -- Criminal medical negligence -- Rash and negligent act -- Degree of negligence -- Anaesthetist whose duty hours had concluded cannot be held criminally liable for a subsequent procedural error committed by a staff nurse -- Appellant merely suggested administration of painkiller over telephone, which constituted standard medical advice for post-operative pain management and not gross criminal recklessness -- Failure of nurse to accurately locate epidural space may at best amount to deficiency in service giving rise to civil liability, but lacked gross culpability or mens rea necessary to attract Section 304-A IPC -- Essential ingredients of criminal negligence absent -- Criminal proceedings quashed.

(Paras 19, 20, 24, 25)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 304-A -- Criminal negligence -- Proximate cause -- Requirement of direct nexus (causa causans) between negligent act and death -- Painkiller advised by petitioner over telephone -- Deceased found having asymptomatic 80% coronary artery blockage -- Medical evidence proving immediate cause of death to be acute coronary insufficiency resulting in heart attack -- Chain of causation too remote to fasten criminal liability upon appellant-anaesthetist -- Criminal prosecution unsustainable.

(Para 28)

C. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Medical negligence -- Expert opinion – Requirement of independent competent medical opinion -- Case relating to administration of epidural anaesthesia -- Constitution of expert panel without anaesthetist -- Effect -- Absence of specialist in concerned branch rendered panel incompetent to evaluate technical nuances of epidural anaesthesia and catheter management -- Reliance on such flawed expert report contrary to safeguards laid down in Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab -- Criminal prosecution unsustainable.

(Paras 26, 27)

D. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Criminal proceedings and civil proceedings -- Exoneration in civil proceedings -- Effect -- Consumer Forum after detailed appreciation of evidence exonerating appellant-doctor from liability -- Finding attained finality qua the appellant -- Where exoneration on merits holds allegations wholly unsustainable, continuation of criminal prosecution on identical facts amounts to abuse of process of law.

(Paras 21 to 23)

***

Scheduled Caste status -- Conversion to Christianity -- Person openly professing and practising Christianity as Pastor ceases to be member of Scheduled Caste within meaning of Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 -- Statutory protections and benefits under SC/ST Act not available.

***

Scheduled Caste -- Conversion and reconversion -- Mere birth in Scheduled Caste not sufficient once person professes Christianity -- Reconversion claim must be established by proof of bona fide reconversion, complete renunciation of converted faith and acceptance by original caste community.

***

Quashing of proceedings -- SC/ST Act and IPC offences -- High Court justified in exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. where foundational requirement of Scheduled Caste status absent and evidence collected during investigation failed to disclose ingredients of offences alleged.

***

A. Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Section 3 -- Constitution of India, Articles 341 and 342 -- Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950, Clause 3 -- Scheduled Caste -- Conversion to Christianity -- Applicability of SC/ST Act -- Appellant openly professing and practising Christianity as Pastor for more than ten years -- Clause 3 of Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order categorically excludes persons professing religions other than Hinduism, Sikhism and Buddhism from Scheduled Caste status -- Upon conversion to Christianity, appellant ceased to be Scheduled Caste in law and could not invoke protections of SC/ST Act.

(Paras 35 to 61)

B. Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950, Clause 3 -- Expression “professes” -- Meaning and scope -- “Profess” means open declaration and public practice of religion -- Person publicly preaching and conducting Christian religious services as Pastor clearly professes Christianity -- Irrespective of the appellant’s caste of origin, he cannot be deemed to be a member of a Scheduled Caste.

(Paras 36 to 44)

C. Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950, Clause 3 -- Scheduled Caste -- Conversion to Christianity -- Reconversion -- Conditions precedent -- Claimant seeking restoration of Scheduled Caste status must establish original caste status, bona fide reconversion, complete renunciation of converted faith and acceptance by original caste community -- Mere possession of caste certificate insufficient unless in consonance with Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950.

(Paras 55, 58)

D. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 341, 323, 506 and 34 -- Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Conversion to Christianity – Applicability of SC/ST Act -- Quashing of proceedings -- Allegations of assault, restraint and intimidation unsupported by independent witnesses -- Statements of material witnesses inconsistent and lacking specific attribution against accused -- Evidence collected during investigation failed to disclose essential ingredients of offences alleged -- Continuation of proceedings held abuse of process -- Appellant ceased to be member of Scheduled Caste -- High Court justified in quashing proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

(Paras 60 to 69)

***

MACT -- Mediclaim/ medical insurance -- Amount received under Mediclaim policy not deductible from compensation awarded by MACT under head of medical expenses -- Mediclaim contractual benefit flowing from payment of premiums whereas compensation under MVA statutory entitlement -- Principle of “double benefit” not attracted.

***

Precedent -- Conflicting judgments of coordinate Benches -- Judicial discipline -- Both the Bar and the Bench are duty bound to ensure consistency with precedent, disclose and apply correct law, and avoid per incuriam decisions in aid of an effective justice delivery system.

***

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Sections 166 and 168 -- Compensation in Motor vehicle accident case -- Mediclaim/ Medical insurance -- Deductibility from compensation awarded by MACT -- Mediclaim policy contractual benefit flowing from payment of premiums and independent of statutory entitlement under MVA -- Amount received under Mediclaim cannot be termed “double benefit” merely because reimbursement relates to same medical expenses -- Deduction of such amount would unjustly benefit insurer of offending vehicle and denude claimant of fruits of insurance contract purchased from own resources – Amount received as part of Mediclaim/medical insurance is not deductible from compensation awarded by MACT.

(Paras 7 to 11, 15)

B. Precedent – Bar and Bench -- Conflicting judgments of coordinate Benches -- Judicial discipline – Counsel’s awareness of law and grasp on facts are their greatest assets, enabling them to distinguish judgments that may seemingly be against them and still secure a favourable order -- Court before which they are appearing may not be aware of the latest pronouncement, they must disclose the same to the Court ensuring consistency -- Entire burden cannot be placed only on counsel, the Court itself has an independent tri-fold duty, to apply correct law even if the Counsel does not cite the same, ensure consistency with precedent, and avoid per incuriam decisions – Both the Bar and the Bench are responsible for minimising the problems that arise in the face of inconsistent judicial opinion -- They are both constituents of the justice delivery system and must act to ensure consistency in law and reduction of pendency.

(Paras 14)

***

Writ jurisdiction -- Co-operative society election -- Challenge to validity of bye-laws governing eligibility to contest elections to Management Committee of District Milk Unions -- District Milk Unions held not “State” within meaning of Article 12 -- Internal governance and electoral disputes held not to involve public law element -- Writ petitions not maintainable.

***

Writ jurisdiction -- Co-operative society election -- Mere supervisory or regulatory control by State not sufficient to render society instrumentality of State -- Writ lies only where body performs public duty or breaches statutory obligation of public character.

***

Writ jurisdiction -- Co-operative society election -- Election disputes touching constitution, management or business of society -- Registrar vested with exclusive jurisdiction -- High Court ought not to bypass statutory remedy under Article 226.

***

A. Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 2001 (Act 16 of 2002), Sections 58, 60, 104 to 107 and 125 -- Constitution of India, Articles 12, 226 -- Co-operative society election -- Challenge to validity of bye-laws governing eligibility to contest elections to Board of Directors of District Milk Unions -- Maintainability of writ petitions -- District Milk Unions autonomous member-driven bodies governed by provisions of Act, Rules and bye-laws -- Unions neither departments of State nor owned, financially controlled or administratively dominated by State so as to constitute instrumentalities of State within meaning of Article 12 -- Mere existence of regulatory or supervisory control by Registrar or State Co-operative Election Authority not determinative -- Internal management, governance and electoral disputes do not by themselves attract writ jurisdiction merely because societies owe incorporation to statute -- Act, 2001 provides complete self-contained adjudicatory mechanism through Registrar, arbitration, appeal, Tribunal, review and revision -- Disputes relating to validity of bye-laws governing elections fall squarely within statutory framework under Sections 58 and 60 -- Writ petitions filed without exhausting efficacious statutory remedy held not maintainable -- High Court erred in bypassing statutory dispute resolution mechanism and entertaining writ petitions under Article 226.

(Paras 14 to 15.12)

B. Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 2001 (Act 16 of 2002), Sections 8, 18, 28 and 32 -- Co-operative society -- Elections -- Bye-laws -- Eligibility criteria -- Validity of -- Statutory framework expressly contemplates that elections shall be conducted in accordance with Act, Rules and bye-laws of society -- Bye-laws not external or extraneous to election process -- Bye-laws regulating minimum milk supply, continuity of operations and prescribed audit classification held to regulate candidature and continuation in office -- Conditions intended to ensure minimum level of functional connection, participation and suitability in relation to affairs of society -- Impugned bye-laws do not impose disabling or punitive bar contemplated under Section 28 -- Absence of eligibility merely postpones right to contest till prescribed conditions fulfilled -- Conditions held reasonable, non-arbitrary and within statutory competence of society -- Invalidation of the bye-laws on the premise that they impose disqualifications is, therefore, legally unsustainable.

(Paras 17 to 19.7)

C. Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 2001 (Act 16 of 2002), Sections 19, 32 -- Co-operative society -- Elections -- Bye-laws -- Eligibility criteria -- Election -- Right to vote vis-à-vis right to contest election -- Distinction -- Neither right to vote nor right to contest election is fundamental right -- Rights are purely statutory in nature and exist only to extent conferred by statute -- Right to contest election is distinct and additional statutory right to office and may legitimately be made subject to qualifications, eligibility conditions and disqualifications -- Impugned bye-laws directed only at eligibility of President or representative of primary co-operative society to contest election to or continue as member of Board of Directors -- Bye-laws do not regulate or curtail right of members to cast vote -- Regulation of candidature cannot be equated with restriction on right to vote.

(Paras 18 to 18.7)

***

Sarpanch/ Panch/ Panchayat Secretary -- Enquiry -- Alleged misuse of Panchayat funds on private land -- Absence of prima facie material -- Prayer for roving enquiry not maintainable -- Writ petition dismissed.

***

Constitution of India, Articles 226 and 227 -- Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, Sections 51(3) and 53 -- Sarpanch/ Panch/ Panchayat Secretary -- Enquiry -- Allegation of misuse and misappropriation of Panchayat funds for construction of passage on private land -- Petitioner sought enquiry against Sarpanch, Panches and Panchayat Secretary along with recovery of allegedly misappropriated amount -- Except representations submitted by petitioner, no substantive material placed on record to prima facie support allegations -- Petitioner held to be seeking a roving enquiry on speculative foundations -- Writ petition dismissed.

(Paras 3 to 5)

***

Public nuisance -- Illegal encroachment on public street -- Removal of unauthorized ramps and structures -- Maintainability of writ petition -- Efficacious alternative remedy available under Section 152 BNSS, 2023 -- Writ petition dismissed with liberty to avail statutory remedy.

***

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Section 152 -- Public nuisance -- Illegal encroachment on public street -- Petition seeking removal of unauthorized ramps, platforms and structures allegedly raised over public street by way of encroachment – State raised objection regarding availability of statutory remedy under Section 152 BNSS -- Petitioner unable to controvert said objection -- High Court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction and relegated petitioner to avail remedy in accordance with law.

(Paras 1 to 4)

***

Senior citizen -- Maintenance -- Cancellation of transfer deed -- Authorities found appellant-senior citizen residing comfortably with second wife and son and having sufficient resources to maintain himself -- Application dismissed -- Dispute held to be family/property dispute raised to reclaim property from sons of first marriage -- Letters Patent Appeal dismissed.

***

Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (56 of 2007), Sections 4, 5 and 23 -- Maintenance -- Cancellation of transfer deed -- Family/property dispute -- Appellant-senior citizen sought maintenance and cancellation of transfer deed executed in favour of sons from first marriage on ground that they failed to maintain him -- Respondents stated that appellant was living comfortably with second wife and son from second marriage and had sufficient income and businesses – Dispute held to be family/property dispute aimed at reclaiming property from sons of first marriage -- Findings that appellant had sufficient resources to maintain himself remained unrebutted -- Learned Single Judge upheld orders passed by authorities -- Held, no illegality, infirmity or perversity in impugned orders -- Letters Patent Appeal dismissed.

(Paras 5 to 10)

***

Proclaimed offender -- Quashing of order -- Bail -- Petitioner residing in another State and unaware of pending proceedings -- Readiness of petitioner to join proceedings and face trial -- Order declaring petitioner proclaimed offender set aside subject to costs -- Court concerned directed to admit petitioner to bail subject to its satisfaction.

***

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82 -- Proclaimed offender -- Quashing of order -- Petitioner declared proclaimed offender in case under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC -- Petitioner contended that he had gone to Gujarat for livelihood and was under impression that no proceedings were pending after compromise between parties -- Plea that provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C. were not complied with and petitioner was never served through ordinary or substituted service -- Held, non-appearance of petitioner not intentional -- Petitioner ready to join proceedings and face trial -- Order declaring petitioner proclaimed offender set aside subject to deposit of costs of Rs.25,000/- -- Petitioner directed to appear before Court concerned within 10 days and file bail application along with receipt of costs -- Court concerned directed to admit petitioner to bail subject to its satisfaction -- Protection from arrest granted for 10 days.

(Paras 6 and 7)

***

Hostile witness -- Evidence of the hostile witness is admissible, once it gets strengthened with the help of other evidence.

***

Postmortem report -- Evidentiary value -- Postmortem report by itself not substantive evidence -- Requires corroboration by oral evidence of medical expert.

***

Independent witnesses -- Incident alleged to have occurred on public road with vehicular movement and presence of nearby persons -- Failure of prosecution to examine any independent witness assumes significance and renders occurrence doubtful.

***

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 302 and 323 -- Murder -- Conviction -- PW3 turned hostile and contradicted prosecution story -- Other witnesses did not support prosecution case regarding holding of Panchayat about the issue of elopement of the sister of the accused and the deceased. -- No other evidence which could corroborate the factum of holding of Panchayat etc. -- No independent witness examined though incident allegedly occurred on busy public road -- Medical evidence suffered from discrepancies and contradictions -- Held, prosecution failed to prove occurrence, genesis and motive of crime -- Evidence weak and unreliable -- Conviction unsustainable -- Appellant acquitted.

(Paras 5 to 10.4)

B. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Sections 145, 157 and 159 -- Hostile witness -- Admissibility and evidentiary value -- Evidence of hostile witness remains admissible and can be relied upon once corroborated by other reliable evidence.

(Paras 8.3 to 9)

C. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872) -- Medical evidence -- Postmortem report -- Postmortem report by itself cannot be treated as a piece of substantive evidence -- Medical expert required to satisfactorily explain discrepancies and contradictions appearing in postmortem report -- Failure to explain inconsistencies diminishes evidentiary value of medical evidence.

(Paras 6 to 6.1)

***

Cruelty and desertion -- Wife pursuing professional career and residing separately for welfare and upbringing of minor child -- Cannot be construed as cruelty or desertion.

***

Cruelty -- Wife opening dental clinic and pursuing career goals -- Mere pursuit of professional aspirations by qualified woman cannot amount to cruelty.

***

Perjury -- Matrimonial acrimony -- Allegations seeking prosecution of wife for false statements on oath -- Allegations appeared to be result of personal vendetta, anger and pent-up frustration -- Hyper-technical dissection of record insufficient to constitute offence of perjury or giving false evidence -- Petition dismissed.

***

A. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Sections 13, 13(1)(i-a) and 13(1)(i-b) -- Divorce -- Cruelty and desertion -- Wife pursuing professional career and residing separately for welfare and upbringing of minor child suffering from medical complications -- Family Court treated same as cruelty and desertion -- Held, approach of Courts below was pedantic, regressive, archaic and ultraconservative -- Marriage does not eclipse individuality of woman nor subjugate her identity under that of spouse -- Mere pursuit of professional career and responsible parenthood cannot amount to cruelty or desertion -- Findings regarding cruelty and desertion expunged -- Divorce decree maintained on ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage.

(Paras 3 to 32)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Sections 195 and 340 -- Perjury -- Matrimonial acrimony -- Allegations seeking prosecution of wife for false statements on oath -- Allegations appeared to be result of personal vendetta, anger and pent-up frustration -- Hyper-technical dissection of material on record insufficient to disclose ingredients of offence of perjury or giving false evidence -- Concurrent findings rejecting application warranted no interference -- Petition dismissed.

(Paras 35 to 38)