Latest Updates

Posted On: 02-06-2026
110. (H.P. HC) (Reserved on: 20.04.2026 Decided on: 25.04.2026)

***

Family pension -- Entitlement -- Second marriage during subsistence of earlier marriage -- Long cohabitation and documentary evidence of marriage -- Even if marriage is void under Section 5(i) Hindu Marriage Act, relationship not immoral -- Entitlement to family pension upheld on principles of social justice and economic empowerment -- Appeal allowed and family pension granted.

***

Constitution of India, Article 14 -- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (Act No. 25 of 1955), Section 5(i) -- Evidence Act, 1872 (Act No. 1 of 1872), Section 114 -- CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021, Rule 50 -- Family pension to second wife -- Entitlement -- Appellant claiming family pension of deceased employee as widow -- Marriage disputed on ground of subsisting first marriage -- Evidence of affidavit of deceased, Parivar Register entry and long cohabitation produced – In Section 9 petition marriage held to be nullity -- Presumption of valid marriage drawn under Section 114 Evidence Act based on long cohabitation -- Held, even if marriage is void under Section 5(i) HMA, such relationship though illegal is not immoral -- Financially dependent partner cannot be denied relief solely on that ground -- Claim of the appellant for grant of family pension is governed by the Central Civil Services (CCS) Pension Rules -- Interpretation of pension rules to advance social justice, dignity and economic empowerment of women -- Object of family pension analogous to maintenance jurisprudence -- Deceased had treated appellant as nominee and cohabitation continued for long period -- Appellant held entitled to family pension as widow for purposes of CCS Pension Rules -- Impugned judgment set aside -- Appeal allowed.

(Paras 1–5, 7–12, 14–21)

Posted On: 31-05-2026
124. (P&H HC) (Reserved on: 21.05.2026 Decided on: 29.05.2026)

***

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)

Posted On: 31-05-2026
129. (SC) (Decided on: 22.05.2026)

***

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)

Posted On: 31-05-2026
131. (P&H HC) (Decided on: 25.05.2026)

***

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)

Posted On: 31-05-2026
132. (SC) (Decided on: 22.05.2026)

***

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)

Posted On: 31-05-2026
133. (SC) (Decided on: 22.05.2026)

***

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)

Posted On: 30-05-2026
135. (SC) (Decided on: 26.05.2026)

***

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)

Posted On: 30-05-2026
143. (P&H HC) (Reserved on: 22.05.2026 Decided on: 27.05.2026)

***

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)

Posted On: 28-05-2026
150. (H.P. HC) (Decided on: 17.03.2026)

***

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)