Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 307, 323, 506, 341, 148, 149 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 483 -- Murder – Regular bail -- FIR was lodged on 04.01.2023 – Deceased was alive till 22.02.2023 – No effort was made to get the other assailants identified – NS/ Eyewitness in his statement made on 16.01.2023 nominated two others to be the conspirators, he did not name the petitioner to be amongst assailants -- It is only on 25.03.2023 i.e. after the death of injured, the petitioner was arrested on the identification of NS/ eye witness -- Charges framed by the trial Court on 11.10.2024 -- Matter adjourned several times for recording prosecution evidence -- However, the most material witness are not appearing despite repeated summons and bailable warrants -- Petitioner is in custody for the last 2 years 3 months and 3 days and he is not involved in any other criminal case -- Prosecution may take long time to conclude its evidence – Bail allowed.

(Para 8-10)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 306, 34 – Abetment to suicide -- Frequent quarrels – Ground of -- Frequent quarrels between the petitioner and the deceased arising out of misunderstandings and discord these alone are not sufficient to constitute an offence u/s 306 of the IPC -- Such disputes between a husband and wife may be considered part of the ordinary wear and tear of marital life and, without credible and substantial evidence, cannot be treated as instigation or abetment to suicide.

(Para 4)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 306, 34 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 483 – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Abetment to suicide – Regular bail -- Petitioner has already suffered incarceration of 1 year, 1 day and is a person of clean antecedents; co-accused has already been granted the concession of regular bail -- Investigation is complete, challan stands presented and charges framed, out of 14 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined so far -- Conclusion of trial is likely to take considerable time and therefore, detaining the petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite period would solve no purpose – Right to speedy trial is a part of reasonable, fair and just procedure enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India -- This constitutional right cannot be denied to the accused -- Bail allowed.

(Para 4, 5)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 446 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 461, 528 -- Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 5 – Jump of bail – Surety for Rs. 1 lakh – Liability of -- Delay of 511 days in appeal condoned -- Appellant/ surety had no knowledge that the convict would not surrender on time and there are no allegations of collusion between the appellant and the accused with regard to the accused not surrendering before learned trial Court -- Penalty reduced to Rs.20,000/- from Rs.1,00,000/-.

(Para 3, 7-13)

Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 38 -- Permanent injunction – Trespasser’ right – Claim as lessee -- For leasing out a Government land, the officials are required to adhere to the relevant statutory provisions -- Appellant failed to plead and prove as to when the lease was created in his favour and what were the terms -- It is not appropriate for the courts to protect possession of the trespassers while granting injunction against a true owner -- Property belongs to the Government -- Mere production of certain receipts evidencing the payment of certain amount without referring to the particular land would not come to the rescue of the appellant – Permanent  injunction declined by Ld. Appellate Court, upheld.

(Para 1, 5, 6)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 372, 378(4) – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 413, 419(4) -- Acquittal in cheque bounce complaint – Leave to appeal – Delay/ Limitation -- Appeal before Session’s Court -- Application u/s 378(4) Cr.P.C. disposed of by directing the learned Sessions Judge to treat the present leave to appeal as an appeal filed u/s 372 of the Cr.P.C. and entrust the same to any appropriate Court to try the same -- The concerned Court shall decide the appeal on merits as per law, as expeditiously as possible -- Concerned Appellate Court need not to adhere to the delay aspect, if any, involved in the case, for the purpose of considering the issue raised in the appeal and its disposal on merit.

(Para 5, 6)

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (43 of 2005), Section 2(o), 2(k), 18, 19, 21, 22, 31 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Breach of Residence / Monetary/ Custody order – FIR for non-compliance – Quashing of FIR -- Penalty for breach of protection order – Mandate of -- The words in Section 31 are plain and ambiguous -- They only mention the protection and interim protection order -- Applying the literal rules of interpretation, Section 31 applies only to the breach of protection orders mentioned in Section 18 and not to residence orders mentioned in Section 19, monetary reliefs mentioned in section 20, custody orders mentioned in Section 21, and compensation orders mentioned in Section 22 -- Had the legislature intended to apply Section 31 to these orders, it would have mentioned them specifically.

– Section 31 of the DV Act creates an offence. It is the rule of interpretation of the statute that criminal statutes are to be strictly construed because they deprive a citizen of his life and liberty, and no act, which does not fall within the purview of the criminal statute, can be added to it by way of interpretation.

Monetary relief which is separately provided in Section 2 (k) of the DV Act cannot be added to the protection order separately provided in Sections 2 (o) and 18 of the DV Act -- Learned Magistrate erred in referring the application to the police under Section 156(3) of Cr.PC -- Police could not have registered the FIR for the breach of the monetary order -- Petition allowed, FIR and consequential proceedings arising out of the said FIR quashed.

(Para 14, 15, 17, 23)

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Contributory negligence -- Learner’s License – Effect of -- B.D.O./ injured/ claimant had exercised his authority to travel pillion, despite being aware of the driver holding only a learners licence – Negligence is only a question of fact, when a person drives a vehicle without a licence, he commits an offence, which by itself cannot lead to a finding of negligence, leading to or as regards, the accident -- Mere fact that the driver of the scooter had only a learners licence would necessarily lead to a conclusion of contributory negligence on the part of the scooter driver -- There can be no negligence found on the scooter driver also by the mere fact that the accident occurred on a collision at the tail-end of a long trailer, when the scooter driver had better visibility; which is a question of fact liable to be proved and not merely presumed -- Appellant is entitled to compensation from the insurer of the offending vehicle.

(Para 13, 14)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Amputation of both legs -- Accident occurred on 03.11.1999 -- Rs.16,00,000/- awarded as compensation – Simple interest @ 7% per annum from the date of the award given.

(Para 1, 8)

A. Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (56 of 2007), Section 4, 5, 23 – Maintenance to Senior citizen – Eviction of son – Property already transferred to daughter/ son-in-law – Effect of -- Exfacie Senior citizen ceases to be the owner of the property and it is up to the purchasers to initiate eviction proceedings, if any, against the occupants of any part of it -- Senior citizens are simply entitled to maintenance rather than eviction of their son/ relatives -- It was only in the contingency of son not behaving properly or continuing to humiliate or torture the parents that the eviction proceedings would be necessary against him -- Tribunal was justified in permitting him to continue living therein with the rider of drawing eviction proceedings if he indulges in any untoward behavior or interferes with the life of others.

(Para 26-29)

B. Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (56 of 2007), Section 4, 5, 23 – Eviction of son -- If son has been living in a small portion of the house, may be of his father, in which he has no share and is continuing with the family business from the shop on the ground floor without interfering with the life of others, it does not appear to be prudent to order for his eviction as after all being a son he also has an implied license to live therein – No necessity for the extreme step for ordering the eviction -- Purpose could have been served by ordering maintenance as provided under Section 4/5 of the Senior Citizens Act and by restraining him from harassing the parents and interfering in their day-to-day life.

(Para 29, 34)

C. Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (56 of 2007), Section 23 -- Senior citizen case -- Eviction of person – Power of -- Provisions of the Senior Citizens Act, nowhere specifically provides for drawing proceedings for eviction of persons from any premises owned or belonging to such a senior person -- It is only on account of the observations made by this Court in S. Vanitha vs. Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District & Ors, (2021) 15 SCC 730 that the Tribunal under the Senior Citizens Act may also order eviction if it is necessary and expedient to ensure the protection of the senior citizens -- The Tribunal thus had acquired jurisdiction to pass orders of eviction while exercising jurisdiction under Section 23 of the Senior Citizen Act which otherwise provide for treating the sale of the property to be void if it is against the interest of the senior citizen.

(Para 31)

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 528 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 142, 148, 323, 506 -- Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (47 of 2023), Section 9 -- Quashing of FIR/ Charge-sheet – Plea of alibi – Held, plea of alibi put forward by the petitioners cannot form a ground for quashing the impugned challan -- Veracity of the defence put up by the petitioners can be gone into by the trial court – High Court in exercise of its powers u/s 528 of BNSS cannot hold a mini trial -- In case, the petitioners feel that their defence of alibi has not been investigated by the Investigating Agency, it is open to them to approach the learned trial Magistrate before whom charge sheet has been filed and seek further investigation of the case -- Petition dismissed.

(Para 6-8)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 11, 96, 100 – Res-judicata – Two suits – Comon judgment -- One appeal – Effect of -- Trial Court dismissed Civil Suit No. 44 of 2004 and decreed Civil Suit No. 95 of 2006 based on common evidence lead by parties after clubbing of the suits -- There is not even a whisper about findings rendered by the Trial Court in Civil Suit No. 95 of 2006 in the grounds of First Appeal preferred against Civil Suit No. 44 of 2004 – Held, Ld. Additional District Judge was justified in dismissing the appeal preferred only against the judgment and decree passed in Civil Suit No. 44 of 2004 without assailing the same in Civil Suit No. 95 of 2006 -- Appeal preferred before District Judge as well as present appeal is barred by principle of resjudicata.

(Para 5, 6)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 2(iii) (b) and (c), 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(C), 25, 37 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 483 -- NDPS – Commercial quantity -- Recovery of 32 kgs of Ganja -- Regular bail -- Definition of Ganja under NDPS Act takes in its ambit only the flowering or fruiting tops of cannabis plant and excludes the seeds and leaves when not accompanied by the tops -- Thus, the definition of ‘Ganja’ is restricted and it does not include the seeds and leaves of Ganja plant -- Police while weighing the contraband did not segregate flowering tops from other material -- Petitioners ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 6-9)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 304A – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 528 -- Causing death by negligence -- In order to attract the offence u/s 304A, the death must be the direct or proximate result of the rash or negligent act of the accused -- Petitioner cannot be attributed with criminality in taking up the work, since the harm involved, due to the passing of live electric wires, adjacent to the building was not foreseeable -- Unfortunate incident occurred when the worker stretched his hand while fixing the reducing coupling, as part of the plumbing work, and accidentally touched the live wire -- In such circumstances, the petitioner cannot be attributed with either rashness or negligence – Criminal proceedings quashed.

(Para 5, 6)

Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (39 of 1987), Section 22C, 22E – Public Utility Services – Permanent Lok Adalat – Territorial Jurisdiction – Insurance policy was issued from Chandigarh Branch, whereas, the place of occurrence/ accident is in district Auraiya (Uttar Pradesh) – Application preferred by the petitioner before the PLA at Gurugram is a misconceived motion, on account of territorial jurisdiction – Liberty granted to the petitioner to approach the competent authority/Court of territorial jurisdiction in accordance with law.

(Para 3, 4)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 354A(1)(i) – Sexual harassment -- In order to attract Section 354A(1)(i) IPC, it has to be shown that the petitioner has resorted to physical contact and advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures – Thus it is of prime importance to show that the offender had committed the act with sexual intention.

(Para 5)

B. Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 7 – POCSO – Sexual assault -- To establish the offence of sexual assault as envisaged u/s 7 of the POCSO Act, it has to be shown that the offender had done the act with sexual intent.

(Para 5)

C. Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 7 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- POCSO – Allegation of sexual assault against Doctor – Quashing of Criminal proceedings -- Victim complained about chest pain and abdominal pain -- Medical examination of the victim was conducted by the petitioner in the presence of the mother of the victim on the first occasion, and in the presence of the elder sister of the victim on the second occasion -- It is too hard to believe that the petitioner would have resorted to sexual advances upon the victim in the close presence of the victim’s mother and elder sister -- Neither the statement given by the victim to the Police, nor her statements to the learned Magistrate u/s 164 Cr.PC, contained any indication that the alleged act committed by the petitioner was with sexual intent – Chances of that adolescent girl getting misunderstood about the act of the petitioner, cannot be ignored -- Section 41 of the POCSO Act assumes much relevancy -- Provisions of Sections 3 to 13 shall not apply in case of medical examination or medical treatment of a child when such medical examination or medical treatment is undertaken with the consent of his parents or guardian – Criminal proceedings quashed.

(Para 5, 6)

Constitution of India, Section 226 – Promotion of employee – Right to be considered --  Appellant was proceeded against both departmentally and under the criminal law -- Criminal case being lodged in which he was arrested but later acquitted -- Departmental proceedings set aside in 2009 by the Government -- In such circumstances, the appellant could not have been disentitled from a consideration in the year 2019 -- Writ petition was also filed in the year 2019 – Held, appellant must be considered for promotion, dehors any disentitlement due to his having become overaged -- The consideration will be made and if found eligible, he shall be promoted from 2019 and consequential benefits also shall be paid to him -- It is trite that the employee has no right to be promoted but has a right to be considered, when selections for promotions are carried out, unless disqualified; which right has been impinged, unjustly, in the case – Appeal allowed.

(Para 4)

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Functional disability – Amputation of leg – Functional disability of 100% cannot be assessed only because he cannot carry on the vocation which he was carrying on earlier -- It is not as if the appellant was vending fruit on his foot, especially when it is seen that he was filing an Income Tax Return -- Injured was having a shop in Bazar Samiti -- Definitely, the disability would affect his income, and he would probably have to engage an employee in his shop -- Functional disability can be assessed at 60%.

(Para 5)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Amputation of leg – Functional disability assessed at 60% -- Conveyance charges fixed at Rs.50,000/- -- For pain and suffering, considering amputation of his left leg, Rs.2 lakhs awarded – For reasonable period of bed rest at 6 months and for special diet and attendant Rs. 15,000/- per month awarded – Income loss for 1-1/2 months assessed at Rs. 19,624/- -- So far as the income during treatment it must be preserved as awarded by the Tribunal – Total compensation assessed at Rs.32,34,353/-

(Para 5, 6)

A. Indian Contract Act, 1872 (9 of 1872), Section 2(d) – Consideration -- Past consideration is as good as present consideration --  Word ‘consideration’ has been defined in Section 2 (d) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 which has a wider connotation and includes within its sweep not only the monetary consideration but even promises including promise to render future personal service.

(Para 13)

B. Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 54 – Indian Contract Act, 1872 (9 of 1872), Section 201, 202 – Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 (45 of 1988), Section 3, 4 -- Sale by Will/ Agreement to Sell/ General Power of attorney/ Affidavit -- PW-1/ S K deposed that her brother/ A.K. was only a Class IV employee and on her request and on her behalf he applied for the house in his name -- A.K/ Brother executed an agreement to sell, General Power of Attorney, registered Will and an affidavit – Hence, Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 could not be invoked -- After the death of A.K. on 14.08.1984, his widow and children never made any attempt to pay the instalments -- All instalments were paid by S.K. and her daughter -- All the documents of the property have been produced by the plaintiff -- Hence, it is proved that there was sale of the house in favour of Ms. S.K. by A.K -- Likewise, the General Power of Attorney will not cease to have effect because Ms.SK has interest in the property in view of agreement and Will -- Case falls under Section 202 and not 201 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.

(Para 13, 18)

C. Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 13 -- Agreement to sell of imperfect title – Effect of -- Section 13 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 enables the purchaser to claim specific performance against person with no title or imperfect title -- Clause (a) of Section 13 (1) provides that if the vendor has subsequent to any contract acquired any interest in the property, the purchaser may compel him to make good the contract out of such interest -- If there was any defect in his ownership, the same stood rectified on payment of instalment.

(Para 14)

D. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 68 -- Will – Proof of -- Suspicious circumstances -- Execution of the Will proved by examining both the attesting witnesses – Despite lengthy cross examination, the defendants failed to impeach their credibility – Will is not surrounded by suspicious circumstances because of various documents executed by A.K. including agreement to sell, General Power of Attorney, affidavit, apart from the Will.

(Para 15, 16)

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (43 of 2005), Section 12, 13 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 200 -- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 223 – Application under DV Act – Cognizance by Court – Requirement of – It is not a complaint within the meaning of Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. or 223 of the BNSS -- Therefore, there is no need to take cognizance upon an application under the D.V. Act, 2005 – Ld. Magistrate on receipt of the application shall only fix a date for hearing within three days from the date of filing of the application u/s 12(4) of the said Act -- Order of cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate is bad in law – Order set aside -- Ld. Judicial Magistrate directed to issue notice upon the present petitioners in D.V. Case.

(Para 7, 8)

Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (56 of 2007), Section 22(2) -- Senior citizen case – Vacation/ Eviction of one son – Permissibility of – Senior citizen is residing at First Floor with other son – Petitioner is paying monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000/- -- Balance of equities also have to be maintained -- Mechanical orders cannot be passed merely on the ground that the senior citizen wants one of the children out of the premises -- There is enough space for accommodation available to the respondent No. 4-senior citizen coupled with the fact that a sum of Rs.10,000/- as a financial maintenance is also being paid to the respondent No. 4-senior citizen, the impugned order directing vacation of petitioner from the premises cannot be sustained -- Petitioners allowed to possess two rooms on the ground floor as long as the petitioners keep on paying a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month to the respondent No. 4-senior citizen as maintenance henceforth till he is alive.

(Para 6-8)

Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (39 of 1987), Section 22C, 22E – Public Utility Services – Permanent Lok Adalat – Territorial Jurisdiction – Insurance policy was issued from Chandigarh Branch, whereas, the place of occurrence/ accident is in district Auraiya (Uttar Pradesh) – Application preferred by the petitioner before the PLA at Gurugram is a misconceived motion, on account of territorial jurisdiction – Liberty granted to the petitioner to approach the competent authority/Court of territorial jurisdiction in accordance with law.

(Para 3, 4)

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 482 -- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023), Section 109, 105, 324(2), 191(3), 190, 351(2) – Anticipatory bail – Attempt to murder -- Submission that for the purpose of obtaining information about the identity of other assailants and for the purpose of recovery of incriminating evidence, further custodial interrogation is required – Held, accused while joining investigation is not expected to make self-incriminating statement under the threat that State may seek withdrawal of the interim protection granted to him – Pretrial incarceration of the petitioner is not required -- Petition allowed, order granting interim bail made absolute.

(Para 4, 5)

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (2 of 2016), Section 75 -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 21 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376 -- Summoning to Chairman of Managing Committee in protest petition -- Quashing of – Sexual assault on 4 year old child -- Prime accused was less than 7 years of age -- It is impossible to even allege that the appellant, being Chairman of the Managing Committee, had the actual charge of all the children studying in the school run by the institution -- It cannot be said that he had control over all the children in the School -- Assuming that the appellant was morally responsible, Section 75 of the JJ Act cannot be applied unless it is shown that the appellant had the actual charge of the victim child or control over the victim child – Orders passed by Special Judge summoning the appellant, affirmed by High court. set aside.

(Para 3, 7-9)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 201, 120B – Chhattisgarh Gambling (Prohibition) Act, 2022 (4 of 2023), Section 4, 7, 8, 11  -- Public Gambling Act, 1867 (3 of 1867), Section 4A -- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Section 7 and 7A -- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 483 --  Corruption, Cheating and forgery -- Regular bail – Taking into consideration the fact that the appellant is a Police Constable, expecting him to cooperate with the further investigation and he has been under incarceration for almost one year and is not likely to abscond if released on bail – Bail allowed.

(Para 2-4)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Non-impleadment of married daughter of deceased – Effect of – Claim petition dismissed by Tribunal -- Only ground for dismissing the claim petition was that the married daughter not impleaded as a party – Held, non-impleadment of a party would not be a ground for rejection of the claim petition -- Claim petition can be filed by all or any one of the legal representatives – Matter remanded back.

(Para 2, 8, 9)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Witness of person who is not examined u/s 161 Cr.P.C. – Evidential value -- Absence of a statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. does not, by itself, render a witness’s testimony inadmissible or unreliable in civil proceedings, particularly in a motor accident claim petition -- Motor Accident Claims Tribunals are guided by the principle of preponderance of probabilities rather than strict rules of evidence -- Testimony of PW1, corroborated by the circumstances of the case and the admission of the accident by respondent no.1, sufficiently establishes the involvement of the offending vehicle and the rash and negligent conduct of its driver -- Tribunal’s observations regarding alleged collusion between the claimant and PW1 are speculative and unsupported by evidence -- Tribunal’s findings on collusion are legally untenable and merit rejection – Order/ award of Tribunal dismissing the claim petition set aside.

(Para 11-16, 22)

A. Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (30 of 1956), Section 6 -- Coparcenary property -- Hindu Joint Family Property – Alienation of share – Permissibility of -- In a coparcenary property the shares of the person in the property can be alienated but not the piece of the property which belongs to Hindu Joint Family Property.

(Para 23)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 145 – Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 34 -- Suit for declaration of title/ possession / validity of sale deed – Maintainability of proceeding u/s 145 Cr.P.C. -- Once the civil suit between the parties is pending for declaration of title or possession or regarding validity of the sale deed, in that situation, a parallel proceeding u/s 145 of CrPC cannot be initiated or allowed to be continued -- Orders passed under Section 145 CrPC set aside.

(Para 24, 25)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388 – Extortion – Stage before committing an extortion -- Section 383 defines extortion, the punishment therefor is given in Section 384 -- Sections 386 and 388 provide for an aggravated form of extortion -- These sections deal with the actual commission of an act of extortion, whereas Sections 385, 387 and 389 IPC seek to punish for an act committed for the purpose of extortion even though the act of extortion may not be complete and property not delivered -- It is in the process of committing an offence that a person is put in fear of injury, death or grievous hurt.

(Para 10)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 387 – Stage before committing an extortion -- Commission of an offence of extortion is not sine qua non for an offence under this Section -- It is safe to deduce that for prosecution u/s 387 IPC, the delivery of property is not necessary.

(Para 14)

C. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 387 – Stage before committing an extortion -- Penal law – Strict interpretation -- It is a well-settled principle of law that penal statutes must be given strict interpretation -- The Court ought not to read anything into a statutory provision that imposes penal liability -- Scope of the provision cannot be extended by reading into it words which are not there -- Section 387 IPC, being a penal provision, has to be strictly interpreted, and no condition/ essential ingredient can be read into it that the Statute/ Section does not prescribe.

(Para 19, 24)

Constitution of India, Article 226, 227 -- Transfer of employee – Challenge to -- Petitioner has already completed normal tenure at present place of posting and she has no vested right to remain posted at a particular station, but at least respondent-State should have taken due care, while choosing the station of posting of petitioner, keeping in view her earlier term in hard/ tribal area coupled with the fact that her husband is also working in Government Senior Secondary School – Petitioner given liberty to file representation to the competent authority, praying therein for her adjustment at a convenient station on the ground of couple case, which shall be decided by the competent authority within a period of ten days, taking note of concessions available to couples and employees, having earlier served tribal/ hard areas.

(Para 5, 6)

Insecticides Act, 1968 (46 of 1968), Sections 3(K)(I), 17, 18, 29, 33 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Quashing of complaint/ summoning order -- Director of Company – Liability of -- When a company nominates a responsible person for compliance under the Act, other officials cannot be held vicariously liable -- No specific allegations made against the petitioners demonstrating their involvement in the quality control process of the company -- Complaint explicitly identifies the Manager Quality Control-cum-responsible person, who has already been proceeded against – Prosecution of the petitioners, who were not responsible for quality control, would constitute an abuse of the process of law -- Petitions allowed, complaint along with all consequences proceedings arising therefrom including the summoning order quashed qua the petitioners.

(Para 9-12)

A. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 21 -- Commencement of arbitral proceedings – Notice for arbitration -- Proceedings are deemed to have been initiated from the date the notice invoking the arbitration clause “is received by the respondent” -- The clause does not require the notice to be served by all the parties to the agreement -- Notice by one of the parties to the agreement would be a sufficient compliance of the statutory provision.

(Para 6)

B. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 21 – Notice for arbitration – Nature of -- Giving of such a notice is purely procedural and not a decisive step -- Its form and terms do not call for a strict scrutiny -- Technicality cannot be attached with a notice served under Section 21 of the Arbitration Act as that would defeat the objective of the statute, which provides for a speedy resolution of the disputes.

(Para 6)

C. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 11 -- Appointment of Arbitrator -- Accounts of firm -- Dissolution of partnership firm – Pendency of civil and criminal case – Effect of -- On the dissolution of a partnership firm, the arbitration clause does not come to an end -- Dispute relating to the accounts of a partnership firm is a dispute, which touches the affairs of the firm and is clearly referable to an Arbitrator and the parties cannot be compelled to take a recourse to the civil courts -- Pendency of a civil and criminal litigation inter se partners, cannot estop one of the partners from invoking the arbitration clause or bar the reference of dispute for adjudication to an arbitrator for determination – Arbitrator appointed.

(Para 7-9)

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 140, 166, 168 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Married daughter – Legal heir -- Dependency of -- Once a daughter is married, logical presumption is that she now has rights on her matrimonial household and is also financially supported by her husband or his family, unless proven otherwise -- Sections 166 and 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 focus on the financial relationship between the deceased and the Claimant -- A married daughter may be considered a legal representative but she will not be eligible for loss of dependency compensation unless it is proven by the daughter that she was financially dependent on the deceased -- Appellant No. 1 failed to prove that she was being financially supported by her mother post marriage and hence cannot be said to be a dependent of her mother, the deceased -- High Court rightly hold that Appellant No.1, as the legal representative of the deceased, will only be entitled to compensation envisaged in Section 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 as liability under the same does not cease to exist in the absence of dependency.

(Para 13, 14)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 140, 166, 168 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Death of daughter -- Dependency of aged mother of about 70 years  – Possibility of future dependency – Consideration of -- She was solely dependent on the deceased as she lived with her and had no independent income, there is no evidence on record to rebut the same – Held, obligation of a child to maintain their parent in old age is as much of a duty as the obligation of a parent to maintain their child during minority --  Even if it is assumed that Appellant No. 2/ mother was not dependent on the deceased at the time of the accident, the possibility of future dependency cannot be disregarded -- Appellant No. 2/ mother held entitled to compensation of Rs.19,22,356/-.

(Para 15-20)

Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 (10 of 1993), Section 2(d) – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Human rights – Violation of -- Refusal to register FIR – Use of filthy language by Inspector -- Additional Chief Secretary directed by State Human Right Commission to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- to the third respondent-complainant and liberty was granted to the Additional Chief Secretary to recover the said amount from the appellant/ Inspector of Police – Every citizen of India who goes to a Police Station to report commission of an offence deserves to be treated with human dignity -- That is his fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India -- A citizen who wants to report commission of an offence, should not be treated like a criminal -- It was rightly found by the Commission and by the High Court that there was a violation of human rights on the part of the appellant -- No interference is called for with the impugned judgment and order -- Appeal dismissed.

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 47, Order 21 – Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 38 -- Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Article 136 – Limitation -- Subsequent Execution petition – Maintainability of -- Decree of permanent prohibitory injunction – Restrain from interference to the peaceful possession of the scheduled property -- A satisfaction recorded in one Execution Petition would not result in the dismissal of a further E.P. filed on the ground of a subsequent interference caused -- There would be no limitation to enforce or execute a decree granting perpetual injunction -- When a permanent injunction is granted it operates perpetually against the judgment debtors, their assignees and successors and it could be enforced at any time, breach is occasioned.

(Para 6, 7)

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023), Section 115(2), 118(1), 333, 191(3), 190 -- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 482 -- Anticipatory bail – House-trespass – Rioting – Non-recovery of weapon – Ground of -- Petitioners have joined investigation – State submitted that custodial interrogation is required for the purpose of effecting recovery of weapon of offence – Held, non-recovery cannot be considered as ground for denial of bail – Anticipatory bail allowed.

(Para 4)

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Section 7, 13 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 374 -- Corruption case -- Stay of conviction -- Petitioner, being a public servant was convicted for 3 years on the charges u/s 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act and 2 years on charges under Section 7 read with Section 12 of the PC Act -- High Court declined to stay the conviction – Held, Courts should refrain from staying conviction of public servants who have been convicted on charges of corruption -- Ex facie, no justifiable reason to take a different view – SLP dismissed.

(Para 3, 6-8)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439(2) – Cancellation of bail -- Private respondents were extended the concession of regular bail subject to implied conditions that they would not misuse the liberty granted, tamper with evidence, or intimidate witnesses -- However, soon after securing bail, the private respondents not only trespassed into the residence of the relatives of the complainant, but also issued threats and assaulted the complainant, thereby grossly undermining the authority of the Court and the sanctity of the bail order -- Held, private respondents have forfeited the privilege of bail by their overt acts of intimidation and assault, which are clearly in violation of the conditions imposed at the time of granting bail – Bail cancelled.

(Para 11, 13, 14)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439(2) – Cancellation of bail -- Liberty granted to an accused by way of bail can be curtailed if the same is misused -- If an accused, after grant of bail, engages in acts that amount to interference with the due course of justice such as intimidation of witnesses, tampering with evidence, or commission of further offenses, such conduct forms a cogent and compelling ground for cancellation of bail.

(Para 12)

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 348 – Recalling of witness -- Application moved after a lapse of six and half years from the date of examination of PW-7 -- Only reason for recall of PW-7 as given is that some questions regarding the cases pending between the parties, were left to be asked -- Reason cannot be stated to be plausible at all because if certain other cases are pending between the parties, material qua that can be produced by the petitioner during her defence evidence --  Application dismissed by Trial court – No ground for interference, revision dismissed.

(Para 1, 5, 6)

A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378 (4) -- Acquittal in cheque bounce complaint – Leave to appeal -- Complainant had not shown the license under Money Lenders Act which is necessary for lending money for the advancement of loan to the farmer – It was proved on record that the Bank was in receipt of the application regarding misplacing of the cheques in dispute and they have dishonoured the cheque due to insufficiency of the funds but the fact regarding misplacing of the cheques and giving the application could not be denied and it was the fault of the bank – Trial court acquitted the accused -- Leave to appeal denied.

(Para 1, 3, 5)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 372, 378 (4) -- Appeal against acquittal -- Power of the Appellate Court – Power to unsettle the order of acquittal on the basis of re-appreciation of the evidence is subject to the settled law that where two views are possible and out of the two, one points towards the innocence of the accused, the view which favours the accused should prevail over the other pointing towards his guilt -- Presumption of innocence further gets entrenched on the acquittal of accused by the trial Court.

(Para 4)

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023), Section 109, 115(2), 190, 191(3), 332 (C), 333, 117 (1) -- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 483 – Attempt to murder -- Regular bail – Allegation that petitioner along with co-accused had given injuries to the complainant and the petitioner with a gandasa had given a blow which hit the forehead of the complainant -- Keeping in view, that as per the MLR, injuries are blunt injuries and there is no opinion that injuries are dangerous to life; since the trial is yet to commence and the same is likely to take time, the fact that the petitioner is in custody for the last 06 months and continuous detention of the petitioner would not serve the ends of justice – Bail allowed.

(Para 2, 7)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 21 Rule 97, 98, 101, 102 – Execution of decree -- Rule 98 of Order XXI CPC is to be read in the context of Rule 97 and 101 of the CPC -- Under the said Rule, after determination of the questions as referred in 101, in accordance with law, on the application which had been moved by the decree-holder under Rule 97, the Court may allow the application by directing the decree-holder/ applicant to be put in possession of the property; or dismiss his application or pass such order as in the circumstances of the case, it may deem fit -- Under Rule 98 CPC, the Court is required to determine the questions, which are raised by the decree-holder.

(Para 24, 27)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 21 Rule 97, 99, 100, 101, 102 – Execution of decree -- Third party objection – Rule 100 of Order XXI CPC is to be read in the context of Rules 99 and 101 CPC -- Under the said rule, upon determination of the questions, as referred to in Rule 101 CPC in accordance with law, on the application which had been moved by any person other than the judgment-debtor [third party objector] under Rule 99, the Court may allow the application by directing the said third party to be put in possession of the property; or dismiss the application or pass such order in the circumstances, as it may deem fit -- Rule 100 CPC, the Court is required to determine the questions, which are raised by any third party.

(Para 26, 27)

C. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 21 Rule 97, 99, 100, 101, 102 – Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 52 -- Execution of decree -- Principle of lis pendence -- Objection by transferee pendentelite – Maintainability of -- A purchaser of suit property during the pendency of litigation has no right to resist or obstruct execution of decree passed by a competent Court -- The doctrine of 'lis pendens' prohibits a party from dealing with the property, which is the subject matter of suit -- 'Lis pendens' itself is treated as constructive notice to a purchaser that he is bound by a decree to be entered in the pending suit -- A transferee from a judgment debtor is presumed to be aware of the proceedings before a Court of law -- He should be careful before he purchases the property, which is the subject matter of litigation -- Order XXI Rule 102 CPC recognizes the doctrine of lis pendens recognized by Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

(Para 31)

D. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 21 Rule 97, 99, 100, 101, 102 – Execution of decree -- Third party objector, who is a transferee pendente lite -- Maintainability of objections -- Court is not required to determine any questions as raised by such third party objector, who is a transferee pendente lite -- Once it is found that petitioner is a transferee pendente lite, Rule 102 CPC debars the Executing Court to determine any question raised by her as untenable under Order XXI Rule 98 and 101 CPC, as these Rules will not be applicable in such a case and as such, there was no question of adjudication on merits of the objections to the execution.

(Para 32)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 23 Rule 1(3) – Withdrawn of suit with liberty to file fresh – Stage of -- Rebuttal evidence closed by Court order -- Plaintiff then filed an application for leading additional evidence which was dismissed – Plaintiff wanted to add the plea of fraud and misrepresentation -- No party can be permitted to derive undue advantage of its own wrongs -- At the stage, to permit withdrawal of the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action meant permitting the plaintiff to fill up the lacunae in the case -- No formal defect was pointed out in the suit nor was any satisfaction recorded by the trial Court while granting the permission – Held, plaintiff unable to make out a case within the four corners of Order XXIII Rule 1(3) CPC and, therefore, there was no occasion for the learned trial Court to allow the said application – Revision allowed, order passed by the trial Court set aside -- Application for withdrawal of the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action stands dismissed.

(Para 8-15)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 499, 500 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Defamation – Intention/ knowledge -- Quashing of complaint/ summoning order -- Publication in newspapers -- To constitute ‘defamation’ u/s 499 IPC, the allegation must have been made with intention to harm or knowing or having reason to believe that it will harm the person’s reputation -- It is not the complainant’s case that in reporting and publishing the imputation/ allegations, the petitioners had the intention to harm his reputation in any manner, or that they had the knowledge or reasons to believe that it would harm his reputation -- In the absence of any material indicating the petitioners’ complicity in the case, there was no occasion to summon them to face trial; the order is, accordingly, groundless and unsustainable -- Criminal complaint and all consequential proceedings, including the summoning order quashed qua the petitioners.

(Para 9-13)

Constitution of India, Article 21, 226 -- Live in Relationship – Protection of life and liberty -- Protection of life and liberty is a basic feature of the Constitution of India -- Every person, more so, a major, has the right to live his / her life with a person of his / her choice -- At any rate, whenever this Court, prima-facie, is satisfied that on account of some relatives/ persons being unhappy with the relationship between the petitioners could cause harm to the life and liberty of the petitioners, then in such circumstances, the Courts are required to pass necessary directions for their protection -- Direction given to respondent No.2 to consider the representation and to assess the threat perception to the petitioners and after considering the same and shall take appropriate action in accordance with law.

(Para 10-14)

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in  motor vehicle accident case – Non-renewal of Driving License -- Liability of Insurance Company – Recovery rights in the absence of service of summons to driver/ owner -- Driver possessed valid driving license since 1968 -- Renewed w.e.f. 12.11.1992 to 11.11.1995 – Not renewed from 12.11.1995 to 25.03.1997 – Renewed on 26.03.1997-- Accident took place on intervening night of 1/2.12.1996 --  Driver of the offending vehicle cannot be presumed to be having possessed with legal and valid driving license as on the date of accident -- Insurance company to deposit the amount at the first instance followed by its recovery from the insured. Beli Ram V. Rajinder Kumar reported as 2021 (3) ACC 436 relied.

-- recovery rights need to be conferred upon the appellant/ insurance company, however, appellant/ insurance company has not made any bonafide efforts to serve Respondents No. 4 & 5, during the pendency of their present appeal for the past 25 years and the same thus has been dismissed qua Respondents No. 4 & 5, as such, no such directions can be passed in favour of the appellant/ insurance company in the absence of Respondents No. 4 & 5 on account of their own act and conduct.

(Para 9, 15)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in  motor vehicle accident case – Accident on intervening night of 1/2.12.1996 – Minimum wages of Rs.3,000/- per month taken as per the notification of the State Government while considering deceased as a skilled labour -- Deceased to be around 29 years on the date of accident, multiplier of 17 needs to be applied -- Claimants held entitled to Rs.18,000/- as compensation under the head of funeral expenses and Rs.18,000/- towards loss of estate by applying 10% increase under the conventional heads -- Loss of consortium to the tune of Rs.48,000/- x 3 (Rs.1,44,000/-) as respondents no.1 to 3 being wife and children – Deduction 1/3 applied – Total compensation comes to Rs.7,51,200/- with interest @ 12% per annum being just and proper in the prevailing economic scenario/ facts and circumstances.

(para 9-14)

Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), Section 17 – Registered documents – Presumption -- Registration of a document gives notice to the world that such a document has been executed is not to confer an unimpeachable validity on all such registered documents.

 (Para 16)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 1 Rule 10, Order 22 Rule 4 -- Deletion of party/ Legal heirs – When a particular party has been impleaded as a legal heir under Order XXII Rule 4 after due inquiry by the court and without any objections, the party can approach the court anytime later and seek his deletion from the array of parties by filing an application under Order 1 Rule 10.

(Para 51)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 1 Rule 10, Order 22 Rule 4, Section 11 -- Deletion of party/ Legal heirs – Res-judicata -- High Court, in its impugned order, held the application of the appellant under Order 1 Rule 10 to be barred by res judicata and thus not maintainable on that ground – Held, no infirmity in the said observation made by the High Court -- Issue as regards the impleadment of the appellant as a legal heir of the original defendant had attained finality between the parties and thus the subsequent application under Order 1 Rule 10 seeking to get his name deleted from the array of parties could be said to be barred by res judicata.

(Para 53, 54)

C. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 1 Rule 10, Order 22 Rule 4, Section 11 -- Deletion of party – “at any stage of the proceedings” -- Order 1 Rule 10 allows the court to exercise its power at any stage, however the same cannot be construed to mean that the defendant can keep reagitating the same objection at different stages of the same proceeding, when the issue has been determined conclusively at a previous stage.

(Para 54)

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023), Section 109, 115(2), 118(1), 127(1), 351(2), 191(3), 190 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 483 – Attempt to murder -- Regular bail -- Petitioner’s name does not appear in the initial version of the FIR -- Primary injury u/s 109 BNS is attributed to co-accused – Case warrants consideration for the grant of bail -- Petitioner deserves a fair opportunity to rehabilitate and reintegrate into society -- Petitioner’s personal liberty ought not to be curtailed indefinitely – Bail allowed.

(Para 4, 5)

Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (51 of 1993), Section 31B, 34 -- Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (5 of 2005), Section 26 -- Priority to secured creditors – Bank’s right over State to collect tax -- Right of the petitioner Bank to recover its dues by sale of the secured asset would have priority over the arrears which were sought to be recovered by the respondent State under the provisions of the A.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2005.

(Para 14)

Kerala Registration of Marriages (Common) Rules, 2008, Rule 11, 13 –  Special Marriage Act, 1954 (43 of 1954), Section 4, 12 -- Marriage between Muslim and Hindu – Registration of marriage – Cancellation of – Petitioners seeking cancellation of registration certificate – Contention that since they belong to different religions and have not solemnised their marriage under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, their marriage is invalid – Held, Registrar is not empowered to conduct a comprehensive enquiry regarding the validity of the marriage or the competence of the parties to get married -- Having produced documents and voluntarily testifying that the marriage was solemnised, the petitioners are estopped from reprobating that there is no valid marriage -- Registrar does not have the jurisdiction to adjudicate the above disputed question of fact under Rule 13 -- Questions regarding the validity of the marriage and the marital status of the parties are to be decided by a competent civil court.

(Para 5, 8-13)

Indian Contract Act, 1872 (9 of 1872), Section 73 -- Forged cheque encashment – Liability of Bank -- Bank had encashed cheques containing forged signatures of the authorised signatories of the plaintiffs – Held, Bank was negligent in having encashed the plaintiffs’ cheques with the forged signatures of its authorised signatories – Bank’s contention that the forgery was committed by one of the employees of the plaintiffs, and the Bank could not be made liable for the same stand in the teeth of the law -- Bank is liable for having effected payment of the forged cheques with interest from the date of suit @ 6% p.a.

(Para 16-18, 22)