(1) SUPREME COURT
Permanent Alimony
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955—Sections 13 and 25—Divorce and Permanent Alimony—Effect of Alleged Settlement in Other Proceedings—Held: Where a decree of divorce along with permanent alimony of Rs.20,00,000/- had been concurrently affirmed by the Trial Court and the High Court, the Supreme Court declined to reopen such concurrent findings merely on the basis of the husband's contention that the wife had agreed in another proceeding to withdraw cases under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and Section 498A IPC—In the absence of any such concession being recorded in the impugned proceedings or supported by evidence, no interference was warranted; however, the husband was left at liberty to seek closure of such independent proceedings, if otherwise permissible in law, on the basis of any con...
(2) SUPREME COURT
Compounding of offence
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Sections 138 and 147—Compounding of Offence—Post-Conviction Settlement—Held: An offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is compoundable even after conviction—Where the complainant acknowledged receipt of the entire compensation and litigation expenses amounting to Rs.7,00,000/-, entered into a voluntary compromise with the accused, and sought closure of the proceedings, the Supreme Court recorded the compromise, set aside the concurrent judgments of conviction, and directed the appellant's immediate release from custody, if not required in any other case. (Paras 3–7). ...
(3) SUPREME COURT
Double Murder
Indian Penal Code, 1860—Sections 302, 307, 324, 332, 427 and 452—Arms Act, 1959—Section 25(1)(b)—Double Murder and Assault on Public Servant—Concurrent Conviction—Held: Where the prosecution established through reliable ocular and documentary evidence that the accused committed the murder of two persons, caused injuries to others including a police officer who reached the place of occurrence, and was apprehended at the scene of the offence, the conviction under Sections 302 (two counts), 307, 324, 332, 427 and 452 IPC and Section 25(1)(b) of the Arms Act was rightly recorded—The concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the High Court being based on proper appreciation of evidence called for no interference under Article 136 of the Constitution. (Paras 2–5). ...
(4) SUPREME COURT
A. Criminal Procedure—Special Leave Petition—Withdrawal of Petition—The petitioner sought permission to withdraw the Special Leave Petition with liberty to avail such other remedies as may be available in law—The Supreme Court granted permission and dismissed the petition as withdrawn. B. Supreme Court Practice—Liberty to Pursue Alternative Remedies—Withdrawal of a Special Leave Petition with liberty to seek appropriate remedies does not amount to an adjudication on merits and preserves the petitioner’s right to pursue remedies permissible under law. C. Special Leave Jurisdiction—Exercise of Discretion—The Supreme Court, in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction, may permit withdrawal of proceedings and grant liberty to approach the appropriate forum in accordance with law. ...
(5) SUPREME COURT
Culpable homicide
A. Indian Penal Code, 1860—Section 304 Part II—Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder—Nature of Offence—Held: Where the accused, during a sudden altercation, pushed the deceased into a dry canal, resulting in fatal head injuries caused by the fall, and the prosecution failed to establish that the alleged stone blows inflicted by the accused caused the fatal injuries, the act was held to have been committed with the knowledge that it was likely to cause death but without any intention to cause death or such bodily injury as was likely to cause death—Accordingly, the conviction was held to fall under Section 304 Part II IPC. (Paras 11–13). B. Indian Penal Code, 1860—Section 304 Part II—Sentencing—Reduction of Sentence—Held: While maintaining the conviction under Section 304 P...
(6) SUPREME COURT
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005—Sections 12, 17 and 19—Residence Order—Shared Household—Held: Where the Magistrate had directed the husband to permit the wife and minor daughter to reside peacefully in the shared household and such order was affirmed in appeal, dismissal of the husband's revision by the High Court did not dilute or supersede the subsisting residence order—The Supreme Court held, prima facie, that the Magistrate's residence order continued to operate, issued notice, and stayed the operation of the High Court's direction requiring the husband to provide rented accommodation, thereby protecting the wife's right to continue residing in the shared household pending further orders. (Paras 2–7). ...
(7) SUPREME COURT
Bail granted
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023—Section 483 (Corresponding to Section 439 Cr.P.C.)—Grant of Regular Bail—Held: Bail may be granted where the accused has remained in custody for a considerable period, investigation is complete, the charge-sheet has been filed, the trial has not commenced despite availability of only a few prosecution witnesses, and parity exists with a co-accused already enlarged on bail—Accordingly, in a case involving offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 27 of the Arms Act, the Supreme Court directed release of the appellants on regular bail, leaving it to the Trial Court to impose appropriate terms and conditions. (Paras 6–10). ...
(8) SUPREME COURT
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 173(2)—Closure Report (Final Report)—Protest Petition—Held: Where the police, after investigation, submit a final report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., the informant has an efficacious statutory remedy of filing a protest petition/objection before the jurisdictional Magistrate—The Magistrate is competent to examine the objections and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, including directing further proceedings, if warranted—Accordingly, the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the High Court's refusal to order reinvestigation and left it open to the petitioner to challenge the closure report before the jurisdictional Magistrate. (Paras 3–9). ...
(9) SUPREME COURT
Bail granted
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 439—Grant of Bail—Prolonged Incarceration and Delay in Trial—Held: In a case involving offences under Sections 302 and 207/34 IPC, bail may be granted notwithstanding the gravity of the allegations where the accused has remained in custody for a prolonged period, the charge-sheet has already been filed, the trial has not commenced, and its conclusion is not likely in the near future—The existence of eyewitnesses and the appellant's involvement in another criminal case, in which bail had already been granted, did not outweigh the right to liberty in the peculiar facts of the case—Accordingly, the appellant was directed to be released on bail on such terms and conditions as the Trial Court deemed fit. (Paras 6–10). ...
(10) SUPREME COURT
Criminal proceedings
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 406—Transfer of Criminal Proceedings—Held: A complainant or victim cannot dictate the place of trial merely on the basis of an unsubstantiated apprehension of threat—Where the alleged offence was committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the Trial Court, the material witnesses were located there, and the plea of threat perception was not supported by cogent material, no case for transfer of the criminal proceedings was made out—However, to ensure a fair trial, the Trial Court was directed to provide appropriate security to the complainant and other witnesses whenever they are summoned to depose before the Court. (Paras 3–7). ...
(1) GAUHATI
Quashing of proceeding
A. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Sections 145 and 146—Proceedings relating to dispute over immovable property—Condition precedent for assumption of jurisdiction—Held: Jurisdiction under Sections 145 and 146 Cr.P.C. can be invoked only where the Magistrate is satisfied that a dispute concerning land or water is likely to cause a breach of peace and the question of actual possession requires determination—Where possession of the disputed property is an admitted fact, the essential jurisdictional requirement is absent and proceedings under Sections 145/146 Cr.P.C. are not maintainable. (Paras 9, 11, 13 & 14) B. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 145—Determination of possession by Magistrate—Held: The Magistrate is required to determine which party was in actual possession of the dispu...
(2) MEGHALAYA
Anticipatory bail
A. Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023—Sections 89, 318(2) and 69—Anticipatory Bail—Allegation of administering abortion pill causing miscarriage—Held: Where the complainant alleged that the petitioner deceitfully administered an abortion pill resulting in miscarriage, but the investigation disclosed no prima facie medical evidence of miscarriage, pregnancy, physical injury, or trauma, and the petitioner had cooperated with the investigation by appearing before the Investigating Officer, custodial interrogation was held unnecessary—Interim anticipatory bail made absolute subject to conditions safeguarding the investigation and the complainant. (Paras 7–11) B. Criminal Procedure—Anticipatory Bail—Conditions—Held: While granting anticipatory bail, the Court imposed conditions requiring the ...
(3) MADHYA PRADESH
A. Administrative Law—Principles of Natural Justice—Withdrawal of Permission—Withdrawal of permission granted by the Municipal Corporation for holding a religious procession and Mela, without affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, violates the principles of natural justice and is unsustainable in law—The order of cancellation was rightly quashed and the original permission restored subject to its conditions. [Paras 10, 11, 14, 15] B. Administrative Law—Legitimate Expectation—Abrupt Cancellation of Mela Permission—Where permission for conducting a Mela had been granted and the petitioner had made necessary arrangements in reliance thereon, withdrawal of such permission on the eve of the event without notice defeats the petitioner’s legitimate expectation and causes irreparable...
(4) CALCUTTA
A. Tender Process—Judicial Review—Scope of Interference—A tender condition mandating supply of coke breeze through railway rakes cannot be interfered with in the absence of arbitrariness, mala fides, or discrimination—Such a condition, being founded on operational efficiency, safety, quality control, and continuity of production, is legally sustainable. [Paras 23, 25, 30, 33] B. Tender Process—Eligibility Criteria—Supply by Rail—The requirement of transportation through railway rakes is a reasonable condition intended to ensure uninterrupted supply, prevent pilferage, and maintain the quality of materials—The restriction does not violate Articles 14 or 19(1)(g) of the Constitution and is justified in public interest. [Paras 24, 28, 29] C. Judicial Review—Tender Matters—Defe...
(5) CALCUTTA
Framing of charge
A. Indian Penal Code, 1860—S.306—Discharge—Scope of Interference—In a revisional application under Section 482 read with Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C., the Court held that at the stage of framing of charges, a meticulous appreciation of evidence or a mini-trial is impermissible—Where sufficient prima facie material exists, the accused must face trial. [Paras 13-14] B. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—S.156(3)—Delay in Filing Complaint—Mere delay of two months in filing the complaint and alleged non-compliance with Section 154(3) Cr.P.C—do not warrant quashing of proceedings when the materials on record disclose prima facie ingredients constituting an offence under Section 306 IPC. [Paras 14-15] C. Indian Penal Code, 1860—S.306—Abetment to Suicide—Mens Rea—The exis...
(6) CALCUTTA
A. Indian Penal Code, 1860—S.498A—Cruelty by Husband—Conviction—Evidence relating to marital discord, harassment, allegations of illicit relationship, and dissatisfaction over the birth of female children stood corroborated by prosecution witnesses—Minor contradictions and inconsistencies in testimony do not demolish the prosecution case when the core allegations remain established—Conviction under Section 498A IPC was rightly affirmed. [Paras 6-19] B. Indian Penal Code, 1860—Ss.498A & 306—Acquittal under S.306 and Conviction under S.498A—Mere acquittal under Section 306 IPC does not preclude conviction under Section 498A IPC where the ingredients of cruelty are independently proved—The death was found to be suicidal and ante-mortem, and no challenge was raised against the...
(7) HIMACHAL PRADESH
Bail
A. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Bail—Successive Bail Applications—A subsequent bail application after rejection of an earlier one is maintainable only upon a substantial change in circumstances—Judicial discipline requires that successive applications should not result in conflicting orders or be used to abuse the process of the Court. [Paras 8-12] B. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Bail—Delay in Trial—Mere pendency of the trial does not entitle an accused to bail where the delay is attributable to the accused himself—Adjournments sought by the petitioner delayed the framing of charges, and examination of ten witnesses within two years cannot be regarded as unreasonable delay warranting grant of bail. [Paras 14-15] C. Criminal Jurisprudence—Right to Speedy Trial—Scope—...
(8) HIMACHAL PRADESH
A. Registration Act, 1908—S.17(1)(b)—Compromise Deed—Compulsory Registration—A compromise or settlement extinguishing or affecting rights in immovable property requires compulsory registration—An unregistered compromise changing ownership or legal status of property is inadmissible in evidence and cannot confer or extinguish title. [Paras 25-26] B. Civil Procedure—Suit for Declaration of Ownership—Appreciation of Evidence—Trial Court rightly dismissed the suit where the plaintiff failed to establish any connection between the land allegedly sold, exchanged, and the suit property—The findings were based on proper appreciation of documentary evidence. [Paras 19-23] C. Appellate Jurisdiction—Reversal of Findings—Validity—The Appellate Court erred in reversing the T...
(9) MADHYA PRADESH
A. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023—Section 528 and Indian Penal Code, 1860—Section 500—Defamation proceedings—Quashing on settlement—Where the applicant clarified that the alleged defamatory statement contained an inadvertent and erroneous reference, expressed regret for the same, and the complainant accepted the explanation and agreed not to pursue the matter further, continuation of criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose—The proceedings before the High Court and the Trial Court were accordingly closed in terms of the mutual settlement between the parties. [Relevant Paras] B. Criminal Law—Defamation—Apology and amicable resolution—Acceptance of the applicant’s expression of regret and clarification by the complainant, coupled with a voluntary decision not...
(10) HIMACHAL PRADESH
A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988—Section 173—Appeal Against MACT Award—Opportunity to Lead Evidence—The Insurance Company challenged the award on the ground that it was denied a proper opportunity to adduce evidence—The Tribunal had closed its evidence without ensuring that summons issued to the witnesses were either duly served or returned unserved—The Court held that a reasonable and effective opportunity to lead evidence must be afforded, particularly where the assistance of the Court is necessary for securing the attendance of witnesses—Accordingly, the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication of the specified issues, subject to strict compliance with procedural requirements. Held: Denial of a fair opportunity to lead evidence vitiates the proceedings to that extent and warrants remand. [Paras 1...