Criminal Law - Victim Compensation - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 357A - Acid Attack Case - Petitioners-victims of an acid attack suffered serious injuries - Trial Court convicted accused under Section 326A IPC sentencing him to twelve years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.40,000 - Fine amount directed to be disbursed as compensation to victims under Section 357(1)(b) CrPC - Trial court omitted to make a recommendation for compensation under Section 357A CrPC to the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) - Victims' application to Sessions Court for such recommendation dismissed on grounds of pending criminal appeal against conviction - Petitioners approached High Court seeking recommendation to DLSA for compensation under Kerala Victim Compensation Scheme - High Court noted that compensation under Section 357(1)(b) CrPC was inadequate and uncertain of realization - Emphasised mandatory duty of criminal courts to consider and award adequate compensation under Section 357A CrPC in acid attack cases - Held - Mere pendency of appeal cannot be a ground to decline relief - High Court exercised inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to remedy omission - Directed DLSA Kasaragod to determine and disburse compensation expeditiously - [Paras 1-17].

Criminal Law - Victim Compensation - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Sections 357 and 357A - Mandatory duty of court - Supreme Court in Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad v. State of Maharashtra held that it is mandatory duty of criminal court to apply its mind to question of awarding compensation in every criminal case and power under Section 357 CrPC is coupled with duty - Division Bench of Kerala High Court in Xxxx v. State of Kerala held that in acid attack cases it is mandatory duty of court to ensure victims are adequately compensated and "may" in Section 357A(3) CrPC be construed as mandatory - Held - Criminal court is under statutory obligation to consider awarding adequate compensation to victims especially in acid attack cases - [Paras 7-10].

Criminal Law - Inherent Powers of High Court - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 482 - Remedy for statutory omission - Where statutory obligation to recommend victim compensation is omitted and such omission deprives victims of benefits of victim compensation scheme - High Court is justified in exercising inherent jurisdiction to remedy the omission - Held - Granting relief will not offend judicial propriety or judicial discipline when victims are in precarious circumstances due to acid attack - [Paras 15-16].

Decision: Criminal M.C. allowed – District Legal Services Authority, Kasaragod directed to conduct an enquiry and determine the quantum of compensation payable to PWs 1 to 4 under Section 357A of the Cr.P.C. expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from the date of the order and ensure disbursement without unnecessary delay.

Criminal Law - Dishonour of Cheque - Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 - Section 138 - Prosecution of non-signatory joint account holder - Respondent filed complaint arraying petitioner and his wife as accused for dishonour of a cheque issued in discharge of a friendly loan - Cheque was drawn on a joint bank account but signed exclusively by the wife of the petitioner - Trial Court summoned the petitioner under Section 138 of the NI Act - Revisional Court dismissed the revision petition observing that both spouses obtained the loan and shared joint legal liability - Petitioner approached High Court under Section 482 CrPC contending that being a non-signatory he cannot be prosecuted under Section 138 of the NI Act - High Court observed that the plain language of the statute and settled Supreme Court precedents restrict prosecution strictly to the drawer of the cheque - Liability regarding dishonouring of a cheque can only be fastened on the individual who signed it even if the account is jointly maintained - Held - A person who is not a signatory to the cheque cannot be ordered to be prosecuted merely for being a joint account holder or sharing joint liability - Complaint and summoning order quashed qua the petitioner only - [Paras 1-14].

Criminal Law - Inherent Powers - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 482 - Maintainability of petition under Section 482 after dismissal of revision - Respondent objected to the petition arguing that a second revision is barred and the present petition is a second revision in the garb of Section 482 - High Court relied on Supreme Court precedents holding that despite the statutory bar on a second revision under Section 397 of the Code the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 is still available - The paramount power of continuous superintendence justifies interference to prevent miscarriage of justice - Held - The dismissal of a revision petition does not constitute an absolute bar to entertaining an application under Section 482 - Petition is maintainable - [Paras 15-16].

Decision: Petition allowed – Impugned criminal complaint and summoning order along with all consequential proceedings are quashed qua the petitioner only.

Civil Law - Transfer of Suit - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 24 - Applicants sought transfer of subsequent suit filed by opposite parties seeking cancellation of an adoption deed from Kannauj to Kanpur Nagar where applicants prior suit seeking declaration of validity of the same adoption deed is pending - Opposite parties counsel gave no objection - High Court held that while consent of parties is a relevant circumstance the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 24 CPC requires independent satisfaction of the Court that transfer advances the ends of justice - Since both suits involve identical parties and arise out of the same registered adoption deed the subsequent suit ought to be transferred to the Court where the earlier proceeding is pending to avoid multiplicity of proceedings duplication of evidence and inconsistent decrees - Held - Transfer application allowed and suit transferred to Kanpur Nagar with directions to consider joint hearing - [Paras 2-17].

Civil Law - Transfer of proceedings - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 24 - Discretionary equitable power of Court - Section 24 CPC is equitable in nature to be exercised whenever the exigencies of justice so require and is not confined to cases of hardship or inconvenience alone - Where controversy in two proceedings is substantially common and decision in one is likely to have a material bearing upon the other the subsequently instituted proceeding should ordinarily be transferred to the Court where the earlier proceeding is pending unless compelling reasons exist to adopt a different course - Held - No compelling circumstances exist to deviate from the ordinary rule and hence the transfer is justified - [Paras 8-15].

Decision: Transfer application allowed – O.S. No. 170 of 2023 withdrawn from the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) Kannauj and transferred to the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) Kanpur Nagar – Transferee Court directed to consider the desirability of hearing both suits together to secure effective adjudication and avoid inconsistent decrees.

Civil Law - Matrimonial Law - Hindu Marriage Act 1955 - Section 13(1) - Divorce - Cruelty and Mental Disorder - Appellant-husband sought dissolution of marriage alleging wife suffered from chronic mental disorder and subjected him to cruelty - Family Court dismissed the original suit holding that the husband failed to prove either mental illness or cruelty through cogent or medical evidence - High Court upheld the dismissal noting that no medical expert was examined and the wife's coherent testimony during cross-examination disproved mental unsoundness while allegations of cruelty were vague and unsubstantiated - Held - Family Court judgment suffers from no perversity - appeal dismissed - [Paras 1-80].

Civil Law - Mental Disorder as Ground for Divorce - Hindu Marriage Act 1955 - Section 13(1)(iii) - Burden of Proof - Husband alleged wife suffered from incurable mental disorder from childhood - No medical practitioner or expert evidence produced to substantiate the claim - Held - mere assertion of mental abnormality without expert medical proof or establishing that the disorder is of such a degree that the spouse cannot reasonably be expected to live together is insufficient for granting divorce - [Paras 56-75].

Civil Law - Matrimonial Cruelty - Hindu Marriage Act 1955 - Section 13(1)(i-a) - Threshold of Proof - Husband claimed non-consummation and abnormal behavior amounting to mental cruelty - Wife deposed regarding dowry demands for four-wheelers and expulsion from matrimonial home - High Court observed that husband failed to prove non-consummation or specific acts of cruelty - Held - unsubstantiated allegations and vague claims do not meet the threshold of cruelty required under matrimonial jurisprudence - [Paras 34-55].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree dated 19.04.2023 passed in Original Suit No.201 of 2018 affirmed – Pending interlocutory applications disposed of.

Civil Law - Amendment of Pleadings - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order VI Rule 17 - Proviso to Order VI Rule 17 - Plaintiff filed suit for declaration and permanent injunction regarding a plot - Defendant relied on an agreement dated 11.01.2013 executed by plaintiff in the written statement - Plaintiff proceeded with trial and closed oral evidence without challenging the agreement - Subsequently plaintiff filed application seeking amendment to declare the agreement as illegal and void alleging omission by previous counsel - Trial court dismissed application holding trial had commenced and plaintiff had prior knowledge - High Court upheld dismissal observing no due diligence was shown as required by the statutory proviso - Held - Trial court correctly exercised jurisdiction as omission by previous counsel does not constitute due diligence and allowing amendment at belated stage would prejudice defendants by reopening the trial - Revision petition dismissed - [Paras 2-18 and 21-22].

Civil Law - Due Diligence - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order VI Rule 17 - Interpretation of due diligence in the context of belated amendment of pleadings - Proviso mandates satisfaction of due diligence before allowing amendment after commencement of trial - Requirement of due diligence is jurisdictional not merely procedural - Negligence or omission by previous counsel cannot by itself constitute due diligence - Party itself must act with reasonable diligence - Plaintiff was fully conscious of the agreement from the inception of litigation via written statement but failed to seek amendment before commencement of evidence - Held - Lack of due diligence strikes at the jurisdiction of the court to exercise discretion after commencement of trial - [Paras 10-15 and 18].

Decision: Revision petition dismissed – Pending miscellaneous applications if any shall also stand disposed of.

Criminal Law - Illegal Gratification - Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 - Sections 7 13(1)(d) and 13(2) - Appellant functioning as Bench Clerk was convicted by Trial Court for demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs 500 to issue a warrant - Complainant alleged demand was made at 2 30 pm on the day of the trap and he immediately approached ACB - Investigating Officer conceded complainant approached ACB in the morning at 10 30 am contradicting the time of demand - Independent verification of demand was admittedly not conducted - Defense witness testified that complainant thrusted the money into appellant's pocket which remained unimpeached - High Court found the prosecution version improbalised by contradictory testimony and lacking the sine qua non of proof of demand - Held - Trial Court committed grave error in convicting based on surmises - impugned judgment quashed and appellant acquitted - [Paras 1-31].

Criminal Law - Statutory Presumption - Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 - Section 20 - Requisites for invoking presumption - Statutory presumption under Section 20 is not automatic and arises only once foundational facts of demand and acceptance are proved - Prosecution failed to prove initial demand due to glaring inconsistencies in the time of lodging complaint and total absence of independent verification - Mere recovery of tainted currency notes having changed hands is not sufficient to presume acceptance pursuant to a demand of illegal gratification - Held - presumption under Section 20 has no application where the demand itself has not been proved - [Paras 19-26].

Decision: Appeal allowed – The impugned judgment and order dated 19th August 2003 stand quashed and set aside – Appellant stands acquitted of all charges – Fine amount deposited to be refunded and bail bond stands cancelled.

Election Law - Rejection of Nomination - Punjab State Election Commission Act 1994 - Sections 38, 41 and 81 - Punjab Panchayat Election Rules 1994 - Rules 9, 11 and 50 - Appellant nomination for post of Panch SC (Women) rejected by Returning Officer for incomplete form papers without specifying missing documents - Election Tribunal dismissed election petition without summoning original record or recording reasoned findings - High Court held that Returning Officer failed to record specific reasons for rejection under Section 41(5) and Tribunal failed to follow summary procedure under Section 81 - Held - order of Election Tribunal set aside - matter remanded back for fresh adjudication with strict timelines - [Paras 1-19].

Constitutional Law - Panchayati Raj - Constitution of India - Articles 243 and 243-O - Grassroots democracy and decentralisation - Panchayats as institutions of self-government - Constitutional vision presupposes prompt and fair conduct of elections and resolution of electoral disputes - Held - improper rejection of nomination directly impacts local self-governance and vitiates the electoral process - [Paras 7-8].

Election Law - Statutory requirements for valid nomination - Punjab State Election Commission Act 1994 - Section 38 - Punjab Panchayat Election Rules 1994 - Rule 9 - Prescribed form IV and caste declarations constitute complete statutory checklist for valid nomination - Scrutiny process under Rule 11 is curative and enabling rather than automatic disqualification for clerical errors - Held - rejection without specifying missing documents is legally unsustainable - [Paras 10-10.5].

Election Law - Powers of Election Tribunal - Punjab State Election Commission Act 1994 - Sections 81 and 89 - Tribunal bound to try election petition in accordance with procedure under Code of Civil Procedure 1908 and Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Duty to summon original records and determine if nomination was improperly rejected - Held - failure of Tribunal to examine original records renders adjudication an empty formality - [Paras 11-12].

Decision: Appeal allowed - Order of the Election Tribunal dated 09.01.2026 set aside - Parties directed to appear before the Election Tribunal on 31.07.2026 - Tribunal directed to decide the election petition within two weeks upon summoning original records - Costs imposed upon the concerned officers.

Criminal Law - Bail - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 - Sections 80 and 85 - Dowry death and cruelty by husband - Applicant sought bail in a case of dowry death of his second wife - Applicant argued that the marriage was performed during the subsistence of his first marriage making it void - Court framed a preliminary issue on whether the applicant falls within the definition of husband under Sections 80 and 85 BNS - Court examined conflicting precedents and applied the rule of strict interpretation for penal statutes relying on a three judge bench decision of the Supreme Court - Court concluded that the term husband will only cover a person legally married to a woman and not one whose marriage is void ab initio - Court held that since the applicant's first wife was alive and residing with them the second marriage was void and provisions of Sections 80 and 85 BNS could not be invoked - Applicant had no criminal history and the deceased committed suicide by consuming poison without specific allegations - Held - Applicant is entitled to be released on bail - bail application allowed - [Paras 1-30].

Criminal Law - Definition of Husband - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 - Sections 80 and 85 - Interpretation of penal statutes - Court noted that where two views are possible the court must lean towards the construction which exempts the subject from penalty - Presumption of dowry death under Section 80 BNS read with Section 118 BSA must be interpreted strictly in favour of the accused - Held - The word husband in Sections 80 and 85 BNS covers a person only when he is legally married to a woman and does not include a person whose marriage is void - However if the husband concealed his first marriage from the second wife he would be deemed a husband as he cannot take advantage of his own wrong - [Paras 23-28].

Decision: Bail application allowed – Applicant directed to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of the court concerned with specified conditions.

Family Law - Interim Custody - Guardians and Wards Act 1890 - Section 12 - Modification of visitation rights due to relocation - Petitioner-mother challenged Family Court order granting overnight custody of minor daughter to respondent-father arguing it was impractical as she relocated to Pune for employment - Father initiated execution proceedings and contended the transfer was a ploy to deprive his rights and argued Bengaluru court lost jurisdiction - High Court noted the distance of 838 kilometers between Bengaluru and Pune and a short flight journey time - Court observed both parents are educated and well-placed and child is comfortable with both - Court rejected the mother's contention that overnight custody cannot be granted at all due to transfer - High Court modified the arrangement to grant the father custody once a month for two days on the second weekend allowing him to spend time in Pune or Bengaluru - Held - Impugned order modified to balance the rights of the father with the practical reality of the mother's relocation - [Paras 1-12].

Family Law - Territorial Jurisdiction - Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227 - Jurisdiction post relocation of child - Respondent-father argued that High Court has no jurisdiction to modify the order as the child was relocated to Pune and proceedings should be initiated there - High Court rejected the argument noting the father himself filed the main custody case in Bengaluru and obtained interim custody execution orders there - Held - Argument regarding lack of jurisdiction rejected - [Paras 8-12].

Decision: Writ petition disposed of – Impugned order modified to grant the respondent-father communication rights on alternate days and physical custody once a month for two days from the second Friday evening to Sunday evening, with liberty to spend time in Pune or take the child to Bengaluru.