Tenancy Law  – Amendment of Pleadings – Subsequent Events – Article 227 – Interference Declined – Tenant challenged order permitting landlord to amend eviction petition after commencement of trial – Amendment sought to bring on record fact that tenant acquired another shop room in same locality suitable for business – Held: No illegality or perversity in order permitting amendment [Paras 1–4, 8–10].

Order VI Rule 17 CPC – Applicability to Rent Control Proceedings – Landlord sought amendment on ground of subsequent development which came to her knowledge only later – Amendment not claimed as matter of right but on showing due diligence – Rent Control Court justified in exercising discretion to allow amendment [Paras 2–3, 8–9].

Subsequent Events – Relevance in Rent Control Cases – Subsequent acquisition of another shop room by tenant in same municipality has direct bearing on eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act – Such events can be brought on record at any stage to enable court to mould relief and avoid multiplicity of proceedings [Paras 6, 9–10].

Due Diligence – Assessment – Objection of tenant that landlord had prior knowledge of subsequent event rejected – License issued by Municipality dated 01.09.2025 supported landlord’s plea that knowledge was acquired only recently – Plea of lack of due diligence not substantiated [Para 9].

Scope of Article 227 – Limited Supervisory Jurisdiction – High Court will not interfere with interlocutory orders of Rent Control Court unless there is patent illegality, jurisdictional error or perversity – Order permitting amendment found to be reasoned and bona fide [Paras 8–10].

Precedents – Subsequent Events – Reliance placed on Korah Abraham v. Varughis and Benjeena v. Pappachan – Subsequent events may be considered if they have fundamental impact on main issue and do not result in abuse of process – Principles applied to facts of present case [Paras 6, 9–10].

Decision – Original Petition dismissed – Order dated 26.11.2025 permitting amendment upheld – No merit found for exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 [Paras 9–10].

Criminal Appeal – Appeal Against Acquittal – Scope of Interference under Section 378 CrPC – State challenged acquittal of accused for offences under IPC, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Bombay Police Act – High Court reiterated that interference in acquittal appeal is permissible only when findings are perverse, illegal or based on misreading of material evidence – Trial Court’s view found to be a possible and plausible view based on record – No perversity or manifest illegality shown – Acquittal upheld [Paras 9, 14–18].

Evidence Appreciation – Contradictions and Omissions – Benefit of Doubt – Prosecution witnesses including complainant, injured and daughter of complainant gave inconsistent versions – Material improvements between complaint and oral depositions – Panch witnesses turned hostile – Neighbours cited as witnesses not examined – Serious contradictions regarding presence of witnesses, nature of assault and sequence of events – Held: Prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 8.1–8.5, 10].

Medical Evidence – Inconsistency with Ocular Version – Prosecution alleged injured remained unconscious for several days – Medical evidence showed injured was conscious throughout and discharged within five days – Doctor opined that injuries were not consistent with alleged weapons – No medical proof of treatment in private hospital – Discrepancy between medical records and oral testimony weakened prosecution case [Paras 8.1–8.4].

Offence under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act – Caste Abuse – Proof of Intention – Contradictory versions as to which accused abused complainant by caste name – Allegations in complaint differed from deposition – No evidence to show intentional insult solely on ground of victim belonging to Scheduled Caste – Mere allegation of abuse insufficient – Reliance placed on Supreme Court decision holding that not every insult constitutes offence under the Act – Charge under SC/ST Act not proved [Paras 8.6–8.7].

Criminal Intimidation and Assault – Failure to Prove Essential Ingredients – Prosecution failed to prove specific role of accused, nature of threats or exact manner of assault – No corroborative evidence regarding injuries to second alleged victim – Motive not established – Held: Ingredients of Sections 323, 324, 504, 506(2) IPC not proved [Paras 8.2, 8.5, 10].

Settled Principles – Presumption of Innocence and Deference to Trial Court – Double presumption in favour of accused after acquittal – Appellate Court should not substitute its view merely because another view is possible – Trial Court having advantage of observing demeanour of witnesses – High Court declined to interfere [Paras 11–16].

Decision: Criminal Appeal dismissed – Judgment and order of acquittal dated 18.01.2008 passed by Special Judge (Atrocity), Veraval, Camp at Una, in Atrocity Sessions Case No. 2 of 2005 confirmed – Record and proceedings directed to be remitted.

Criminal Law – Quashing - Drugs and Cosmetics Act – Rule 45 – Mandatory Time Limit – Quashing of Prosecution – Criminal prosecution launched against manufacturer and its directors alleging manufacture of drug not of standard quality – Samples drawn on 12.07.2022 and sent to Government Analyst on 14.07.2022 – Analyst sought extension only on 01.11.2022, i.e., after expiry of statutory period of 60 days – Report furnished on 18.01.2023 without proof of valid extension being granted – Held: Rule 45 mandates analysis and report within 60 days, extension to be sought within stipulated period with reasons – Non-compliance vitiates prosecution – Proceedings liable to be quashed [Paras 3–5, 8–9].

Right of Accused – Retesting of Sample – Prejudice Caused by Delay – Delayed analysis defeats valuable right of accused to seek re-testing of sample – Time is of essence in drug analysis as quality may deteriorate with passage of time – Failure of Drug Inspector to monitor compliance or issue reminders to Analyst compounds illegality – Prosecution held unsustainable [Paras 9–10].

Precedent – Binding Nature – Reliance placed on decision in Swapnil s/o Liladhar Mane v. State of Maharashtra, 2024(4) Mh.L.J. (Cri.) 673 – Held: Ratio squarely applicable – Delayed analysis beyond statutory period without justification renders complaint invalid [Para 8].

Drugs Regulation – Lapses by Authorities – Need for Systemic Reforms – Court expressed concern over repeated procedural lapses by Drug Administration benefiting manufacturers of sub-standard drugs and frustrating objectives of the Act – Emphasised that public health is paramount and strict adherence to statutory timelines is mandatory [Paras 10–12].

Directions – Regulatory Oversight – Compliance with Rule 45 – Detailed directions issued to Commissioner, Food and Drugs Administration, Maharashtra – To ensure timely testing within 60 days – To take disciplinary action against erring officers – To augment laboratory infrastructure – To create efficient online, web-hosted, real-time monitoring system for drug sample testing and reporting – Compliance directed within three months with report to Court [Paras 14–15].

Decision: Criminal writ petition allowed – Prosecution in S.C.C. No. 637/2023 quashed – Directions issued to Drug Administration authorities – Matter listed for compliance [Paras 13–17].

Minority Educational Institutions – Unrecognized Madarsa – Power of Closure by State Authorities – Article 30(1) of the Constitution – District Minority Welfare Officer directed closure of the petitioner Madarsa on the ground that it was being run without recognition – Regulation 13 of the 2016 Regulations only provides consequence of non-recognition as denial of government grant – No provision empowering authorities to stop functioning of an unrecognized Madarsa – Held: Mere lack of recognition cannot justify closure of the institution [Paras 2–4, 7].

Constitution of India – Article 30(1) – Classification of Minority Educational Institutions – Reliance placed on Anjum Kadari v. Union of India, (2025) 5 SCC 53 and In re: Kerala Education Bill, 1957 – Minority institutions categorized into (i) those seeking neither aid nor recognition, (ii) those seeking aid, and (iii) those seeking recognition alone – Institutions falling in first category fully protected under Article 30(1) – Petitioner Madarsa neither seeking aid nor recognition – Held: Its functioning is constitutionally protected [Paras 5–6].

Administrative Law – Absence of Statutory Authority – Invalid Executive Action – State argued that unrecognized Madarsa may create complications for students – However, no statutory provision enabling closure on this ground – Executive order without authority of law held unsustainable [Paras 7, 9–10].

Relief – Quashing of Closure Order with Clarifications – Impugned order dated 01.05.2025 directing closure quashed – Clarified that unrecognized Madarsa not entitled to government grants – Madarsa Board not obliged to allow students to appear in examinations – Qualifications acquired not to confer any benefit vis-à-vis State Government – Directions issued to remove seal within 24 hours [Paras 9–11].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Order dated 01.05.2025 quashed – Seal on Madarsa directed to be opened within 24 hours subject to conditions stated.

Money Laundering – Bail – Prolonged Incarceration – Article 21 Rights – Trial Not Likely to Conclude Soon – Petitioner alleged to be involved in laundering proceeds of cyber fraud committed against foreign national by providing bank accounts and documents for shell companies – Co-accused allegedly impersonated petitioner and used his documents – Petitioner in custody since 20.12.2023 – 31 witnesses and over 6000 pages of documents – Held: Continued incarceration without early trial violates right to personal liberty under Article 21 – Bail granted in line with V. Senthil Balaji v. ED and Manish Sisodia v. ED [Paras 16, 20–26].

PMLA – Section 45 – Twin Conditions – Harmonization with Article 21 – Not an Absolute Bar – Bail provisions under Section 45 PMLA impose twin conditions but must be balanced with the fundamental right to liberty – Where trial is unlikely to conclude and accused has clean antecedents, Constitutional Courts can grant bail despite statutory bar – Stringent bail provisions not meant to perpetuate pre-trial punishment [Paras 18, 19, 22–24].

Parity – Co-Accused Granted Bail – Petitioner Similarly Placed – Co-accused granted bail by coordinate Bench – Petitioner entitled to bail on grounds of parity, prolonged custody and absence of recovery from his possession [Paras 10, 26].

Cyber Crime – Alleged Identity Misuse – Fake Companies – Bank Account Laundering – Allegations include use of petitioner’s ID to float shell companies and open bank accounts used for layering of foreign funds – Petitioner claimed he was unaware and documents were misused – Held: All such contentions to be evaluated during trial – Bail not to be withheld merely due to seriousness of offence [Paras 4–7, 25].

Decision: Bail application allowed – Petitioner to be released on bail in connection with Special Trial (P.M.L.A.) Case No. 12 of 2023 on furnishing bail bond of ₹1,00,000 with two sureties – Strict conditions imposed including no travel abroad, no interference with witnesses, and keeping mobile phone active – Court clarifies no opinion on merits of the case [Paras 27–29].

Writ Jurisdiction – Maintainability – Bar Association – Bar Association registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 – Body of private lawyers formed for welfare of its members – Does not discharge public functions – Not ‘State’ or instrumentality under Article 12 of Constitution – Held: Writ petition under Article 226 seeking mandamus against Bar Association not maintainable [Paras 15–17].

Mandamus – Preconditions – For issuance of mandamus, existence of statutory duty and failure to discharge such duty essential – Bar Association under no statutory obligation to initiate criminal or disciplinary proceedings against its members – No mandamus can be issued to compel a private body to act in a particular manner [Paras 17–18].

Advocate Chamber – Permissive Possession – No Enforceable Right – Appellant advocate not allottee of chamber – Occupation based on permissive possession granted by allottee – No independent legal or enforceable right over chamber – Held: Absence of legal right disentitles petitioner from invoking writ jurisdiction [Paras 10–11].

Alleged Criminal Trespass – Alternative Remedies – Allegations of trespass, threats and dispossession amount to criminal offences – Remedy lies under Code of Criminal Procedure – High Court will not issue directions for registration of criminal case when statutory remedies available – Reliance placed on Sakiri Vasu and Priyanka Srivastava [Paras 11, 18].

Bar Council of Delhi – Disciplinary Jurisdiction – Bar Council is statutory body empowered to take disciplinary action against advocates – Appellant neither approached Bar Council nor impleaded it as a party – Held: Mandamus cannot be sought without first invoking jurisdiction of competent statutory authority [Paras 19–21].

Prayer Partly Not Pressed – Effect – Even though prayer for restoration of possession was not pressed subsequently, remaining prayer seeking action against advocates still not maintainable – Lack of public law element fatal to writ petition [Paras 13–15].

Decision – Intra-court appeal dismissed – Order of Single Judge dismissing writ petition as not maintainable affirmed – Liberty reserved to appellant to pursue appropriate civil, criminal or disciplinary remedies in accordance with law – No order as to costs [Paras 22–24].

Criminal Law – Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Section 482 CrPC – Power to be used sparingly – Prima Facie Case Absent – No Role Attributed – Names Not in FIR – Petitioners (except those named in FIR) not identified by witnesses and not linked to offences by any direct or circumstantial evidence – Held: Continuation of proceedings against such petitioners amounts to abuse of process – Cognizance order and criminal proceedings quashed qua unnamed petitioners – Trial to continue only against Petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 9, 11, and 16 [Paras 1, 4–6, 12–13, 22–26]

Criminal Law – Protest Turning Violent – FIR Alleging Vandalism, Assault, and Outraging Modesty – Allegations Found Largely Omnibus – Prosecution Unable to Link Vandalism to Specific Accused – Recovery of Broken Furniture and ABVP Flags not Sufficient to Sustain Charges – Simple Injuries Alleged without Medical Proof – Acquittal of Juvenile Co-Accused on Same Evidence Considered Relevant – Petitioners entitled to relief under Bhajan Lal Guidelines [Paras 22–24]

Public Employment – Adverse Impact of Prosecution – Consideration of Career Stakes – Petitioner in CRLMC No. 1017/2024 selected for multiple public posts – Criminal case preventing joining – No prior criminal antecedents – Held: In absence of concrete evidence, continuation of proceedings would unfairly jeopardize future – Court considers such facts while applying discretion under Section 482 CrPC [Para 24]

Inherent Powers – Guiding Principles – Reiterated Principles from R.P. Kapur, Madhu Limaye, Bhajan Lal and Neeharika Infrastructure – Inherent power under Section 482 CrPC not to be exercised arbitrarily – Meant to prevent miscarriage of justice – Must not result in a mini-trial – High Court must avoid appreciation of evidence unless case falls into recognised exceptions [Paras 14–21]

Decision: CRLMC applications allowed in part – Criminal proceedings and cognizance order dated 14.11.2018 quashed only in respect of petitioners not named in FIR – Proceedings to continue against Petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 9, 11 and 16 in CRLMC No. 2832/2024 – Trial court directed to expedite and conclude trial within six months [Paras 26–28]

Cooperative Societies – Recovery of Maintenance Dues – Non-Member Flat Occupants – Petitioners received possession of flats from developer under unregistered agreement and were never admitted as society members – Society initiated recovery proceedings under Section 154B-29 of MCS Act for unpaid maintenance since 2005 – Held: Petitioners, though not members, were in occupation, using common services, and liable under Section 154B-29 [Paras 2, 3, 4, 26, 27].

Limitation – Applicability to Recovery Proceedings under MCS Act – Petitioners argued that demand raised in 2023 for arrears since 2005 was barred under Article 137, Limitation Act – Held: Section 154B-29 is a special mechanism with overriding clause and no prescribed limitation period – Limitation Act not attracted – Dues are recurring in nature and cannot be barred merely by passage of time [Paras 7, 19, 21].

Continuing Wrong – Monthly Maintenance Dues – Maintenance and service charges are recurring and arise from continuous occupation – Each month’s default constitutes fresh cause of action – Held: Non-payment is a continuing breach and cannot be defeated on the ground of delay – Concepts of stale claim and reasonable time inapplicable [Paras 22, 23, 24, 25].

Promoter's Duty under MOFA – Flat Ownership and Liability for Dues – Petitioners, having received flats in consideration and treated them as owned units, fell within meaning of “promoters” under MOFA – Held: Duty to form society and be part of it exists regardless of registration of agreement – Conduct establishes ownership and liability [Paras 26, 27].

Interest on Arrears – Validity of 21% Interest Charge – Society levied 21% interest on unpaid dues as per its bye-laws – Petitioners failed to demonstrate any statutory violation or ceiling breached – Held: Interest charge valid and enforceable [Para 28].

Registrar’s Power and Finality of Recovery – Registrar’s power under Section 154B-29 is independent and overrides other provisions – Recovery certificates once issued are final and enforceable as arrears of land revenue – Held: Statute ensures efficient, litigation-free recovery of dues essential for cooperative housing society’s functioning [Paras 18, 20, 21].

Decision: Writ Petitions dismissed – Recovery certificates upheld – No interference warranted – Request for stay of judgment also rejected [Paras 29–31].

Civil Law – Recall of Witness – Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC – Discretionary Power – Witness once discharged cannot be routinely recalled for cross-examination – Trial Court failed to ascertain if valid reasons existed for Defendant No.1’s failure to cross-examine at relevant stage – Held: Order recalling P.W.2 unsustainable – Power under Order XVIII Rule 17 must be exercised sparingly and not to fill evidentiary gaps – Impugned orders set aside [Paras 4–9, 12]

Judicial Discipline – Error in Trial Court Order – Inconsistencies in identifying parties and witnesses – Trial Court incorrectly described plaintiff as petitioner in recall application and misidentified P.W.2 as P.W.1 – Held: Orders reflect non-application of mind and lack of diligence – Duty of court to ensure accuracy and clarity in orders [Paras 10–11]

Procedural Law – Scope of Section 151 CPC – Inherent Powers – Can be invoked only when no express provision applies – Recall of witness not permissible merely on ground of potential prejudice or interest of justice unless supported by bona fide cause – Inherent power cannot override settled procedural safeguards [Paras 7–9]

Judicial Discretion – Exercise of Power under Article 227 – High Court interferes to prevent abuse of process – Trial Court failed to assess necessity, did not apply legal standard under Order XVIII Rule 17 – Held: Misuse of discretion – High Court justified in setting aside such order under Article 227 [Paras 6, 9, 12]

Decision: CMP allowed – Impugned orders dated 06.12.2023 and 24.01.2024 set aside – Trial Court’s order permitting Defendant No.1 to recall and cross-examine P.W.2 quashed – Court emphasises that recalling of witnesses is an exception, not the rule – Expresses appreciation for Amicus Curiae assistance [Paras 12–13]