Section 304-A IPC – Death by Negligence – Compromise – Quashing Impermissible – FIR registered regarding death of two workmen in factory accident – Petitioners sought quashing on basis of compromise with complainant and payment of compensation – Held: Offence under Section 304-A IPC is not a private dispute but a crime against society – Primary victim being deceased cannot consent to compromise – FIR cannot be quashed solely on settlement between accused and complainant [Paras 7, 8, 13, 15].

Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Scope and Limits – Inherent powers to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection – Distinction between compounding under Section 320 Cr.P.C. and quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. reiterated – While High Court can quash non-compoundable offences in appropriate cases, grave offences affecting society at large cannot be quashed merely on compromise – Judicial restraint mandated [Paras 7, 11, 9].

Victimology – Primary Victim in Case of Death – In offence under Section 304-A IPC, deceased is real and primary victim – Legal heirs or informant cannot assume mantle of primary victim for purpose of compromise – Settlement by relatives does not extinguish societal interest in prosecution – Silence of deceased cannot be substituted by compromise deed of heirs [Paras 12, 13, 8.1].

Crime Against Society – Public Safety – Workplace accident resulting in death has direct nexus with public safety – Acceptance of compromise in such matters would erode deterrent effect of criminal law and undermine rule of law – Criminal justice system cannot be commodified by pecuniary settlement [Paras 13.2, 9, 10].

Defence on Merits – To Be Tested at Trial – Plea that petitioners were contractual employees without supervisory role and that accident was purely accidental involves appreciation of evidence – Such defences cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Placement of other accused in Column No.II does not entitle petitioners to quashing [Paras 9, 10].

Compensation – Not Ground for Quashing – Payment of financial assistance to families of deceased does not absolve criminal liability under Section 304-A IPC – Criminal proceedings cannot be terminated on basis of monetary settlement [Para 10].

Decision: Petition seeking quashing of FIR No.0392 of 2021 dated 07.10.2021 under Section 304-A IPC and consequential proceedings on basis of compromise dated 09.05.2023 dismissed – Observations made not to influence trial on merits – Pending applications disposed of.

Limitation – Condonation of Delay – 710 Days – Petitioner sought condonation under Section 5 of Limitation Act to set aside ex parte decree passed on 19.01.2017 – Application filed on 19.12.2018 – Held: Inordinate delay not properly explained – No sufficient cause shown – Dismissal of application justified [Paras 1, 6-7].

Ex Parte Decree – Order IX Rule 13 CPC – Allegation that counsel failed to inform about progress of case – Petitioner failed to disclose name of counsel allegedly engaged – No evidence adduced to substantiate plea – Petitioner admitted receipt of summons in suit – Held: Bald allegation of counsel’s omission without proof insufficient to set aside ex parte decree [Paras 3, 7].

Sufficient Cause – Meaning and Scope – ‘Sufficient cause’ implies absence of negligence and existence of bona fides – Defendant must show he was not negligent or lacking diligence – Petitioner remained inactive until receipt of execution notice – Held: Petitioner not diligent or vigilant – No bona fide explanation established [Para 7].

Burden of Proof – Party seeking condonation must adduce evidence to prove truth and bona fides of reasons stated – Petitioner failed to step into witness box or adduce supporting evidence – Held: Failure to prove cause fatal to application [Para 7].

Revisional Jurisdiction – No Interference – Concurrent findings of Munsiff and District Court that sufficient cause not made out – No perversity or illegality shown – Held: No ground to interfere in revision [Paras 3-4, 7].

Parallel Proceedings – Existence of subsequent suit (O.S. No.93 of 2019) noted by Appellate Court – Even if ex parte decree set aside, decree subject to outcome of later suit – Observation not decisive but reinforces absence of prejudice warranting interference [Para 4].

Decision: Civil Revision Petition dismissed – Orders of Munsiff dismissing I.A. Nos. 2899/2018 and 2900/2018 and judgment in C.M.A. No.45/2022 affirmed [Para 7].

Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Suit for Mandatory and Permanent Injunction – Eviction of Son and Daughter-in-law from Self-acquired Property of Mother – Concurrent Findings of Courts Below – Dismissal of Second Appeal

Hindu Law – Self-acquired property of female Hindu – Section 14, Hindu Succession Act – Property purchased under registered sale deed in name of mother and recorded exclusively in her name – Plea that property was purchased from joint family income rejected – Held: When property stands in name of female Hindu, she becomes full owner by virtue of Section 14 – Claim of joint family right by sons untenable in absence of proof – Suit property held exclusive property of Plaintiff [Paras 16, 17].

Benami/Jt. Family Plea – Burden of proof – Defendants alleged purchase out of joint family fund and contribution by sons – No documentary evidence adduced – Mere assertion insufficient to dislodge registered title deed and R.O.R. entries – Concurrent findings upheld [Paras 8, 16, 17].

Shared Household – Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – Whether daughter-in-law can claim right of residence in self-acquired property of mother-in-law – Held: Where property exclusively belongs to mother-in-law and is not joint family property, it cannot be treated as “shared household” against her wishes – Provisions of D.V. Act do not create proprietary rights in self-acquired property of senior citizen – Defendants not entitled to resist eviction on that ground [Paras 13(iii), 17, 19].

Senior Citizens – Eviction of son and daughter-in-law – Right of aged parents to peaceful possession of self-acquired property – Plaintiff aged more than 75 years alleged mental and physical torture – Held: Son, whether married or unmarried, has no legal right to reside in self-acquired property of parents against their wishes – Courts must adopt purposive approach in favour of senior citizens – Decree for eviction and permanent injunction justified [Paras 18, 19].

Mandatory and Permanent Injunction – Eviction from residential house – Plaintiff proved exclusive ownership and unlawful interference – Defendants failed to establish any legal right to remain – Decree directing Defendants to vacate within one month and restraining re-entry upheld [Paras 9, 19].

Decision: Second Appeal dismissed on contest without cost – Judgments and decrees passed in C.S. No.20 of 2019 and R.F.A. No.16 of 2023 confirmed – Eviction decree and permanent injunction in favour of Plaintiff upheld [Paras 19, 20].

Advocates Act, 1961 – Section 26 – Fraudulent Enrolment – Power to Remove Name from Roll – Petitioner’s licence suspended by Enrolment Committee on suspicion of misrepresentation regarding date of birth and production of unrecognized educational certificate – Contention that only Bar Council of India is competent to remove name from roll – Held: Proviso to Section 26(1) enabling power of Bar Council of India does not denude State Bar Council of its regulatory authority – State Bar Council, being authority to enrol, has incidental power to regulate and pass prohibitory/interim orders in cases of alleged fraud – Impugned order treated as recommendation for removal coupled with interim suspension – Matter directed to be referred to Bar Council of India for final decision [Paras 13, 15, 17].

Enrolment Committee – Jurisdiction – Interim Suspension – Proceedings pertain to alleged fraudulent enrolment and not professional misconduct under Section 35 – Disciplinary Committee jurisdiction under Sections 35 and 36 distinct from fraudulent enrolment cases – Enrolment Committee competent to examine propriety of enrolment and to pass interim prohibitory orders pending decision by Bar Council of India – Suspension not per se without jurisdiction but subject to expeditious reference to BCI [Paras 13, 15, 17, 18].

Interpretation of Proviso – Scope and Effect – Proviso to Section 26(1) cannot be read in isolation so as to nullify main provision conferring enrolment power on State Bar Council – Enabling provision empowering Bar Council of India to remove name does not exclude inherent or incidental power of State Bar Council to regulate its roll – Power to enrol includes power to regulate and recommend removal in case of fraud [Paras 14, 15].

Writ Jurisdiction – Equitable Directions – Considering prolonged suspension without final adjudication – Court directed State Bar Council to refer matter to Bar Council of India within specified time – Directed petitioner to surrender enrolment certificate and ID card – Provided that failure to refer matter within stipulated time would result in automatic revocation of interim suspension [Paras 17, 18, 19].

Decision: Petition disposed of – Impugned order treated as recommendation for removal with interim suspension – State Bar Council directed to refer matter to Bar Council of India – Petitioner directed to surrender enrolment certificate and ID card – Interim suspension to stand revoked automatically if reference not made within stipulated period.

Negotiable Instruments Act – Dishonour of Cheque – Conviction and Sentence – Accused convicted by Trial Court and conviction confirmed in appeal – During pendency of criminal revision, parties filed joint application under Section 147 of the N.I. Act read with Section 359 BNSS seeking permission to compound offence – Held, Section 147 makes offence under Section 138 compoundable at any stage – Once parties voluntarily settle dispute and complainant acknowledges receipt of settled amount, Court can permit compounding even after conviction [Paras 3–6].

Compounding After Conviction – Settlement for Lesser Amount – Cheque amount Rs.3,00,000/- – Parties settled for Rs.2,25,000/- as full and final settlement – Respondent/complainant present in Court and acknowledged receipt in cash – Settlement found voluntary and without coercion – Prayer to compound allowed [Paras 3, 5, 6].

Effect of Compounding – Setting Aside Conviction – Upon allowing application under Section 147 N.I. Act, judgment of conviction and sentence passed by Trial Court and confirmed by Appellate Court liable to be set aside – Accused entitled to acquittal of offence under Section 138 N.I. Act – Direction issued to prison authorities to release petitioner forthwith [Order].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Power to Give Effect to Settlement – In exercise of powers under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. read with relevant provisions of BNSS, High Court can set aside concurrent findings of conviction in view of lawful compounding of offence [Paras 1, 6].

Decision: Application under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act allowed – Parties permitted to compound offence – Judgments of conviction and sentence passed by Trial Court in C.C. No.439/2023 and confirmed in Crl.A. No.7/2025 set aside – Petitioner acquitted of offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act – Prison authorities directed to release petitioner forthwith.

Civil Law - Transfer of Property Act – Section 58(c) – Mortgage by Conditional Sale – Distinction from Sale with Condition to Repurchase – Interpretation of registered deed dated 24.09.1979 – Plaintiffs received Rs.13,000/- for household and agricultural expenses – Condition to reconvey property on repayment within 7 years – Restrictions imposed on enjoyment of property by defendant – Debtor–creditor relationship established – Held: Transaction constituted mortgage by conditional sale and not outright sale or independent agreement to repurchase [Paras 9-14, 16, 18].

Specific Relief – Decree for Reconveyance – Readiness and Willingness – Appellant contended that plaintiffs failed to prove readiness and willingness for specific performance – Court held that once transaction is mortgage by conditional sale, right of redemption subsists – Plaintiffs were ready to repay mortgage amount within stipulated time – Decree for reconveyance and possession justified [Paras 4, 6.1, 14, 18].

Second Appeal – Section 100 CPC – Substantial Question of Law – Appellate Court’s findings on nature of transaction based on interpretation of document and settled principles – Questions framed at admission held not to constitute substantial questions of law – Limited scope of interference reiterated – Second Appeal dismissed [Paras 18-20].

Interpretation of Documents – Literal Rule – Document to be read as a whole – Intention of parties to be gathered from terms of deed – Clear and unambiguous language to be given natural meaning – Reliance placed on Supreme Court precedents explaining distinction between mortgage by conditional sale and sale with option to repurchase [Paras 10-16].

Decision: Second Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree of First Appellate Court decreeing suit for redemption and directing reconveyance of property on deposit of Rs.14,610/- upheld – Interim relief vacated – Record and Proceedings directed to be sent back.

RERA - Maintainability – Special Appeal – Chapter VIII Rule 5, Allahabad High Court Rules – Appeal against order of Single Judge passed under Section 58 of RERA Act – Objection raised that appeal barred by Section 100-A CPC – Held: Where Single Judge decides appeal from original order of Tribunal having trappings of court, no further intra-court appeal lies – Special appeal not maintainable [Paras 14-15, 27, 31].

RERA – Nature of Appellate Tribunal – Trappings of Court – UP Real Estate Appellate Tribunal vested with powers of civil court under Section 53(4) – Proceedings deemed judicial proceedings – Tribunal deemed civil court for limited purposes – Orders executable as decree under Section 57 – Held: Tribunal has all essential trappings of court akin to Company Law Board considered in Kamal Kumar Dutta – Ratio of Supreme Court squarely applicable [Paras 17-20, 25-27].

Section 100-A CPC – Bar on Further Appeal – Supreme Court in Kamal Kumar Dutta held that after amendment of Section 100-A, Letters Patent appeal barred where Single Judge decides appeal from original order of quasi-judicial authority having trappings of court – Appeal under Section 58 RERA is appeal from original order of Appellate Tribunal – Therefore, no further special appeal lies before Division Bench [Paras 14-16, 27, 31].

Distinction Sought from Kamal Kumar Dutta – Reliance on Delhi High Court decision in Promoshirt SM SA – Division Bench distinguished on ground of statutory deeming provision – Held: RERA Act contains deeming provisions similar to Section 10E(4D) of Companies Act, 1956 – Hence distinction in Promoshirt inapplicable – View of Delhi High Court not applicable to present statutory scheme [Paras 28-29].

Tribunals vs Courts – Judicial Character – Reiterating principles in Kihoto Hollohan and Gujarat Revenue Tribunal Bar Association – Tribunal deciding lis under special statute with powers akin to civil court and whose proceedings are judicial in nature may be treated as having trappings of court – Functional similarity decisive factor [Paras 22-24].

Decision: Special Appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 against order of learned Single Judge passed in appeal under Section 58 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 held barred by Section 100-A CPC – Appeal dismissed as not maintainable [Paras 31-32].

Revenue Law – Mutation Entry – Fraudulent succession entry – Challenge to Entry No.760 mutated in revenue record in 1984 in favour of persons who were not direct lineal descendants of the original owner – Petitioner's father, owner of the land, had died abroad leaving legal heirs including petitioner – Taking advantage of absence of heirs in India, private respondents allegedly obtained mutation by suppressing material facts, showing incorrect place of death and using forged power of attorney – Held: Mutation entry obtained by fraud is void and liable to be quashed – Collector rightly cancelled the entry – Order of SSRD remanding matter set aside [Paras 14–16, 22].

Fraud – Effect on judicial or administrative orders – Court relied on Supreme Court decision in A.V. Papayya Sastry v. Government of A.P. – Held: Any judgment, decree or order obtained by playing fraud on court or authority is a nullity and non est in the eyes of law and can be challenged at any stage – Fraud vitiates all solemn acts [Paras 15–16].

Revenue Proceedings – Delay in challenging mutation entry – Entry challenged after nearly 29 years – Authorities rejected challenge solely on ground of delay – Held: Delay cannot defeat justice where entry was obtained by fraud and petitioner had no knowledge due to residence abroad – Cause of action arises from date of knowledge – Revenue authorities ought to examine merits instead of rejecting claim on technical ground of delay [Para 17].

Bombay Land Revenue Code – Section 135D – Requirement of notice before certification of mutation entry – Court held that mandatory procedure under Section 135D requiring notice to interested parties before certifying mutation entry was not followed – Failure to issue notice vitiates certification of mutation entry – Mutation entry certified without following statutory procedure is illegal [Paras 19–20].

Property Law – Rights of legal heirs – Self-acquired property – Land in question was self-acquired property of petitioner’s father – Only direct lineal descendants were entitled to succeed – Mutation in favour of relatives not forming part of direct lineal descent was illegal and contrary to revenue law principles [Paras 21–22].

Revenue Jurisdiction – Remand by SSRD – Improper remand – Where Collector had already examined entire material and passed a reasoned order cancelling fraudulent mutation entry, remanding the matter for fresh consideration was unnecessary and unjustified [Para 17].

Decision: Petitions allowed – Orders of Special Secretary, Revenue Department dated 19.07.2016 set aside – Order of Collector dated 28.01.2015 restored – Mutation Entry No.760 quashed – Revenue authorities directed to mutate petitioner’s name in accordance with law after following due procedure.

Hindu Marriage Act – Divorce – Adultery, Cruelty and Desertion – Appeal against dismissal of divorce petition – Allegation that wife developed illicit relationship and fled with alleged paramour – No specific pleading or cogent evidence of voluntary sexual intercourse – Witnesses gave generalized statements based on suspicion – No proof of continuous desertion for statutory period – Held: Findings of Family Court well-reasoned and not perverse – Appeal dismissed [Paras 32-50, 63-67, 79-81, 82-85].

Adultery – Standard of Proof – Section 13(1)(i), Hindu Marriage Act – Though matrimonial proceedings governed by preponderance of probabilities, charge of adultery being grave requires high degree of probability – Bald and generalized allegations without specific instances or corroborative evidence insufficient – No proof of adulterous act or continuing adulterous relationship at time of petition – Allegations based on suspicion and surmises – Divorce rightly refused [Paras 35-42, 44-47].

Cruelty – Mental Cruelty – Section 13(1)(i-a), Hindu Marriage Act – Allegation that wife stopped physical relations and frequently left matrimonial home – No specific act of misconduct proved – Ordinary marital discord and quarrels do not amount to cruelty – No evidence that conduct was so grave and weighty as to render cohabitation unsafe or impossible – Finding of no cruelty upheld [Paras 51-62, 64-67].

Desertion – Essential Ingredients – Factum of Separation and Animus Deserendi – Section 13(1)(i-b), Hindu Marriage Act – Petition filed within two months of alleged departure of wife – Statutory requirement of continuous desertion for not less than two years immediately preceding presentation of petition not satisfied – Desertion ground not maintainable [Paras 68-76, 79-81].

Appellate Jurisdiction – Scope under Section 19, Family Courts Act – High Court can reappreciate evidence both on facts and law – Interference warranted only if findings are perverse, based on no evidence, or contrary to law – No perversity found in appreciation of evidence by Family Court – Judgment affirmed [Paras 23-31, 49-50, 83-84].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment and Decree dated 15.10.2022 and 03.11.2022 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Godda in Original Suit No. 75 of 2021 affirmed – Pending interlocutory applications disposed of.