Criminal Law – Anticipatory Bail – Allegation of Forgery and Land Grab – Accused No. 3 sought pre-arrest protection under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in FIR No. 559 of 2025 registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B, and 34 of IPC – FIR alleged that applicant conspired to execute forged conveyance deed by altering Power of Attorney and tampering revenue records – FIR lodged 12–15 years after impugned transactions, raising issue of delay – Held: Delay, civil settlements, existence of registered documents and permission under tenancy law weigh in favour of applicant – Anticipatory bail granted with stringent conditions [Paras 1, 10, 30, 35-39, 47, 49, 54, 56, 69-70].

Delay in Lodging FIR – Relevance – Transactions date back to 2003–2011 – Conveyance deed executed in 2008, rectification in 2011, and permission under Section 43 of BTAL Act granted after due inquiry – Civil suits filed, confirming deeds executed – No action taken by complainant or predecessors for over a decade – Held: Delay affects reliability of allegations and suggests attempt to unsettle concluded title – Prima facie, FIR appears to revive stale disputes under guise of criminal prosecution [Paras 35-39, 44-48, 54].

Forgery – Allegations of Tampering with 7/12 Extract – Prosecution relied on Tahsildar’s statement that extract annexed to 2008 deed was of a different village (Godev instead of Navghar) and lacked Section 43 entry – Alleged use of whitener to alter revenue records – Held: Allegations are serious and raise issue of public record tampering – However, documents are registered and on public record since 2008 – Criminality, if any, to be investigated but does not warrant custodial interrogation at this stage [Paras 40-42, 55].

Custodial Interrogation – Necessity Not Shown – Applicant cooperated during interim protection – Appeared before IO, produced documents – No specific recovery shown to require custody – Co-accused purchasers already granted bail – Held: Liberty cannot be curtailed merely because investigation is ongoing – Stringent bail conditions can secure cooperation and prevent obstruction [Paras 42-43, 58-62].

Antecedents – Applicant Involved in 35–42 Cases – Some cases resulted in acquittals, quashing, or summary reports – Allegation that criminal history was partially suppressed – Held: Antecedents not to be ignored but not decisive unless they show pattern of evasion or obstruction – Balance can be maintained through safeguards ensuring cooperation with investigation [Paras 18, 28, 63-68].

Precedent – Pratibha Manchanda v. State of Haryana (2023) 8 SCC 181 – Relied on by prosecution to argue that delay not fatal in cases of land grab and forgery – Held: Facts distinguishable – In Manchanda, forged document remained concealed for 20 years – In present case, documents are registered, acted upon, and part of public record – Principle of delay remains relevant when no concealment or fraud on record is established [Paras 50-54, 56-57].

Decision: Anticipatory bail granted – Applicant to be released on bond of ₹50,000 with two local sureties – Conditions imposed to ensure cooperation, prevent tampering and protect investigation – Order clarified to not affect parties’ civil rights – Civil proceedings may continue independently [Paras 70-73].

Criminal Law – Attempt to Murder – Discharge Order – Accused allegedly chased and assaulted complainant and his injured brothers inside police station – Trial court discharged accused under Section 307 IPC citing absence of fatal injuries – High Court found that statements of victims and police witnesses established intention to cause death – Held: Trial court erred in conducting a mini-trial at discharge stage – Prima facie case under Section 307 IPC made out – Discharge order set aside [Paras 2-8, 23-25]

Framing of Charges – Prima Facie Standard – Supreme Court precedents (Tarun Jit Tejpal, Prafulla Kumar Samal, Sheoraj Singh Ahlawat) reiterated – At charge stage, court must assess if materials disclose grave suspicion, not whether conviction is certain – Trial court wrongly assessed probative value – Held: Roving inquiry at discharge stage impermissible [Paras 17-22]

Evidentiary Value – Medical and Police Testimony – Radiologist confirmed fractures on revisionist’s hand – Police constable’s statement corroborated assault inside station – High Court held that injuries qualified as grievous hurt under Section 320 IPC and supported Section 307 charge [Paras 4-6, 10-11, 23]

Criminal History – Relevance in Discharge – Accused Subedar Singh was previously convicted in a murder case and had 21 criminal cases – High Court noted prior conviction relevant for assessing gravity and likelihood of intention to kill in present case – Discharge set aside [Paras 5, 15, 24]

Decision: Criminal Revision Allowed – Discharge of Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 6 from Section 307 IPC set aside – Trial Court directed to frame charges under Section 307 IPC along with other offences – Matter to proceed to trial [Paras 25-26]

Rent Law – Fair Rent Fixation – Retrospective Operation – Equitable Relief – Arrears – Tenant Surrender – Delay in Proceedings – Tenant cannot be burdened with arrears at newly fixed fair rent retrospectively from 2013 when rent control proceedings prolonged for over a decade – Appellate Court had fixed Rs.32,000/month with 5% annual increase from 2014 onwards – Held: Direction to pay arrears at a rate 150 times higher than existing rent would result in grave prejudice – Rent to be paid at Rs.25,000/month from 24.02.2021 (date of Rent Controller’s order) and Rs.32,000/month from 18.03.2024 (Appellate Court’s order) – Arrears from 2013 to 2021 not recoverable in rent control proceedings but liberty left to landlord to pursue civil remedy – Modification granted to ensure balance of interests [Paras 1, 2, 5, 6].

Rent Control – Public Policy – Delay in Adjudication – Effect – Rent control statutes intended to protect both landlord and tenant – Proceedings that linger for more than 10 years cannot be used to justify oppressive financial burdens – Held: Rent control litigation cannot be permitted to function as an instrument of oppression due to systemic delays – Tenant’s act of surrender during pendency cannot be overlooked [Paras 3, 5, 6].

Limitation – Civil Suit for Arrears – Cause of Action – Landlord’s claim for arrears from 2013 onwards to be decided in civil suit – Court refrains from deciding limitation issue in rent control proceedings [Para 4].

Decision: Order of Appellate Authority modified – Landlord entitled to claim arrears only from 24.02.2021 at Rs.25,000/month and from 18.03.2024 at Rs.32,000/month with 5% increase – Revisions disposed of accordingly.

Criminal Law – Discharge - Prevention of Corruption Act – Disproportionate Assets – Wife of public servant – Petitioner (A2), wife of Assistant Manager (Finance), BEL, arraigned for abetment – Prosecution alleges petitioner abetted accumulation and concealment of disproportionate assets in her name – Held: Several immovable properties and high-value transactions traced to petitioner – Prima facie materials exist requiring trial – Discharge rightly refused by Trial Court – No merit in revision petition [Paras 2, 6, 8]

Criminal Procedure – Discharge – Stage of Charge – At the stage of framing of charge or considering discharge, court not to conduct a roving enquiry into veracity of prosecution materials – Only prima facie case needs to be established – Petitioner’s explanations including income tax filings, gifts, salary, and investments are disputed facts to be tested during trial – Trial Court rightly held that such explanations cannot be evaluated at discharge stage [Paras 3, 6, 8]

Criminal Law – Abetment – Requirements – Mere ownership of property by spouse of public servant not sufficient – Must show active participation, instigation, or concealment – In present case, ownership of multiple properties and financial transactions in petitioner’s name create prima facie inference of abetment warranting trial [Paras 2, 6, 8]

Evidence – Income Tax Returns – Relevance – Filing of income tax returns does not ipso facto exonerate accused – Source of funds and actual flow of money must be explained – In this case, petitioner did not produce income tax documents before Court – Prosecution entitled to probe financial documents during trial [Para 8]

Decision: Criminal Revision Petition dismissed – Order of IX Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai dated 10.07.2025 in Crl.M.P. No. 1261 of 2024 upheld – Trial Court to proceed independently without being influenced by observations in this order – Connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

Criminal Law – Default Bail – Interpretation of BNSS – Petitioners arrested on 10.05.2025 and remained in custody for 90 days – Application for default bail under Section 187(3) BNSS filed on 12.08.2025 – Charge-sheet not filed within statutory period – Trial court rejected application relying on Odisha amendment to CrPC providing 120-day period – Held: BNSS, 2023 repealed CrPC, 1973 by virtue of Section 531 – No express saving of Odisha amendment under BNSS – Period of 90 days under Section 187(3)(i) applies – Petitioners entitled to statutory bail [Paras 1, 3–5, 7, 9–12, 15].

Criminal Law – Repeal and Savings – Section 531 BNSS – State amendment to CrPC extending charge-sheet period not saved under new law – Notifications dated 16.07.2024 and 27.09.2024 do not alter substantive provision under BNSS – Odisha Rules framed under BNSS also specify 90-day limit – Trial court misdirected in applying repealed provision – Right to default bail accrued upon expiry of 90 days [Paras 6, 10–14].

Remand – Trial Court Order Quashed – Trial court directed to reconsider application for default bail under correct legal framework – Matter remanded for fresh hearing and disposal within two weeks from submission of certified copy of order [Paras 15–16].

Decision: Petition allowed – Impugned order dated 11.08.2025 quashed – Matter remanded to trial court for fresh consideration of default bail under Section 187(3) of BNSS.

Narcotic Drugs – Conviction under NDPS Act – Recovery of contraband ganja – Accused A1 and A2 apprehended while in possession of 1.5 kg ganja – Trial court convicted both under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) NDPS Act – Acquitted under Sections 25 and 29(1) – A3 absconded and later acquitted – On appeal, A1 reported dead, appeal abated against him – Conviction of A2 upheld based on presumption of conscious possession as he was found accompanying A1 at scene [Paras 2, 3, 26, 27, 31].

Search and Seizure – Validity of Search Procedure – Defence challenged absence of independent witnesses and presence of printed arrest memos at scene – Court held that refusal of witnesses did not vitiate search – Explanation given that laptop was used and arrest memos printed nearby – Seizure, arrest and recovery held in compliance with procedural safeguards under NDPS Act [Paras 14, 21-24].

Identification – Sufficiency of Informant Detail – Argument raised that Ex.P1 did not mention detailed description of accused – Court held that physical description was provided orally and PW1 identified the accused at the scene based on those details – Identification found reliable [Paras 13, 20].

Possession – Conscious Possession – A2 found accompanying A1 who was in possession of contraband – No recovery from A2 – However, trial court and appellate court held that A2 was in conscious possession by virtue of association and presence – Presumption under NDPS Act attracted [Paras 26, 27].

Sentence – Reduction on Mitigating Grounds – Appellate court considered A2’s young age (21 years), no prior criminal record, no direct recovery from him, 90 days custody already undergone, and death of A1 – Sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment reduced to period already undergone – Fine enhanced from Rs. 15,000 to Rs. 50,000 – In default of fine payment, three months’ simple imprisonment imposed [Paras 28-30].

Decision: Appeal dismissed as abated against A1 (Yasin) – Conviction of A2 (Mohamed Hussen) under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act upheld – Sentence reduced to period already undergone – Fine enhanced to Rs. 50,000 to be paid within four weeks, failing which A2 shall undergo 3 months simple imprisonment – Confiscation of vehicle confirmed.

Civil Law – Partition Suit – Oral Partition – Preliminary Decree – Plaintiff and deceased brother entitled to equal half share in property – Defendants claimed oral partition and exclusive right over building – No date, witnesses, mutation, or documentation produced to prove oral partition – Mere construction of house on one side of property not sufficient proof – Held: No valid oral partition established – Plaintiff entitled to half share in land excluding building [Paras 2–9, 17].

Property Law – Ownership of Building on Joint Land – Defendants claimed exclusive ownership of building constructed on northern half of property – Plaintiff claimed joint investment of ₹7 lakhs supported by bank withdrawals – Court found no material linking withdrawals to actual construction cost – Permit and tax documents stood in names of defendants – Held: Building constructed solely by defendants, not partible – Allotment of building to defendants without valuation adjustment upheld [Paras 10–15, 17].

Appellate Review – Scope of Interference – Trial court overlooked key documentary evidence such as bank statements, permit and assessment records – High Court found trial court erred in factual findings – Judgment partially modified – Held: Appeal partly allowed; preliminary decree modified to exclude building from partition and allot it to defendants [Paras 16–17].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Preliminary decree modified – One-half share each of plaintiff and defendants 1 to 4 declared in land excluding building – Building held not partible and to be allotted to defendants in final decree – Trial court directed to proceed with final decree proceedings without waiting for application, in terms of Supreme Court ruling.

Landlord and Tenant – Lease to Government – Assessment of Rent – Premises leased by plaintiff to Government for Taluk Office use – Plaintiff claimed rent at Rs. 1,58,890 based on PWD assessment – Defendant contended agreement to pay Rs. 1,00,000 per month subject to Government approval – Held: Plaintiff’s letter (Ex. B1) offering rent of Rs. 1,00,000 forms basis of agreement – PWD later revised rent downward to Rs. 1,00,000 – Trial court rightly fixed rent at Rs. 1,00,000 per month – No evidence of agreement to pay higher amount – No interference warranted [Paras 14–16, 19]

Tenancy – Surrender – Implied Surrender – Whether government tenants vacated and surrendered possession – Defendants produced surrender letter (Ex. B3) and videographic evidence – Plaintiff refused to accept possession – Affixture of notice and evidence of new office functioning established – Held: Implied surrender proved under Section 111(f) of Transfer of Property Act – Tenancy period from 16.03.2015 to 31.03.2017 [Paras 10–13]

Arrears of Rent – Calculation – Lease period fixed at 24.5 months – Rent at Rs. 1,00,000 per month – Part payment of Rs. 4,00,000 – Balance arrears held to be Rs. 20,50,000 – Trial court decree affirmed [Paras 17–18]

Civil Procedure – Appeal under Section 96 CPC – Scope – Where findings of trial court are based on evidence and legally sustainable, appellate court will not interfere – Held: No perversity in findings – Appeal dismissed [Paras 19–20]

Decision: Appeal dismissed with costs – Judgment and decree dated 12.03.2019 in O.S. No. 82 of 2017 by II Additional District Judge, Chidambaram upheld – Arrears of Rs. 20,50,000 confirmed.

Arbitration – Section 8 Referral – Prima Facie Standard – Alleged Forgery of Arbitration Agreement – Commercial Court exceeded jurisdiction by undertaking detailed evidence review – Allegations of fraud/forgery in contracts between parties do not bar arbitration – Formal validity under Section 7 satisfied – Substantive validity to be examined by Arbitral Tribunal under Section 16 – Appeal allowed, suit dismissed, parties referred to arbitration [Paras 56, 60–71, 72–74].

Arbitration Law – Section 8 Referral – Scope of Prima Facie Review – Limits of Judicial Scrutiny – Held that Courts at the referral stage may only examine the prima facie existence and formal validity of an arbitration agreement – The Commercial Court conducted a “mini-trial” and exceeded its jurisdiction by deeply analysing evidence and circumstances, contrary to Vidya Drolia, Cox & Kings, SBP & Co., and Re: Interplay – Referral courts must filter only “deadwood” or ex facie non-arbitrable matters; all other issues must be left to the Arbitral Tribunal [Paras 49–54, 63–66].

Arbitration Agreement – Allegations of Forgery/Fraud – Arbitrability – Allegations of forgery of signatures on the MOU do not, by themselves, render the dispute non-arbitrable – In line with K. Mangayarkarasi, Vidya Drolia, and Pravin Electricals, disputes involving fraud/forgery arising out of commercial relationships remain arbitrable – The necessity of expert evidence strengthens the case for arbitration rather than exclusion of arbitral jurisdiction [Paras 56–58, 60–62, 68–69, 72–73].

Arbitration Agreement – Requirement of Signature – Formal Validity under Section 7 – Section 7 requires only that an arbitration agreement be in writing; signature is not a mandatory requirement – Glencore International v. Shree Ganesh Metals applied – Clear intention to arbitrate can be inferred from written documents and conduct – Therefore, denial of signature could not justify refusal of reference [Paras 58–59, 71].

Competence-Competence – Section 16 – Substantive Validity to be Determined by the Arbitral Tribunal – Determining whether the MOU was forged requires substantive findings, expert evidence and cross-examination – As per Re: Interplay and Cox & Kings, such matters fall squarely within the Arbitral Tribunal’s jurisdiction and cannot be adjudicated at the referral stage [Paras 53, 65–67].

Section 8(2) Compliance – Production of Original Arbitration Agreement – Non-production of the original/certified copy of the MOU is a triable issue and does not defeat arbitration – Objections under Section 8(2) are procedural and fall within the Arbitral Tribunal’s domain under Section 16 – Exemption application filed; issue cannot bar referral [Para 70].

Non-Signatory and Group of Companies Doctrine – Commercial Court erred in holding that the defendant partnership firm was not a party to the MOU and hence could not be referred to arbitration – Cox & Kings clarified that non-signatories may still be bound based on conduct, intention and group of companies doctrine – Hyper-technical objections cannot defeat arbitration [Para 71].

Appeal – Section 37 – Interference Justified – Commercial Court’s refusal was unsustainable as it travelled beyond the permissible prima facie scope under Section 8 – The dispute is not ex facie non-arbitrable; Civil Court’s jurisdiction stood ousted by a valid written arbitration clause requiring deeper inquiry by Arbitral Tribunal [Paras 72–74].

Decision – Impugned order dated 28.08.2024 set aside – Application under Section 8 allowed – Parties referred to arbitration – Civil Suit dismissed as not maintainable – Liberty to initiate appointment of Arbitral Tribunal as per the Act [Para 74–75].