Criminal Law – Quashing - Proclaimed Person – Section 82 Cr.P.C. – Mandatory Compliance – No person can be declared a proclaimed offender/person unless the procedure prescribed under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is strictly and meticulously followed – Provisions of Section 82 are mandatory in nature and any non-compliance vitiates the entire proclamation proceedings [Paras 5, 6].

Proclamation Proceedings – Recording of Satisfaction – Foundational Requirement – Before issuing proclamation, Court must record its satisfaction that the accused has absconded or is concealing himself to evade arrest – Absence of such satisfaction in the impugned order renders the proclamation illegal – Mechanical declaration of proclaimed person deprecated [Paras 5, 8, 9].

Non-Bailable Warrants and Proclamation – Procedural Safeguards – Issuance of non-bailable warrants and proclamation cannot be a matter of course – Court must be prima facie satisfied, on relevant material, that despite reasonable diligence the accused could not be arrested – Failure to adhere to statutory safeguards amounts to illegality [Paras 6–8].

Section 82 Cr.P.C. – Mode and Manner of Publication – Statutory requirements regarding specification of date, time and place for appearance, minimum period of thirty days, and prescribed modes of publication are mandatory – Non-compliance cannot be cured as a mere irregularity and renders the proclamation and subsequent proceedings a nullity [Paras 6–7].

Accused on Bail – Absence Explained – Humanitarian Circumstances – Petitioner was earlier granted regular bail and had been appearing before the trial Court – Non-appearance explained on account of serious illness and subsequent demise of co-accused sister – Trial Court failed to consider relevant circumstances while invoking Section 82 Cr.P.C. [Paras 2, 5].

Inherent Powers – Section 528 BNSS / Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Where proclamation proceedings are found to be contrary to mandatory statutory provisions, High Court justified in exercising inherent powers to prevent abuse of process of Court and to secure ends of justice – Continuation of criminal proceedings held to be futile [Paras 10–11].

Decision: Petition allowed – Impugned order dated 24.10.2025 declaring the petitioner as proclaimed person quashed – All consequential proceedings arising out of FIR No.30 dated 23.03.2023 set aside.

Criminal Law - Prevention of Corruption Act – Demand and Acceptance of Bribe – Proof – Conviction Upheld – Accused, Village Man, alleged to have demanded and accepted ₹500 as illegal gratification for facilitating transfer of Jama rights and land revenue mutation – Prosecution relied on evidence of complainant (PW1), decoy witness (PW2) and trap proceedings – Phenolphthalein test positive and tainted currency recovered from accused – Held: Evidence of PW1 regarding demand and acceptance remained unshaken – Foundational facts proved beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) PC Act sustained [Paras 9–20].

Public Servant – Competence to Perform Official Act – Irrelevant for Bribery Offence – Defence contention that accused was not competent authority to measure land rejected – Held: Even if accused was not statutorily empowered, demand and acceptance of bribe for influencing official process attracts offences under PC Act – Complainant entitled to rely on representations made by public servant [Paras 14, 20].

Trap Case – Minor Contradictions – Effect – Alleged inconsistencies in testimonies of prosecution witnesses regarding handing over of money and positioning during trap – Held: Minor discrepancies not affecting core prosecution case – No material contradiction to discredit demand and acceptance [Paras 6, 20].

Legal Principles – Demand as Sine Qua Non – Application of Neeraj Dutta Doctrine – Court reiterated that proof of demand and acceptance is essential for offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) – Reliance placed on Constitution Bench decision in Neeraj Dutta v. State (NCT of Delhi) – Found that prosecution satisfied twin requirements through cogent oral and circumstantial evidence [Paras 17–19].

Sentence – Appellate Interference – Leniency – Considering facts and circumstances, sentence reduced to minimum permissible while maintaining conviction – Rigorous imprisonment reduced while fine maintained – Substantive sentences to run concurrently [Paras 21–22].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Conviction confirmed – Sentence modified – Bail cancelled – Accused directed to surrender to undergo modified sentence.

Preventive Detention – PITNDPS Act – Territorial Jurisdiction – Forum Conveniens – Writ Petition Dismissed – Petitioner challenged detention order passed by Joint Secretary, Department of Revenue, Government of India and rejection of representations – Though detention order and memoranda were issued from Delhi, predicate offences, sponsoring authority, records and petitioner’s residence were all situated in West Bengal – Held: Delhi High Court possessed jurisdiction as part of cause of action arose in Delhi, but declined to exercise discretionary jurisdiction applying doctrine of forum conveniens – Petition dismissed with liberty to approach appropriate High Court [Paras 1, 5, 9, 17–18].

Article 226(2) – Cause of Action in Part – Not Determinative – Mere existence of jurisdiction under Article 226(2) does not mandate exercise thereof – Even if a minuscule part of cause of action arises within territorial jurisdiction, High Court may refuse to entertain petition if another forum is more appropriate and convenient – Jurisdiction and exercise of jurisdiction distinguished [Paras 9–13, 16].

Forum Conveniens – Discretionary Refusal to Entertain Writ – Doctrine permits Court to decline adjudication where lis has closer and more substantial nexus with another jurisdiction – Factors considered include location of parties, sponsoring authority, pending criminal cases, records and evidence – High Court of Calcutta or Rajasthan held to be more appropriate forums [Paras 6, 12–13, 17].

Preventive Detention – Sponsoring Authority and Predicate Offences – Relevance to Forum – Detention based on criminal cases registered in West Bengal – Sponsoring authority (NCB Kolkata) and relevant material located in West Bengal – Held: These constitute integral and dominant part of cause of action outweighing issuance of detention order from Delhi [Paras 2–3, 17].

Reliance on Precedents – Forum Conveniens Doctrine Reaffirmed – Court relied upon Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India, Ambica Industries v. CCE, Sterling Agro Industries Ltd. v. Union of India and Bharat Nidhi Ltd. v. SEBI – Principles reiterated that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is discretionary and guided by convenience of parties and interests of justice [Paras 10–15].

Liberty to Approach Appropriate Forum – Dismissal on ground of forum conveniens does not bar petitioner from challenging detention order on merits before jurisdictional High Court – Liberty expressly reserved [Paras 18–20].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed on ground of forum conveniens – Delhi High Court declined to exercise discretionary jurisdiction – Liberty granted to petitioner to approach appropriate High Court/forum – Pending applications disposed of.

Specific Performance – Execution of Decree – Deposit of Balance Sale Consideration – Article 227 – Supervisory Jurisdiction – Decree directed execution and registration of sale deed within stipulated time and permitted deposit of balance consideration if required during execution – Decree-holder filed execution petition within stipulated period and undertook to deposit entire balance consideration with interest – Executing Court permitted deposit though order passed beyond prescribed period – Held: Since decree-holder applied within time, delay attributable to Court cannot prejudice decree-holder – No jurisdictional error or perversity warranting interference [Paras 1–3, 6–9].

Execution Proceedings – Powers of Executing Court – Bound by Decree – Executing Court cannot rewrite or travel beyond decree but is empowered to facilitate compliance with decree terms – Where decree-holder expresses readiness and willingness and seeks permission to deposit consideration within time, Executing Court acts within jurisdiction in allowing such deposit – No violation of decree conditions established [Paras 6–8].

Section 28, Specific Relief Act – Rescission of Contract – Scope – Judgment-debtor sought rescission of alleged unregistered sale deed and recall of order permitting deposit – Held: Section 28 aims to balance equities between parties – When decree-holder sought compliance within stipulated period and delay occurred due to Court process, rescission not warranted – Application rightly dismissed [Paras 6–9].

Delay Attributable to Court – Litigant Not to Suffer – Well-settled principle that party should not be prejudiced for delay caused by Court – Permission to deposit granted later does not defeat decree-holder’s rights when application was filed in time – No illegality in Executing Court’s approach [Para 9].

Precedents – Applicability – Judgments in V.S. Palanichamy Chettiar, P. Shyamala, and Chanda v. Rattni distinguished – In cited cases, decree-holders failed to seek extension or deposit within reasonable time – Present case stands on different footing as execution petition with readiness to deposit was filed within prescribed period [Paras 5–9].

Scope of Article 227 – Limited Interference – High Court to interfere only in cases of patent lack of jurisdiction, perversity, or grave injustice – Impugned orders reflect lawful exercise of discretion by Executing Court – No ground for supervisory interference made out [Paras 1, 9].

Decision: Civil revision dismissed – Orders dated 20.03.2025 and 19.08.2025 upheld – No interference under Article 227 warranted – Pending applications, if any, disposed of.

Civil Law - Probate Proceedings – Revocation of Probate – Scope and Limitations – Appeal filed challenging dismissal of application for revocation of probate granted in respect of a registered Will – Held: Probate Court is concerned only with proof of due execution and attestation of the Will – Issues relating to title, possession of property documents, or validity of adoption are beyond the scope of probate jurisdiction [Paras 3, 10].

Caveatable Interest – Remote Heirs – Effect of Adoption – Appellants were widow and son of brother’s son of husband of testatrix – Second respondent was adopted son of testatrix – Adoption admitted in earlier civil proceedings and not specifically denied – Held: By virtue of Section 12 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, adopted son becomes Class I heir – Remote Class II heirs stand excluded and have no caveatable interest [Paras 6–7, 19–20].

Pleadings – Admission – Effect of Non-Denial – In earlier partition suit, appellants had admitted relationship showing second respondent as adopted son of testatrix – No specific denial in written statement – Held: In view of Order VIII Rule 5 CPC and Section 53 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, admitted facts need not be proved and cannot be reagitated in subsequent proceedings [Paras 7–11].

Revocation of Probate – Section 263 Indian Succession Act – ‘Just Cause’ – Grounds such as defective proceedings, fraud, concealment, untrue essential allegations, or inutilisation of grant examined – Held: None of the statutory grounds for revocation established by appellants – Mere allegations regarding adoption or possession of title deeds insufficient [Paras 13–15].

Limitation – Application for Revocation of Probate – Article 137 Limitation Act – Probate granted in 2009 – Application for revocation filed in 2022 after nearly 13 years – No explanation for delay – Held: Application hopelessly barred by limitation – Article 137 applies to applications under Indian Succession Act as settled by Supreme Court [Paras 16–18].

Adoption – Effect on Succession – Exclusion of Collateral Heirs – Once adoption is admitted and not challenged by independent proceedings – Adopted son deemed natural son for all purposes – Collateral relatives cannot claim succession or caveatable interest [Paras 19–20].

Decision: Appeal dismissed with costs – Order of learned Single Judge upheld – No interference warranted.

Bail – Murder Case – Conspiracy – Accused Not Present at Scene of Crime – Petitioner (Accused No.11) alleged to have only intimated the movement of the deceased to principal accused – No overt act of assault attributed to him – Petitioner not present at the place of occurrence – Role limited to prior intimation – Held: Case distinguishable from main assailants and comparable to co-accused granted bail [Paras 7–9].

Bail – Parity with Co-Accused – Accused Nos.8 and 9, who were present at the spot but not armed and had not assaulted the deceased, already granted bail – Petitioner’s role held to be similar or lesser in gravity – Ground of parity applicable – Bail cannot be denied when similarly placed co-accused are enlarged on bail [Para 9].

Bail – Prolonged Custody – Delay in Trial – Petitioner in judicial custody since 28.07.2021 (over 4½ years) – Charge sheet cites 111 witnesses – Only some witnesses including major eye-witnesses examined – About 80 witnesses yet to be examined – Trial likely to take considerable time – Delay not attributable to petitioner – Continued incarceration held unjustified [Paras 10–12].

Bail – Suppression of Earlier Bail Petition – Effect – Though petitioner had earlier bail petitions dismissed, subsequent circumstances including long incarceration and delay in trial constitute change in circumstances – Suppression alone not sufficient to deny bail when liberty under Article 21 is implicated [Paras 4, 6, 13].

Article 21 – Right to Speedy Trial – Prosecution failing to secure witnesses on scheduled dates – Adjournments granted for want of witnesses – Prolonged trial infringes right to personal liberty – Bail granted without expressing opinion on merits [Paras 10–13].

Reliance on Supreme Court Precedent – Principles laid down in Praveen Rathore v. State of Rajasthan, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1268 applied – Long incarceration and delayed trial justify grant of bail [Para 11].

Decision: Criminal Petition allowed – Petitioner granted bail subject to conditions including execution of bond, non-tampering of witnesses, regular appearance before trial court, and non-involvement in further offences.

Criminal Law – Robbery – Chain Snatching – Acquittal – Appellants convicted under Section 392 IPC for robbing victim of 4 sovereigns of gold chain using a cutter – Victim died during investigation and was not examined – Only eyewitness (PW11) did not witness the actual snatching – No test identification parade held – Accused were strangers to the area – Held: Identification not established beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction unsustainable [Paras 5, 12]

Confession – Recovery Based on Confession – Accused allegedly confessed to the offence during a road check conducted over a year after the incident – Witnesses to the confession and recovery admitted they were unaware of the contents and merely signed at the request of the police – Recovery made from Muthoot Fincorp without any supporting records, identity documents, or CCTV footage – Held: Confession and recovery not proved in the manner known to law – Cannot form basis for conviction [Paras 6, 7, 13, 14]

Evidence – Burden of Proof – Courts below wrongly held that petitioners did not cross-examine key witnesses on arrest and recovery – Held: Prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Burden cannot be shifted onto the accused – Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court erred in law by relying on uncorroborated evidence and improperly proved confession [Para 15]

Decision: Criminal Revisions allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 392 IPC set aside – Petitioners acquitted of all charges – Fine amount, if paid, to be refunded – Bail bond, if any, to stand cancelled [Para 16]

Civil Law - Order 7 Rule 11 CPC – Scope – At stage of deciding application under Order VII Rule 11(d), Court must confine itself to averments in plaint and documents filed therewith – Defence or written statement cannot be looked into – If plaint discloses triable issues, rejection impermissible – Suit cannot be dismissed on disputed questions of fact [Paras 17-19].

Benami Act – Section 4(1) – Bar of Suit – Trial court rejected plaint holding suit barred as plaintiff alleged property in mother’s name to be benami – Held, whether property is benami and whether it falls within exceptions under Section 4(3) are questions of fact requiring evidence – Bar under Section 4(1) not attracted at threshold stage [Paras 26-29].

Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) – Purchase from Joint Family Funds – Plaintiff pleaded that property was purchased from HUF funds and income of partnership firm – If proved, transaction may fall within exception under Section 4(3) – Such plea raises triable issue and cannot be adjudicated summarily [Paras 24, 28-29].

Fiduciary Capacity – Mother Holding Property – Though mother not coparcener, fiduciary relationship between son and mother can attract exception under Section 4(3)(b) – Whether mother held property in fiduciary capacity for benefit of plaintiff is matter for evidence – Suit not ex facie barred [Paras 29].

Burden of Proof – Benami Nature – Burden lies on person asserting benami transaction – Determination depends on source of funds, relationship of parties, conduct and surrounding circumstances – Cannot be decided without trial [Paras 21, 25, 27].

Error by Trial Court – Material Illegality – Trial court erred in concluding suit barred merely on plaint averment of benami – Failed to consider exceptions under Section 4(3) – Order held perverse and unsustainable [Paras 29-30].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned judgment and decree dated 30.08.2025 set aside – Application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC dismissed – Suit restored to original number – Trial court directed to decide suit within six months – Parties to bear their own costs.

Criminal Law – Grievous Hurt – Conviction under Section 325 IPC – Reliability of Injured Witness – Sentence Modified – Appellants convicted by Trial Court for causing grievous hurt to victim by assaulting him with wooden stick and bicycle pump – Prosecution case supported by injured eyewitness (P.W.2), independent eyewitnesses and medical evidence – Defence contended inconsistencies regarding weapon used and role of accused – Held: Evidence of injured witness carries greater evidentiary value and inspires confidence – Minor discrepancies as to number of assailants or nature of weapon do not discredit core prosecution case – Conviction upheld [Paras …].

Evidence – Injured Eyewitness – Legal Principles – Statement of injured witness corroborated by medical evidence and eyewitnesses – No material contradictions elicited in cross-examination – Reliance placed on Balu Sudam Khalde v. State of Maharashtra – Held: Presence and testimony of injured witness cannot be doubted unless serious infirmities exist – Broad substratum of prosecution case to be accepted [Paras …].

Medical Evidence – Corroboration – Doctors (P.W.9 and P.W.12) proved grievous head injuries including fracture – Injury reports consistent with assault by hard and blunt objects – Seized weapons produced and proved – Medical evidence lends assurance to ocular testimony [Paras …].

Sentence – Reduction – Long Lapse of Time – Ends of Justice – Incident dated 12.06.2008 – Appellants already suffered custody for more than one month – After lapse of nearly 17½ years, sending appellants back to prison would serve no useful purpose – Sentence of two years’ simple imprisonment reduced to period already undergone – Conditional bond under Section 106(4) Cr.P.C. directed for two years [Paras …].

Decision – Appeal partly allowed – Conviction under Section 325 IPC affirmed – Sentence modified to period already undergone subject to furnishing bond – Appeal disposed of.