Criminal Law – Attempt to Murder – Conviction Reversed – Appellant convicted under Section 307 IPC while co-accused were acquitted on the same evidence – High Court held that the trial court failed to justify the distinction in treatment between co-accused and appellant – Evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 did not support exclusive guilt of appellant – No plausible explanation for selective reliance on witness statements. Acquittal[Paras 6.1, 7].

Criminal Trial – Deficiency in Investigation – No recovery of weapon or forensic linkage – Pellets allegedly recovered were neither sent for ballistic examination nor conclusively linked to appellant – Crime scene not photographed – SHO (PW-6) lacked ballistic expertise – Absence of expert evidence created serious doubt on prosecution’s version [Paras 6.2, 6.4].

Criminal Law – Benefit of Doubt – Inconsistencies between FIR and witness statements – No injuries on the informant despite alleged close-range gunfire – No repeated firing despite clear opportunity – Appellant entitled to benefit of doubt due to serious infirmities in prosecution's story – Presumption of intent to kill cannot rest on conjecture [Paras 6.3, 6.5, 7].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 307 IPC set aside – Appellant acquitted – Bail bonds canceled – Directed to furnish bond under Section 437-A CrPC [Paras 9-11].

Land Law – Licence vs Tenancy – Res Judicata – Prior adjudication under Thika Tenancy Act binds parties – Appellants claimed tenancy based on agreements and conduct – Respondents asserted licence and relied on findings in WPLRT No. 76 of 2022 – Held: Issue whether appellants were licensees was directly and substantially in issue in WPLRT 76/2022, conclusively decided – Special Leave Petition against such decision dismissed – Held: Judgment operates as res judicata – No scope to reopen issue in appeal [Paras 33–37].

Eviction – Interpretation of Agreements – Licence Agreements (Exhibits 3 and 4) – Not Lease – Appellants relied on Exhibits 3 and 4 to assert monthly tenancy – Court held these documents were interpreted in prior litigation and conclusively held to be licences – Exclusive possession not granted – Right to alter structure does not negate licence – Appellants cannot approbate and reprobate – No fresh interpretation warranted [Paras 29–32, 39].

Code of Civil Procedure – Order 41 Rule 27 – Additional Evidence – Not considered when main issue is already conclusively decided – Both parties had pending applications for additional evidence – Held: Since central legal issue (licence vs tenancy) already concluded in prior proceedings, additional evidence not necessary [Para 6, 39].

Principles of Res Judicata – Test for Application – Direct and Substantial Issue in Prior Case – Court applied test from Sajjadanashin Sayed Md. v. Musa Dadabhai Ummer, (2000) 3 SCC 350 – Held: Where interpretation of documents and status of occupation were directly in issue earlier, findings operate as res judicata in subsequent suit even if context was different (Thika Tenancy vs Eviction) [Paras 34–36].

Litigation Conduct – Multiple Shifting Stands – Thika Tenancy and Tenancy Claims in Parallel – Appellants repeatedly shifted stand: first as tenants, then Thika tenants, now monthly tenants again – Filed multiple suits and petitions – Court held such conduct undermines credibility – Cannot raise inconsistent pleas across forums [Paras 22–28, 35].

Decision:

Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree of eviction dated 30.09.2020 in Title Suit No. 134 of 2016 affirmed – All connected applications disposed of [Paras 40–41].

Tenancy Law - Civil Procedure – Partnership Dispute – Order 30 Rule 8 CPC – Eviction Petition – Respondents filed eviction petition against M/s Indian Furniture Store through alleged partner Satish Grover – Petitioner filed application under Order 30 Rule 8 CPC read with Section 151 CPC, contending that his appearance be treated as under protest and Court must first determine whether he was a partner – Rent Controller, instead of deciding the application, directed petitioner to disclose partnership details on affidavit – Held: Impermissible – Rule 8 CPC envisages preliminary adjudication – Person disputing partnership cannot be compelled to furnish details before Court determines his status as partner – Impugned order set aside [Paras 5-7].

Civil Revision – Rent Controller’s Jurisdiction – Rent Controller must first adjudicate application under Order 30 Rule 8 CPC before proceeding with eviction petition – Only upon deciding petitioner’s status as partner can he be compelled to disclose partnership particulars – Impugned order contrary to the scheme of the Code – Civil revision allowed – Rent Controller directed to decide application under Order 30 Rule 8 CPC in accordance with law [Paras 8-9].

Decision: Civil Revision allowed – Impugned order dated 22.08.2025 set aside – Rent Controller directed to first decide application under Order 30 Rule 8 CPC and then proceed with eviction petition [Paras 8-10].

Domestic Violence Act – Section 12 Application – Maintainability of Petition under Section 482 CrPC – Petitioners sought to quash D.V. Case No. 1 of 2025 filed by daughter-in-law alleging dowry demand and domestic abuse – Held: Proceedings under Chapter IV of D.V. Act are civil in nature and do not constitute criminal proceedings until breach of protection order under Section 31 – Therefore, petition under Section 482 CrPC is not maintainable to challenge such proceedings [Paras 1, 4, 24–25].

Criminal Procedure – Section 482 CrPC – Scope – Full Bench of Madras High Court in Arul Daniel v. Suganya (2022 SCC OnLine Mad 5435) held that Section 482 CrPC cannot be invoked to quash Section 12 D.V. Act proceedings – Remedy lies in approaching Magistrate directly or by appeal under Section 29 of D.V. Act – Petitioners relied on Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi v. Vidhi Rawal (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1158), but Supreme Court was not informed of earlier binding precedent in Kamatchi v. Lakshmi Narayanan and Constitution Bench rulings [Paras 2, 5–11, 24].

Judicial Discipline – Binding Precedent – Earlier Constitution Bench decisions in S.A.L. Narayan Row v. Ishwarlal Bhagwandas and four-judge ruling in Dargah Committee v. State of Rajasthan not considered by Supreme Court in Shaurabh Kumar – These decisions held that the character of proceedings depends on the nature of relief, not the tribunal – Hence, D.V. proceedings remain civil until Section 31 is invoked [Paras 13, 16–17, 23].

Remedies – Appropriate Forum – Reliefs such as protection, residence, compensation under Chapter IV of the D.V. Act are civil remedies – Appropriate recourse is to Magistrate under the Act or to file appeal under Section 29 – Challenge under Section 482 CrPC impermissible unless criminality under Section 31 arises [Paras 8, 18–22, 24].

High Court Practice – Directions to Registry – Registry directed not to entertain or number any petition under Section 482 CrPC or Section 528 BNSS seeking to quash D.V. Act proceedings at a pre-cognizance stage – Orders of Full Bench in Arul Daniel to be followed strictly [Para 26].

Decision: Criminal Original Petition dismissed at SR stage – Held not maintainable under Section 482 CrPC as proceedings under Section 12 of the D.V. Act are civil in nature and have not reached the stage of criminality under Section 31 – Petitioners directed to avail alternate remedies under the D.V. Act [Paras 24–25].

Land Acquisition – Section 28-A – Beneficial Construction – Redetermination Allowed – Landowners who had not sought reference under Section 18 filed applications under Section 28-A within three months of award dated 30.01.2016 granting higher compensation – Held: Applications within limitation; SLAO order dated 17.02.2022 enhancing compensation @ ₹108/sq. mtr. with solatium and interest upheld – KUMS’ objections dismissed [Paras 7.1–7.6, 8(c)-(d)].

Limitation – Computation – Section 28-A – Commences From Specific Award Relied On – Contention that limitation ran from 1990 award unsustainable since that award was set aside; limitation runs from 2016 award relied upon by landowners – Applications filed on 26.04.2016 well within limitation [Paras 7.4–7.6, 8(b)-(c)].

Per Incuriam Precedent – Ramsingbhai vs. Pradeep Kumari – Banwari Clarified Law – Held: Earlier three-Judge Bench in Pradeep Kumari binding; Ramsingbhai per incuriam – Section 28-A to be construed liberally as beneficial legislation [Paras 7.11–7.12].

Hansoli Devi Case – Ineffective Reference – Acceptance of Compensation – Does Not Bar Relief – Even where references under Section 18 were dismissed as time-barred, right under Section 28-A subsists; acceptance of compensation with or without protest does not negate entitlement [Paras 7.13–7.16].

Equal Treatment – Compensation to Similarly Situated Landowners – Mandate of Section 28-A – Doctrine of distributive justice requires equal compensation for lands acquired under same notification – Financial burden on acquiring body no ground to deny statutory right [Paras 7.17–7.22].

Decision – Leading Petition Allowed – Connected KUMS Petitions Dismissed – KUMS directed to comply with SLAO order dated 17.02.2022 and deposit enhanced compensation with benefits within six weeks; failure to comply will attract 12% interest from date of default; landowners entitled to solatium, additional compensation, and statutory interest [Paras 8–9].

Land Acquisition – Redetermination of Compensation – Section 28-A of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Beneficial Construction – Limitation – Award of Enhanced Compensation – Maintainability – Applicability of Banwari v. HSIIDC, 2025 AIR (SC) 165 – Section 28-A is a beneficent provision intended to remove inequality among landowners whose lands were acquired under the same notification – Limitation of three months under Section 28-A begins from the date of the award relied upon and not from any earlier award subsequently set aside – Applications filed within three months from Reference Court’s award dated 30.01.2016 held within limitation – Order of SLAO dated 17.02.2022 granting redetermination at Rs.108/- per sq. mtr. with statutory benefits upheld – KUMS’ plea of limitation and non-maintainability rejected – Reliance placed on Banwari (supra), Union of India v. Pradeep Kumari, and Hansoli Devi – Beneficial interpretation applied [Paras 7.1–7.22, 8(a)–(e)].

Interpretation of Beneficial Legislation – Section 28-A – Purpose and Object – Equality in Compensation – Landowners under same notification entitled to equal treatment – Provision to be construed liberally to extend benefit to inarticulate and poor landowners – Earlier contrary ruling in Ramsingbhai v. State of Gujarat held per incuriam – Pradeep Kumari followed as binding precedent [Paras 7.11–7.13, 7.19–7.22].

Limitation – Commencement – Date of Award Relied Upon – Not from Earlier Set Aside Award – KUMS’ contention that time ran from 1990 award untenable as that award was quashed in appeal – Cause of action arose only upon Reference Court’s 2016 award upheld finally by Supreme Court – Applications filed on 26.04.2016 within limitation [Paras 7.4–7.6].

Interest and Statutory Benefits – Re-determined Compensation – Collector empowered to grant solatium, additional amount, and interest as per Act – No illegality in award of such benefits – Financial burden on public body no ground to deny statutory compensation [Paras 7.9–7.10, 7.18].

Equitable Compensation – Equal Treatment to Similarly Situated Landowners – Constitutional and Statutory Duty of State – Section 28-A to be read in light of Article 31 and principle of distributive justice – Denial of benefit on technical grounds amounts to discrimination [Paras 7.17–7.22].

Decision – Leading Writ Petition Allowed – Connected Petitions by Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Dismissed – SLAO’s Order dated 17.02.2022 Upheld – KUMS directed to deposit enhanced compensation at Rs.108/- per sq. mtr. with solatium, additional compensation, and interest within six weeks – In default, interest at 12% per annum from date of default till payment [Paras 9(i)–(v), 11].

Criminal Law – Drugs and Cosmetics Act – Quashing of FIR – FIR registered by police under Section 13 of the D&C Act pursuant to Magistrate’s order under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. – Held: Only authorities specified under Section 32 of D&C Act (Drug Inspector etc.) can initiate prosecution – Police has no jurisdiction to register FIR – FIR under D&C Act quashed as without authority [Paras 40-44, 88]

Criminal Law – IPC Offences – Sections 274 and 275 IPC – Held: Though FIR under IPC is maintainable, ingredients of offences not made out – Allegation of adulteration not supported by material – Joint inspection found product of standard quality at time of dispatch – Adulteration, if any, occurred after delivery to complainant – FIR under IPC also quashed [Paras 45-60, 66-85, 89]

Criminal Procedure – Limitation – FIR registered in 2019 for offences punishable with up to six months – No charge sheet filed within one year – No justification for delay – Bar under Section 468 Cr.P.C. applicable – Investigation continuation amounts to abuse of process – FIR quashed on this ground as well [Paras 86-87, 89]

Drugs Law – Loan Licencee – Manufacturing Responsibility – Petitioner only provided manufacturing facility under Loan Licence to Respondent No. 2 – Held: As per Rules 75A, 69A of D&C Rules and judicial precedents, Loan Licencee (Respondent No. 2) is deemed manufacturer and responsible for drug quality – Petitioners not liable under D&C Act [Paras 64-70]

Commercial Dispute – Civil Nature Given Criminal Colour – Allegations arose from failure of Respondent No. 2 to sell drugs in market – Parties had arbitration agreement – Nil award given holding likely tampering by Respondent – Held: Dispute purely civil/commercial – Criminal proceedings abuse of process [Paras 20-21, 82-84]

Decision:

FIR No. 053/2019 under Sections 274/275 IPC and Section 13 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, registered at PS Okhla Industrial Area, quashed – Observations confined to FIR proceedings only – Petition allowed [Paras 90-91]

Family Law - Maintenance – Award of ₹21,000 to Wife/Mother – Challenge under Section 438 r/w 442 BNSS – Petitioners (husband and sons of respondent) contended that respondent left matrimonial home voluntarily in 2015 and filed maintenance petition only in 2019 – Petitioners alleged their own lack of income and claimed respondent had sufficient means and was living independently – Family Court awarded ₹21,000/month as maintenance – Held: Order proper and requires no interference – Petitioners failed to show any illegality, impropriety, or abuse of process [Paras 2–6, 9–11].

Social and Legal Duty – Husband and Sons – Court reaffirmed legal and moral duty of husband and sons to maintain wife/mother – Emphasised the vital social role of mothers and moral obligation of children to ensure their dignity in old age – Financial capacity of petitioners not a valid excuse when basic maintenance is concerned [Paras 7–8].

Quantum of Maintenance – Reasonableness – Court held ₹21,000 not excessive or disproportionate given rising living costs – Observed that Section 125 CrPC is a beneficial provision enacted to prevent vagrancy and provide support to dependent wife/mother – No error in Family Court’s determination of amount [Para 9].

Delay in Filing – Not Bar to Maintenance – Delay of four years in filing maintenance petition does not disentitle respondent when entitlement under law is otherwise established – Petitioners failed to establish that respondent was living separately without just cause [Paras 4–5].

No Grounds for Revision – Court found no error, perversity or abuse of process in impugned order – Family Court rightly exercised jurisdiction and applied settled principles – Criminal revision petition dismissed as devoid of merit [Paras 9–12].

Decision: Criminal Revision Petition dismissed – Family Court order upheld – Maintenance of ₹21,000/month to continue – No interference warranted – Miscellaneous petition also dismissed.

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Sale of Waqf Property – Petitioner, as Manager of Mazar-e-Najmi Waqf, executed sale deed of Waqf property allegedly based on forged permission letter – Later cancelled transaction and returned consideration – FIR registered under IPC and PC Act – Petitioner sought quashing citing absence of dishonest intent and lack of locus in complainant – Held: Mere cancellation of sale deed and refund of money does not absolve the act of alleged forgery and criminal misconduct [Paras 1-3, 16].

Waqf Act – Section 52A – Locus of Complainant – Bar under Section 52A(3) applies only to offences under Section 52A – Where FIR involves IPC and PC Act offences, bar does not apply – Police entitled to investigate cognizable offences independent of complaint by Waqf Board – Complainant’s locus upheld [Paras 13-15].

Forgery – Consent Letter – Handwriting Dispute – Allegation that consent letter of Waqf Board used for sale was forged – Waqf Board Administrator denied issuance and authorship – Handwriting samples collected and expert report awaited – Prima facie material for investigation – Petition for quashing rejected [Paras 16, 20].

Scope of Section 528 BNSS (Earlier Section 482 CrPC) – Court reiterates settled law on limited and sparing use of inherent powers – No detailed evaluation of defence at FIR stage – If FIR discloses prima facie offence, continuation of investigation justified – Court not to assess truthfulness of defence plea at pre-trial stage [Paras 17-20].

Public Servant – Misuse of Official Position – As Manager/Mutawalli under Waqf Act, petitioner is public servant under Section 101(2) – Allegation of dishonest misappropriation of property attracts Sections 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of PC Act – Prima facie case disclosed [Paras 11, 13].

Decision: Petition dismissed – FIR not liable to be quashed – Allegations in FIR disclose prima facie offences under IPC and PC Act – Locus of complainant valid – Petitioner free to raise all defences at trial stage – Observations not to affect framing of charge.