Criminal Revision Petition – Discharge of Respondents by Trial Court Challenged – FIR for offenses under Sections 420/406/468/471/384/120B IPC – Allegations of illegal transfer of shares and fraudulent removal as director – High Court sets aside Trial Court order discharging respondents and remands matter for fresh consideration – Held that Trial Court failed to properly consider chargesheet and other materials provided by the Investigating Officer. [Paras 1, 18-21]

Role of Petitioner as Director and Shareholder – Contention – Alleged illegal transfer of shares and fraudulent removal as director by respondents – Petitioner claims shares were transferred and directorship removed without his consent using forged documents – Issues were also raised before National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) with contrasting findings – High Court finds that Trial Court did not adequately consider the chargesheet and investigation materials. [Paras 2-7, 18-21]

Decision – Discharge of Respondents Set Aside – Delhi High Court sets aside Trial Court’s order discharging respondents – Matter remanded for fresh consideration on the point of charge – High Court emphasizes need for careful examination of chargesheet and other investigation materials – Directs Trial Court to provide opportunity to parties for representation. [Paras 21-22]

Findings of National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) – Role in Criminal Proceedings – High Court notes that NCLT’s findings were considered by Trial Court – Observes that material before NCLT was not same as before the criminal court – Emphasizes distinction between civil and criminal proceedings and different standards of proof required. [Paras 3, 19-20]

Acid Attack – Identification of Assailants – Contradictions and Inconsistencies in Victims' Testimonies – Held – Discrepancies in victims' testimonies regarding the description and actions of assailants raise doubts about accurate identification. Contradictions include inconsistencies about the movement of the motorcycle, the clothing of the assailants, and the direction from which the acid was thrown. These inconsistencies, coupled with the absence of identification of the assailants at the initial stages, weaken the prosecution's case. The judgment highlights the challenges in victim identification in traumatic events, especially under low light conditions and without corroborative evidence. [Paras 43-86]

Conduct of Investigation – Reliability of Evidence – Held – Observes shortcomings in the investigation, including discrepancies in the description of the crime scene and recovery of evidence. The absence of public witnesses during critical moments of the investigation, such as the arrest of accused and recovery of incriminating materials, further weakens the credibility of the prosecution's case. This highlights the importance of meticulous and transparent investigative procedures in criminal cases. [Paras 89-96]

Victim Compensation – Acid Attack Survivors – Directions – Recognizes the grave physical and emotional impact of the acid attack on the victims, despite the acquittal of the accused. Directs the Delhi State Legal Services Authority to grant substantial compensation to the victims for their rehabilitation and medical treatment. Emphasizes the need for continued medical assessment and explores employment opportunities for the victims, underlining the court's role in ensuring the welfare of acid attack survivors beyond the trial. [Paras 100-107]

Acquittal of Accused – Analysis of Evidence – Held – The prosecution fails to establish beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused. Contradictions in victims' testimonies, discrepancies in investigative procedures, and lack of corroborative evidence lead to the acquittal. The judgment demonstrates the principle of the presumption of innocence and the necessity for the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. [Paras 78-99, 109]

Decision – Acquittal of Accused – The Court upholds the trial court's decision, acquitting the accused due to inconsistencies in the identification of the assailants and flaws in the investigation process. Simultaneously, acknowledges the severity of the victims' suffering and directs comprehensive compensation and rehabilitation measures. [Para 109]

Factual Background – Complaints were made by the petitioner under Sections 498A and 406 IPC against her husband and in-laws, alleging severe demands for dowry and subsequent physical and mental cruelty after her marriage in 1998 – The FIR was filed in December 2002 and charge-sheet filed in July 2004 – Magistrate took cognizance on the same day the charge-sheet was filed [Paras 2-3].

Quashing of Cognizance under Limitation Period – Criminal Miscellaneous Case – Delhi High Court sets aside Sessions Court judgment – Accused discharged from charges under Section 498A/34 IPC challenged – Held, the cognizance was not time-barred; period calculated from the date of filing the complaint, not the date of cognizance by the Magistrate – Following Supreme Court precedents, cognizance by Magistrate under Sections 498A/406 IPC valid despite delay in FIR registration. [Paras 12-18]

Role of Police Officer as Complainant – Analyzing bias against police officers in domestic violence cases – Held, the status of a complainant as a police officer does not negate the possibility of being a victim of domestic violence; stereotypes about professional toughness dismissed – Importance of impartial judicial assessment without bias reiterated. [Paras 24-30]

Gender Neutrality in Judicial Decision-Making – Discussed the need for gender neutrality in judiciary – Highlighted the misconception that women in authoritative roles cannot be victims of domestic abuse – Emphasized on judicial education to combat hidden biases and uphold gender neutrality in legal proceedings. [Paras 31-36]

Decision – Reinstatement of Charges – Delhi High Court reverses Session Court’s discharge of accused – Cognizance of charges under Sections 498A/34 IPC upheld – Case remanded back to the trial court for continuation of proceedings. [Paras 45-49]

Criminal Law - Assault Incident due to Old Enmity – Conviction of Bhola under Sections 323/34 IPC by the Special Judge SC/ST Act for assaulting complainant Ramu due to old village enmity and political differences – Incident allegedly involving lathi beating [Paras 3, 4, 9]

Factual Background and Lower Court Proceedings – FIR lodged against Bhola for assaulting a Scheduled Caste individual, leading to trial and conviction. Charges included Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC, and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act. Trial court convicted under Section 323/34 IPC with a fine and additional imprisonment in default. [Paras 3-8]

Evidence Analysis – Hostile Witnesses and Contradictions – Multiple prosecution witnesses turned hostile, contradicting the FIR’s allegations. Medical evidence indicated injuries were minor and not as severe as alleged. The appellant's involvement in the alleged assault remained unproven. [Paras 6, 9, 17-18, 21-22]

Legal Principles and Application – Emphasizes the presumption of innocence and the prosecution’s burden to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Hostile witnesses’ testimonies scrutinized, revealing unreliable and contradictory statements. [Paras 15, 17-20]

High Court’s Reasoning and Decision – High Court finds trial court’s judgment flawed due to reliance on inconsistent and hostile witness testimonies. Acknowledges the necessity to separate 'grain from chaff' in witness accounts, leading to the conclusion that evidence against Bhola was insufficient. [Paras 22-24]

Conclusion – Acquittal of Appellant – High Court reverses Trial Court’s judgment. Bhola acquitted due to lack of reliable evidence proving his involvement in the assault. [Para 24]

Decision – High Court allows appeal, setting aside trial court’s judgment – Bhola acquitted of charges under Section 323/34 IPC – Appellant’s bonds and sureties discharged [Para 24]

Appeal Against Tribunal Award – The New India Assurance Company Limited challenges the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal, regarding compensation for the death of Ajay in a road accident involving a motorcycle and a tractor [Para 1].

Factual Background – On 23.06.2020, Ajay and Parveen met with an accident caused by a tractor, resulting in Ajay’s death and the initiation of FIR No.171 under Sections 279, 304-A, 337 IPC at Police Station Madhuban, Karnal [Paras 2, 3].

Tribunal’s Compensation Assessment – Tribunal assesses deceased’s income based on Deputy Commissioner rates, leading to a total compensation of Rs. 35,49,112 [Para 3].

Insurance Company’s Appeal – The appellant contends contributory negligence and argues for income assessment based on minimum wages, not DC rates [Para 5].

Rejection of Contributory Negligence Argument – Court notes the argument was not raised before the Tribunal, and hence, rejects it [Para 7].

Income Assessment Based on DC Rates Justified – Court upholds the use of Deputy Commissioner rates over minimum wages for income assessment, referring to the case National Insurance Company Limited vs. Meena Devi & Ors. And other precedents [Paras 7-12].

Dismissal of Appeal – Considering the circumstances, including the young age of the widow and minor children, the Court finds the Tribunal’s award just and appropriate, dismissing the appeal [Para 13].

Allegations of Fraud in Sub-Lease Agreement – Petitioner and complainant (Reliance Corporate IT Park Limited) entered into a sub-lease agreement with assurances of uninterrupted electricity supply – Complainant accused petitioner of not maintaining promises, leading to disconnection of electricity and demanding additional money or property purchase – Alleged criminal intent to deceive and cheat [Paras 2, 18-19, 32-33]

Petitioner’s Defense – Petitioner claims fulfillment of all obligations, including payment of dues to DPL under a Bank Guarantee – Contends allegations as civil disputes and not criminal fraud or cheating [Paras 3-6]

Civil Nature of Dispute – Complaint’s allegations primarily related to contractual obligations and financial transactions – Absence of prima facie criminal intent or fraudulent inducement at inception of agreement [Paras 9, 32, 33, 35].

Arbitrability of Dispute – Presence of arbitration clause in agreement – Dispute suited for resolution through arbitration rather than criminal proceedings [Paras 26, 27, 34].

Legal Principles Applied – Supreme Court judgments emphasizing non-arbitrability of disputes involving serious allegations of fraud – However, simple allegations of fraud related to internal affairs of parties can be subject to arbitration [Paras 34, 36-37]

Decision – Revision petition allowed – Proceedings against the petitioner in the aforementioned case quashed – Held that continuation of proceedings would constitute an abuse of process of law [Paras 36-38]

Convictions and Sentences – Challenging Grounds – Appellants convicted under Sections 328/366/342/34 and 376D IPC – Sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life with fines – Appeal grounds included lack of evidence, uncooperative prosecutrix, inadequate investigation, and reliance on inconclusive FSL report – Prosecutrix a major at the time of the incident. [Paras 1-2]

Prosecution Story and Investigation – Information received about kidnapping and rape of 'G' – Medical examination at LHMC followed by arrests in native village – Discrepancies in statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and trial testimony – Issues raised on the handling of mobile CDR and PCR form. [Paras 4-7, 22, 28]

Witness Testimonies and Evidence Assessment – Contradictory statements from prosecutrix ('G'), her parents, and inconsistencies in investigation details – Lack of incriminating evidence against appellants – Prosecutrix disowned initial complaint, stating it was under family influence – Parents' testimony did not corroborate prosecution's case. [Paras 11-20]

DNA Report and Physical Evidence – DNA report's significance questioned due to procedural gaps – No injuries suggestive of forcible assault found in medical examination – Issues with evidence handling and lack of key witness testimony regarding evidence chain – DNA evidence not conclusive of non-consensual act. [Paras 27, 29-32]

Court Decision – Acquittal – Appeals allowed due to insufficient evidence and unreliable testimonies – Accused acquitted of all charges – Bail bonds to remain valid for six months as per Section 437A Cr.P.C. [Paras 33-36]

Background – Suit for Declaration and Permanent Injunction – Family Settlement: The appellant, defendant in a suit filed for declaration and permanent injunction by the respondent-plaintiff, claimed joint ownership of family properties based on an unregistered family settlement dated 10.10.2011 [Paras 1-2].

Trial Court Decision – Partial Decree – Possession Protected: Trial Court partly decreed the suit, protecting the respondent-plaintiff's possession over specific properties while recognizing the joint nature of the properties due to the unregistered settlement [Para 4].

Appellate Court’s Ruling – Dismissal of Appeal and Cross-Objections: First Appellate Court dismissed both the appeal by the appellants and cross-objections by the respondent-plaintiff, upholding Trial Court's decision [Para 4].

High Court Findings – Unregistered Family Settlement – Implication on Ownership: High Court noted the family settlement required registration under Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908. Its unregistered status implied that the properties remained joint, negating claims to exclusive ownership [Para 7].

Admitted Possession – Protection Upheld: Since the appellants admitted the respondent-plaintiff's possession over certain properties, the Courts' protection of such possession was justified. The appellants failed to establish their exclusive possession [Para 8].

Conclusion – Dismissal of Second Appeal: High Court found no merit in the appeal, no substantial question of law arose, leading to dismissal of the second appeal [Para 9].

Referred Cases: Not mentioned in provided text.

Marriage and Divorce - Appeal challenging Family Court's decision on property ownership - Facts surrounding the purchase of disputed Juhu Flat and tenancy of Cuffe Parade Flat - Family Court's dismissal of Mrs. Rajeshri V. Mahesh's judicial separation petition and decree of divorce in favor of Respondent, based on grounds under Sections 13(1)(i-a) and 13(1)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Circumstances leading to breakdown of marriage considered. [Paras 1-2]

Property Ownership Dispute - Contest over the ownership of Flat No. 404, Marina Apartments, Juhu Tara Road, Mumbai – Respondent’s claim of sole ownership based on exclusive financial contribution upheld – Original Appellant’s (Mrs. Rajeshri V. Mahesh) name added for convenience without monetary contribution, negating her claim for 50% share. [Paras 6, 8, 30-31, 33, 36]

Benami Transaction Act Non-Applicability - Arguments regarding the applicability of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 rejected – No evidence to establish that the Juhu Flat was purchased for the benefit of the Original Appellant, Mrs. Rajeshri V. Mahesh. [Paras 22-24, 30-32, 34-36]

Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act - Original Appellant’s claim under Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, for full ownership due to presumed limited ownership, rejected – Section 14 found inapplicable as the Original Appellant neither had a limited ownership nor contributed financially to the Juhu Flat. [Paras 37-49]

Limitation Act Defense - Defense based on the Limitation Act, 1963, upheld – Limitation Act does not bar defenses in legal proceedings, despite the expiry of statutory limitation period for filing a suit or appeal. [Paras 51-54]

Interim Order Extension - Post-judgment interim order preventing the creation of third-party rights in the Juhu Flat extended for four weeks, providing the Appellant time to appeal to the Supreme Court. [Paras 59-60]

Decision: The appeal is dismissed. The High Court upholds the Family Court's decision on the sole ownership of the Juhu Flat favoring the Respondent, Mahesh Vennalakanti. An interim order regarding the Juhu Flat is extended for four weeks. No order as to costs. [Paras 56, 60]