Local Body Elections – Ward Formation/Delimitation – Const. Arts. 243-O & 243-ZG – High Court cannot interfere once objections heard and final notification issued – Petitions dismissed; elections to proceed per SC mandate.

Local Body Elections – Ward Formation – Constitutional Bar – Arts. 243-C, 243-K, 243-O, 243-ZG, 329(a) – Delimitation and allotment of seats, once finalized after objections and hearing, immune from writ interference – Only narrow exception: no objections invited/hearing denied – Entertaining challenges would stall elections – Bar strictly applied [Paras 3-12, 18-21].

Elections – Timely Conduct – Supreme Court Order dated 06.05.2025 (Rahul Ramesh Wagh v. State of Maharashtra) – Directed SEC to notify Zilla Parishad elections within 4 months – High Court held bound not to derail process – Petitions seeking to challenge ward notifications rejected [Paras 12-14, 19-21].

Ward Delimitation – Govt. Order dated 12.06.2025 prescribing procedure – Based on 2011 Census, contiguity, natural boundaries, Gram Panchayat integrity, voter convenience – Hearing granted and reasons recorded by Divisional Commissioners – Notifications upheld; no arbitrariness found [Paras 15-18, 23-27].

Jurisdiction under Article 226 – High Court not appellate authority – Cannot decide factual disputes of inclusion/exclusion of villages – Proper forum: election petitions – Precedents followed: State of U.P. v. Pradhan Sangh Kshetra Samiti, Anugrah Narain Singh v. State of U.P., Meghraj Kothari v. Delimitation Commission, Jadhav Shankar Dnyandeo v. Collector, Satara [Paras 4-11, 20].

Delay/Acquiescence – Petitioners who failed to object to draft notification cannot later challenge final ward notification – Belated challenges held impermissible, especially when elections imminent [Paras 11, 21].

Decision – All writ petitions dismissed – Final ward formation notifications upheld – No interference under Article 226; petitioners relegated to remedies under election law [Paras 21-22].

Delay Condonation – Article 227 – Law of Limitation – Delay of Over Three Years – Petition Dismissed – Defendants sought condonation citing Covid-19 and alleged ignorance of decree; Court found they were aware through counsel and execution proceedings; held gross negligence and indolence not excusable – Appellate Court rightly rejected delay condonation – High Court upheld refusal [Paras 8–14].

Specific Performance – Execution of Decree – Sale Deed Registered – Once execution completed, subsequent challenge barred – Defendants’ silence during execution proceedings proved lack of diligence; no ground to reopen concluded decree [Paras 4.1–4.3, 9–10].

Supervisory Jurisdiction – Limits of Article 227 – Court cannot interfere merely because a second view is possible – Interference limited to jurisdictional error; appellate court order well-reasoned – Petition rejected [Para 15].

Decision – Writ Petition Rejected – Impugned Order Confirmed – Rule discharged; no order as to costs [Paras 16–18].

Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – execution of enhanced award – doctrine of merger – 18% interest on enhanced compensation relates back to 2017 District Commission order – unjust enrichment plea rejected – Article 227 petition dismissed.

Consumer Law – Execution of Enhanced Award – Interest on Enhanced Amount – Petition Dismissed – DCDRC awarded compensation with 18% interest (2017); State Commission later enhanced amount (2023) – Held: By doctrine of merger, enhanced amount relates back; interest applies from original award date – Interest not “interest on interest”; statutory and precedential basis affirmed – Petitioners’ plea of unjust enrichment rejected [Paras 32-34].

Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Maintainability – Article 227 – Petition Maintainable but No Interference Warranted – Court clarified against ex parte State Commission orders, remedy lies before National Commission (s.51(5)); otherwise Article 227 can be invoked – In present case, orders of District and State Commissions affirmed as proper; supervisory jurisdiction not exercised [Paras 22-30].

Interest – Reasonableness – High Rate of 18% – Validity – Petitioners argued excessive and contrary to Experion Developers (2022) & Suneja Towers (2023) – Held: Rate awarded by consumer fora intended as deterrent to delay; not compound interest; cannot be interfered with in supervisory review [Paras 13-16, 34].

Decision – Miscellaneous Petition Dismissed – Orders dated 03.10.2023 (DCDRC-II) and 09.11.2023 (SCDRC, Bhopal) affirmed; enhanced compensation with 18% interest payable from 18.01.2017 – No interference warranted [Para 35].

Partition – family settlement (13.12.2003) upheld as binding despite missing “original” – adverse inference for non-examined defendant – preliminary decree for partition and injunction granted; appeals allowed

Partition – Family Settlement – Exhibit A1 Treated as Original – Preliminary Decree Passed – Plaintiffs relied on Exh.A1 family settlement dated 13.12.2003 – Though “original” missing, mediator (PW3) testified to handing it over to defendant – all signatures present on last page – Defendants failed to enter witness box; adverse inference drawn – Exh.A1 accepted as genuine; partition preliminary decree granted in tune with A1–A5 sketches/drafts [Paras 12-23, 26-28].

Civil Procedure – Res Judicata & Partial Partition – Suit Maintainable – Earlier partition suit dismissed on basis of alleged will – Present suit based on subsequent family settlement; hence not barred by res judicata – Exclusion of certain properties justified as widow/daughters had no share therein; not bad for partial partition [Paras 11, 19-21].

Evidence – Non-examination of Party – Adverse Inference – 3rd defendant (widow of predeceased son) failed to depose – Held: adverse inference against her plea of fabrication of Exh.A1 – Plea of tampering rejected [Paras 14-15, 23-25].

Injunction – Rights of Co-owners – Permanent Injunction Granted – Plaintiff in O.S.193/2008 sought to restrain interference with quarry operations – In light of binding family settlement and possession of demarcated shares, injunction decree granted; prayer for damages rejected [Paras 27, 29-30].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – Common judgment set aside – O.S.232/2006 decreed; preliminary decree for partition passed in terms of Exh.A1–A5; O.S.193/2008 decreed for permanent injunction (damages denied); parties to bear own costs [Paras 28-30].

Kidnapping/Abduction/Rape – IPC Ss. 363, 366, 376; S. 375 Exception 2 (pre-2017) – Victim (16+) voluntarily accompanied; Nikah solemnised; cohabitation thereafter – No “taking”/“enticement” proved (S. Varadarajan; Thakorlal) – PCMA makes such marriage voidable; Independent Thought prospective – Convictions set aside; appellant acquitted [Paras 13-20, 25-26].

Kidnapping from Lawful Guardianship – Meaning of “Takes” & “Entices” – Section 361 IPC explained – “Takes” means causing or escorting; “Entices” means inducement/allurement – Mere voluntary accompaniment by victim is not “taking” – No active inducement proved – Appellant not liable under Section 363 IPC [Paras 14-17].

Abduction for Marriage – Section 366 IPC – Victim above 16 years married appellant and cohabited as wife; prosecution failed to show inducement or compulsion – No evidence of abduction with intent to compel marriage or illicit intercourse – Offence under Section 366 IPC not established [Paras 17-18].

Rape – Section 376 IPC – Physical relationship after marriage – Victim aged above 16 – Though Independent Thought v. Union of India (2017) struck down Exception 2 to Section 375 IPC, ruling applies prospectively – Since occurrence of 2005 pre-dates the judgment, sexual intercourse with wife above 16 years not rape – Offence under Section 376 not made out [Paras 22-25].

Child Marriage – PCMA, 2006 vis-à-vis Muslim Law – Under Muslim personal law, puberty (presumed at 15) confers capacity for marriage – PCMA defines marriage below 18 (for female) as voidable, not void – In absence of compulsion, Nikah valid in personal law – PCMA does not retrospectively criminalise such union – Benefit of doubt to appellant [Paras 19-21].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 363, 366 & 376 IPC set aside – Appellant acquitted – On bail; personal bond cancelled; to furnish fresh bond under Section 437-A CrPC – Trial court records to be remitted [Paras 26-29].

Civil Writ - Illegal Migrant - Foreigners’ Tribunal – Burden of Proof – Section 2(a) of the Foreigners Act, 1946 – Declaration as Foreigner Upheld – Petitioner failed to establish linkage with projected parents through sale deed, jamabandi, and electoral rolls – Tribunal held evidence unreliable and inadmissible – High Court upheld Tribunal’s view, holding petitioner failed to discharge burden of proof of Indian citizenship [Paras 6-7, 21-23].

Reference Procedure – Local Verification Officer’s Report – Validity of Reference – Report indicated petitioner failed to submit documents – Electoral Registration Officer rightly referred matter to Tribunal – Held: No illegality in reference as suspicion of citizenship required adjudication by Tribunal [Paras 16-18].

Reliance on Precedents – Anjana Biswas, Indira Newar, Sona Kha, Md. Rahim Ali – Distinguished – Petitioner’s reliance misplaced as facts differed; here, absence of documents and contradictions in testimony justified reference and adverse finding [Paras 19-22].

Evidentiary Contradictions – Sale deed of 1971 and voter lists of 1985/1989 inconsistent – Petitioner concealed step-mother’s identity and linkage inconsistent – DW2’s voter identity card contradicted claim of relationship – Minor discrepancies held material, undermining credibility [Paras 21-22].

Judicial Review – Scope under Article 226 – High Court cannot re-appreciate evidence but only review procedural lapses – No procedural impropriety found – Petition dismissed [Paras 13, 23].

Decision – Writ petition dismissed – Opinion of Foreigners’ Tribunal declaring petitioner a post-1971 foreigner sustained [Para 23].

Civil Writ - Registration of Deed – Oral Refusal by Sub-Registrar – Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1908 – Illegal – Sub-Registrar cannot orally refuse to receive document for registration – Must receive and either register or pass a reasoned refusal order – Oral refusal set aside [Paras 3-4].

Co-owner’s Right to Alienate – Section 44 of the TP Act, 1882 – Consent of Co-owners Not Required – A co-owner has inherent right to transfer his undivided share in joint property – Sale deed of undivided interest valid even without consent of other co-owners – Executive instructions contrary to statutory law held non-est [Paras 3-4].

Precedents – North East Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2025 (2) Civ. C.C. 220 (AP) – Applied – Sub-Registrar must receive document and cannot reject orally – Damodar Mishra v. State of Odisha, W.P.(C) No.4340/2025 – Applied – Co-owner can transfer undivided share even without consent of others [Para 3].

Decision – Sub-Registrar, Khaira directed to receive and register petitioner’s sale deed concerning undivided interest/share without insisting on co-owners’ consent – If registered, deed to be returned to petitioner within 3 days after compliance with Orissa Registration Rules, 1988 and Notification of IGR, Odisha – Writ petition disposed of with directions [Paras 5-7].

Bail – Sexual Assault, Extortion, and Cheating – Sections 318(4), 351(3) BNS, read with Sections 480 & 483 BNSS – Bail Granted – Petitioner accused of fraudulently collecting money, drugging, sexually assaulting complainant, extorting funds, and threatening with photographs – Delay of 14 months in lodging FIR, existence of live-in relationship, and counter-complaint lodged earlier by accused’s family considered – Court noted 68 days of custody and substantial progress of investigation – Bail granted with stringent conditions [Paras 2, 5, 7-10].

Judicial Custody – Bail Considerations – Continued detention not necessary – Custodial interrogation substantially complete – Risk of absconding mitigated by conditions – Bail ordered subject to strict compliance [Paras 8-9].

Conditions of Bail – Accused to execute ₹20,000 bond with sureties – Weekly appearance before police – Not to leave district without permission – No intimidation of witnesses – Passport to be surrendered/affidavit to be filed – Breach of conditions to invite consequences [Para 9].

Decision – Criminal Petition allowed – Petitioner enlarged on bail with conditions [Para 10].

Application 156(3) CrPC against singer – Registration of FIR - Lack of jurisdiction and absence of material details – Revisional application dismissed.

Hate Speech – Application under Section 156(3) CrPC – Registration of FIR - Offences under Sections 153, 153A, 295A, 298 IPC – Petition Dismissed – Petitioner sought FIR against singer for allegedly outraging religious sentiments through live concert speech – Magistrate rejected for want of jurisdiction – High Court upheld rejection noting absence of proof of date, time, or place of concert and that accused had no nexus with jurisdiction of Shyampukur PS [Paras 5-7, 16-17, 27].

Jurisdiction – Powers under Section 156(3) CrPC – Territorial Limits – Magistrate can only direct investigation within territorial jurisdiction – No material linking alleged incident to Shyampukur PS – Order rejecting application held correct [Paras 17, 19-20].

Zero FIR – Section 173 BNSS – Scope Explained – Zero FIR enables prompt registration irrespective of territorial jurisdiction, to be transferred to appropriate PS – However, even Zero FIR requires basic details (date, place) of incident – Mere social media clips without authentication insufficient [Paras 21-24].

Supreme Court Directions – Hate Speech – Shaheen Abdullah v. Union of India (2023) – State authorities must suo motu register FIRs in hate speech cases – In instant case, no suo motu action taken as no concrete incident shown [Para 25].

Decision – Revisional application dismissed – Magistrate’s refusal to direct FIR registration upheld – No illegality, infirmity, or perversity found [Paras 27-28].