Specific Performance – Section 16(c) SRA – Subsequent Purchaser’s Right to Contest Readiness/Willingness – Remand Ordered – Trial Court decreed the suit; First Appellate Court affirmed without deciding Issue No.1 on plaintiffs’ readiness and willingness – Held: In light of Kadupugotla Varalakshmi, the plea of lack of readiness/willingness under Section 16(c) is open to any defendant, including subsequent purchasers; absence of a clear appellate finding on readiness/willingness vitiates the decision – First Appellate Court’s decree set aside; matter remanded to decide readiness/willingness on existing evidence within six months [Paras 15-19].

Specific Performance – Agreement to Sell (09.01.2007) – Presence before Sub-Registrar & Legal Notices – Evidentiary Matrix – Plaintiffs asserted presence on 14.05.2007 and 04.06.2007 with balance consideration and issued legal notices dated 15.05.2007 and 26.05.2007; defendant-vendor relied on affidavit dated 14.05.2007 (Ex.D-1) to show her own readiness and subsequent registered sale dated 30.07.2007 – Trial Court referenced these materials but decreed mainly because of subsequent sale to vendor’s close relatives – Appellate Court did not undertake an independent readiness/willingness analysis – Necessitates remand for specific findings on Issue No.1 [Paras 3-4, 13-14, 18-19].

Property Law – Bona Fide Purchaser Without Notice – Close Relationship as a Circumstance – Subsequent purchasers were nephews of the vendor; courts below viewed relationship as relevant to notice – In second appeal, since readiness/willingness finding is foundational under Section 16(c), bona fides of purchasers to be assessed in that frame after readiness/willingness is determined – Issue kept open on remand [Paras 7, 11, 14, 18-19].

Appellate Practice – Duty to Return Findings – Where the decree of specific performance turns on Section 16(c), the First Appellate Court must record a clear finding on continuous readiness and willingness – Mere existence of a subsequent sale cannot substitute for this mandatory inquiry – Failure warrants setting aside and remand [Paras 16-18].

Decision – Regular Second Appeals Allowed – First Appellate Court’s judgment and decree dated 12.12.2017 set aside – Matter remanded to First Appellate Court to re-hear parties and deliver a fresh decision specifically determining plaintiffs’ readiness and willingness on the existing record, to be concluded within six months – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 18-20].

Murder of SI during patrol – Common intention – Section 34 IPC not attracted as appellant apprehended before firing – No recovery/no overt act – SC/ST Act s.3(2)(v) and Arms Act s.27 not made out – Entire conviction set aside – Appellant acquitted and released [Paras 39–42].

Criminal Law – Common intention – Section 34 IPC – Appellant apprehended before firing – Common intention not attracted – Evidence showed appellant was caught by police before co-accused opened fire – Use of weapons by others occurred after appellant had been separated upon arrest – Held: Section 34 IPC not attracted against appellant [Paras 39–41].

SC/ST Act – Section 3(2)(v) – Abuse by caste name not attributable to appellant – No ingredients made out – Where abusive words and firing were by others after appellant’s apprehension and no overt act by appellant is established, offence under Section 3(2)(v) not made out – Held accordingly [Para 40].

Arms Act – Section 27 – Non-recovery of weapon from appellant – No evidence of use/possession – Ingredients not satisfied – Conviction under Section 27 unsustainable [Para 40].

Assault on public servant – IPC Sections 353/334/332 – No overt act by appellant – Appellant in custody at time of firing – Ingredients not met – Prosecution failed to prove charges beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 40–41].

Evidence – FIR vis-à-vis deposition – Sections 145 & 157, Evidence Act – Prior statements can be used for contradiction/corroboration where attention drawn in cross-examination – Court rejected contention that there was no confrontation with FIR statements, finding compliance with Sections 145/157 on facts [Paras 36–38, 32].

Medical Evidence – Post-mortem – Firearm injury to nose/cranial cavity – Cause of death: haemorrhagic shock – Medical opinion consistent with ocular account of shooting by others – Does not connect appellant absent common intention/overt act [Paras 15–16].

Disposition – Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellant acquitted of all charges and to be released forthwith if not required in any other case [Paras 41–42].

Divorce – Cruelty – Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act – Wife alleged persistent dowry demands, misappropriation of jewellery, repeated assaults including a violent incident on 08.03.2013, and continuous humiliation – Evidence of wife and her father supported allegations – Respondent did not produce any witness or document – Held: Conduct caused grave mental agony and fear of harm, satisfying test of cruelty – Marriage became unworkable – Decree of divorce justified [Paras 3–8, 13–18].

Cruelty – Judicial Principles – Supreme Court in Narayan Ganesh Dastane v. Sucheta Narain Dastane, AIR 1975 SC 1534, held cruelty must be judged by effect on aggrieved spouse and not by reasonable man standard – Applied herein to hold appellant’s consistent testimony established cruelty – Cited Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh (2007) 4 SCC 511, which provided illustrative instances of mental cruelty like long separation, humiliation, sustained neglect – Court found appellant’s situation fell within these parameters [Paras 14–16].

Divorce – Desertion – Section 13(1)(ib), Hindu Marriage Act – Wife living apart since 10.03.2013 after being assaulted and thrown out – Respondent made no genuine effort to resume cohabitation – Belated restitution petition filed after two years but dismissed for non-prosecution – Continuous separation beyond two years proved intention to end matrimonial relationship – Ground of desertion established [Paras 19–22].

Mental Cruelty – Long Separation – Court observed couple lived apart for nearly 12 years; bond irretrievably broken; marriage had become a legal fiction – Insistence on continuation would cause greater misery – Thus, long separation itself constituted mental cruelty as per Samar Ghosh principles [Paras 17, 22].

Procedural Aspect – Respondent though served notice in High Court proceedings chose not to appear despite repeated opportunities – No cross-examination of appellant’s witnesses or contrary evidence – Unrebutted testimony of appellant-wife accepted as truthful – Family Court’s dismissal set aside [Paras 10–11, 20–21].

Relief – Divorce granted solely on grounds of cruelty and desertion – Appellant-wife limited prayer to dissolution of marriage – Liberty reserved to seek permanent alimony separately before appropriate forum [Paras 23–24].

Disposition – Appeal allowed – Judgment and decree of Family Court dated 11.09.2018 set aside – Marriage between parties dissolved by decree of divorce – Registry directed to prepare decree accordingly [Paras 23–26].

Proclaimed Person – Quashment – BNSS S.528; CrPC S.82(2); NI Act S.138 – Non-service at correct address; cumulative compliance under S.82(2) mandatory – Proclamation dated 21-09-2023 quashed conditionally (surrender by 30-09-2025; Rs 10,000 costs; bail on bonds) – Petition allowed; non-compliance to entail dismissal.

Proclaimed Person—Quashment—Section 528 BNSS, Section 82(2) CrPC, Section 138 NI Act—Proclamation set aside subject to surrender and costs—Non-service due to incorrect address; mandatory cumulative compliance with Section 82(2) CrPC emphasized; petitioner ready to join—Held: Impugned proclamation order quashed subject to surrender by 30.09.2025 and payment of Rs.10,000; bail on bonds and conditions; failure to comply: petition deemed dismissed [Paras 5, 7-9].

Service of Process—Incorrect Address—Zimni orders—Proclaimed Person—Where the complainant did not furnish the correct address and the accused had shifted residence, non-appearance not wilful or deliberate—Process (summons/bailable warrants/warrants) not received; declaration as proclaimed person unsustainable—Quashment warranted to secure presence and expedite trial [Paras 2-3, 6-8].

Criminal Procedure—Section 82(2) CrPC—Mandatory Cumulative Compliance—Court reiterates that the steps under Section 82(2) CrPC must be complied with cumulatively, not alternatively; failure vitiates proclamation proceedings—Reliance placed on Gurbir Singh Mundi v. State of Punjab (P&H, 16.12.2021) [Para 5].

Purpose of Proclamation—Securing Presence, Not Punishment—Objective is to compel appearance and advance adjudication; where the accused shows readiness to join and reasons for absence are justified, setting aside proclamation with conditions furthers the ends of justice [Paras 6-8].

Conditional Relief—Surrender, Costs, Bail & Undertakings—Proclamation order dated 21.09.2023 set aside subject to surrender by 30.09.2025; costs of Rs.10,000 to complainant (R-2); on furnishing bail/surety bonds, release on bail; undertake to appear on all dates; not to leave India without leave; trial court free to impose additional conditions—Non-compliance results in petition being deemed dismissed [Para 8-9].

Decision: Petition allowed; proclamation order dated 21.09.2023 quashed subject to conditions—Surrender by 30.09.2025; pay Rs.10,000 costs to R-2; bail on bonds; affidavit undertaking to appear; do not leave country without permission; trial court may impose further conditions; non-adherence will deem petition dismissed [Paras 8-9].

Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act, 1953 – S. 20-B – allottee-tenant’s full sale-price deposit (1973); Settlement Officer’s objections merely technical; prolonged State inaction – estoppel – Civil Court jurisdiction available – proprietary rights & injunction affirmed; RSAs 2581/4164/4193/4194 of 1999 dismissed with costs.

Declaration of ownership and injunction against dispossession - Land Tenure – Section 20-B, Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act – Vesting of Ownership Rights – Plaintiffs allotted surplus land in 1963 as tenants, deposited full sale consideration in 1973 under Tehsildar’s order – Settlement Officer raised only technical objections (uncertified girdawari, missing lease file) but no action taken for decades – Held: Proprietary rights vested upon deposit of price; officials’ negligence cannot defeat substantive rights – Plaintiffs declared owners in possession, revenue entries corrected, injunction granted [Paras 4-7].

Civil Court Jurisdiction – Bar under Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act – State contended bar of jurisdiction – Held: Where valuable civil rights are threatened due to inaction of authorities, Civil Court jurisdiction is not ousted – Plaintiffs entitled to seek declaration and injunction against State [Paras 5, 10].

Estoppel – State’s Silence – Nearly two decades of inaction after full payment – State never demanded batai nor rectified technical defects – Held: State estopped from denying ownership to plaintiffs – Conduct indicated recognition of proprietary rights [Paras 6, 10].

Appellate Practice – Concurrent Findings – Trial Court decreed declaration and injunction, First Appellate Court affirmed – High Court found no legal infirmity in concurrent findings – Regular Second Appeals dismissed with costs [Paras 8, 11].

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – Plaintiffs declared owners in possession; State restrained from interference; sale certificate to issue – All four appeals dismissed with costs [Paras 10-11].

Quick Capsule – Essential Commodities Act – Wheat hoarding – Recovery from shop doubtful, seizure memo silent on place, no independent witnesses – Defence evidence of farmers storing wheat outside shop credible – Presumption under Section 10-C rebutted – Conviction set aside – Appeal allowed [Paras 14–28].

ECA – Licensing restriction – Clause 3, U.P. Foodgrains Order – Any person storing ≥5 quintals deemed dealer unless rebutted – Prosecution alleged appellant stored 100 quintals inside shop – Defence showed wheat belonged to DW-1 & DW-2 farmers, kept temporarily outside shop with mandi receipts – Trial Court wrongly rejected evidence for not knowing accused – High Court held such reasoning flawed – Deeming presumption rebutted [Paras 12–13, 23–25].

Search and seizure – Section 100 CrPC – Compliance mandatory – Officer must call independent witnesses and prepare seizure list specifying place – Here, Ext. Ka-1 & Ka-2 lacked details of search site, no independent witnesses present – Trial Court failed to assess compliance – Held: serious irregularity prejudicing accused [Paras 14–20, 25].

Evidence – PW-1 ARO sole witness – His testimony showed seizure but did not specify whether wheat inside or outside shop – Recovery memo deficient – Defence evidence unrebutted – Prosecution case left doubtful [Paras 15–17].

Section 294 CrPC – Admission of genuineness of documents – Appellant’s counsel admitted prosecution documents – Held: such admission only makes documents admissible but cannot cure substantive gaps in proving lawful search and seizure – Division Bench ruling in Saddiq v. State of U.P., 1981 CrLJ 379 (All) applied [Paras 26–27].

Reverse burden – Section 10-C ECA – Burden shifts once prosecution proves lawful seizure of excess stock – Here, prosecution failed to establish lawful seizure under Clause 14 and Section 100 CrPC – Hence reverse burden never triggered – Appellant not liable [Paras 22–25].

Case law – Applied Ranjan Kumar Chadha v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1262 (non-compliance of search provisions impacts evidentiary weight) – Saddiq v. State of U.P. (1981 CrLJ 379) on Section 294 documents – Both weighed in favour of appellant [Paras 21, 26].

Benefit of doubt – Serious lacunae in prosecution evidence, credible defence version supported by records – Trial Court erred in presuming guilt – Appellant entitled to acquittal [Paras 25–28].

Disposition – Criminal appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence dated 10.04.1987 under Section 7 ECA set aside – Appellant acquitted – Bail bonds discharged subject to fresh compliance under Section 437A CrPC [Paras 29–31].

Court Fees — Declaratory suit with injunctions relating to property — Injunction relief not independent of declaration — Market value basis applicable — Petition dismissed; impugned order upheld [Paras 2.1–2.4, 5-7].

Court Fees — Declaratory relief vs Cancellation — Distinction clarified — As per Suhrid Singh v. Randhir Singh (SC), executant must seek cancellation with ad valorem fee; non-executant in possession can pay fixed fee for declaration — However, if not in possession and consequential relief sought, ad valorem fee applies — Here, petitioner not in possession of yellow-marked portion, injunctions sought were consequential — Ad valorem valuation necessary [Paras 4-6].

Possession — Relevance for court fees — Petitioner not in possession of disputed portion used by respondents for ingress/egress — Separate gates and wall demarcation shown in site plan and photos — Hence consequential injunction relief flows from declaration — Market value valuation justified [Paras 5-6].

Valuation of plaint — No distinction between challenge to a clause or entire instrument — Declaration of nullity of Clause 22 of Sale Deed would affect entire deed with impact on property — Correct valuation must be at market value of subject property on date of suit [Para 6].

Decision — Impugned order valid — Petition dismissed — Plaintiff must value suit at market value and pay ad valorem court fees as per Court Fees Act and Delhi High Court Rules [Para 7].

Cognizance – Closure report – Magistrate relying on complainant’s statement and affidavit – Error in law – Matter should have been treated as complaint under s.190(1)(a) CrPC – Impugned order set aside; liberty to proceed under Chapter XV CrPC [Paras 12-16, 23-24].

Cognizance – Scope of Magistrate’s power – Magistrate not bound by investigating officer’s conclusion; may accept closure, order further investigation, or disagree and take cognizance under s.190(1)(b) – However, if relying on complainant’s evidence, must treat case as complaint under Chapter XV CrPC [Paras 12-14, 20-22].

Protest Petition – Nature – Judicially evolved concept; though not in CrPC, recognized by courts to safeguard victim’s participation – May be treated as complaint only if it satisfies s.2(d) CrPC and procedure under ss.200, 202 followed – Every protest petition need not be treated as complaint [Paras 18-21].

Trial Court Error – Magistrate misdirected in law by taking cognizance under s.190(1)(b) while relying on affidavit and statement of complainant – Proper course was to proceed as private complaint under Chapter XV – Impugned order set aside [Paras 23-24].

Voluntarily causing hurt – Assault on Village Revenue Officer – Conviction under Section 323 IPC upheld – Sentence of 3 months RI modified to fine only considering lapse of 16 years, no antecedents, and proportionality in sentencing – Revision partly allowed [Paras 15–26].

Criminal Law – Section 323 IPC – Assault on public servant – Accused slapped VRO during discharge of official duty, causing simple injury (bleeding ear) corroborated by medical evidence – Trial Court and Appellate Court concurrently upheld guilt – Conviction sustained [Paras 3–7, 11–14].

Revisional Scope – Sections 397/401 CrPC – Revisional Court need not reappreciate evidence where concurrent findings supported by cogent evidence – Limited to examining legality and propriety of sentence – Applied principle from State of Maharashtra v. Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Singh Anand, (2004) 7 SCC 659 [Paras 12–13].

Sentencing – Proportionality – Courts below imposed 3 months RI with fine of ₹500 – Supreme Court in Hazara Singh v. Raj Kumar, (2013) 9 SCC 516 emphasized proportionality – Given 16-year lapse since offence, absence of antecedents, and family circumstances, incarceration held excessive – Sentence modified to fine only [Paras 18–25].

Probation of Offenders Act – Consideration omitted – Courts below failed to call for probation officer’s report – High Court noted this as irregularity but ultimately balanced equities by setting aside imprisonment and retaining fine [Paras 22–23].

CrPC Section 354(4) – Sentencing policy – Imprisonment is norm, fine exception where offence punishable with ≥1 year – Yet in exceptional circumstances, Court may deviate – Applied here due to long passage of time and mitigating factors [Para 24].

Disposition – Conviction under Section 323 IPC confirmed – Sentence modified – 3 months RI set aside, fine of ₹500 upheld – Bail bonds discharged – Criminal revision partly allowed [Paras 25–26].