Criminal Law – Abetment of Suicide – Conviction Set Aside – Section 306 IPC – Accused convicted for abetment of suicide based on allegations of continuous mental and physical harassment – Dying declaration inconsistent and general in nature – No proximate or specific act of instigation proved – Accused not relatives and not residing with the deceased – Trial court had acquitted them under Section 498A IPC – Held: Mere general allegations of harassment without proof of a direct or immediate provocation not sufficient to sustain conviction under Section 306 IPC [Paras 1, 3, 5.2, 12.14].

Mens Rea – Requirement under Section 306 IPC – No evidence to show that accused intended or consciously instigated the deceased to commit suicide – Children accused were shown to be at exams and not present at the time of incident – Accused No.1 was acting in official capacity as Talati in a prior unrelated land dispute – Held: Prosecution failed to establish mens rea or any act amounting to instigation or aiding suicide [Paras 3.9, 5.2, 12.12, 12.13].

Dying Declaration – Evidentiary Reliability – Contradictions – Dying declaration lacked medical endorsement – Deceased unable to read due to burn injuries – Statement implicated only one accused (Jayantibhai Talati), not consistent with trial of five accused – No corroboration by independent witnesses – Held: Statement not reliable for conviction [Paras 3.6, 9.1, 12.13].

Proximate Cause – Abetment Not Made Out – No evidence of specific act immediately preceding the suicide – Courts reiterated that continued harassment must culminate in a final inciting act to sustain conviction under Section 306 – Observations from Abhinav Mohan Delkar v. State of Maharashtra and Amalendu Pal v. State of West Bengal followed – Alleged harassment lacked intensity or proximity to amount to abetment [Paras 11, 12.1–12.10].

Acquittal – Appeal Allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 306 IPC set aside – No direct or indirect act of incitement or provocation established – Benefit of doubt extended – Accused acquitted of all charges [Paras 12.14, 13].

Criminal Law – Quashing - Cheating – Specific Performance Transaction – Dishonest Intention at Inception – Quash Rejected – Respondent No.3 alleged payment of ₹14 crores to petitioner for purchase of Jubilee Hills property based on representation that original owner would execute sale deed in her favour – Petitioner instead got property registered in name of his own company and later mortgaged it to APSFC without disclosure – High Court held allegations prima facie disclose dishonest intention from inception attracting Sections 415 & 420 IPC – Pendency of civil suits does not bar criminal prosecution where ingredients of offence are made out – Quashing under Section 482 CrPC declined [Paras 6–12, 17–22].

Civil vs. Criminal Proceedings – Mere Civil Dispute Not Ground for Quashing – Distinction Maintained – Court held that pendency of O.S. No.947/2015 and other civil suits involving same property does not dilute criminal allegations – Civil and criminal remedies can proceed simultaneously – Criminal law not to be stifled merely due to civil profile of transaction – Allegations in complaint and material collected during investigation distinct from civil pleadings [Paras 7–11, 19–20].

Vicarious Liability – Company Not Arraigned – No Bar – Dishonest Conduct Personally Attributed – Petitioner argued that property stood in name of M/s Sandhya Hotels Pvt. Ltd. and company not arrayed as accused—High Court held that complaint specifically attributes deceitful conduct and inducement personally to petitioner – Nature of allegations go beyond vicarious liability and disclose direct involvement – Principles in S.K. Alagh and Sunil Bharti Mittal inapplicable [Paras 12–14, 17].

Quashing – Stage of Trial – Defence Evidence Not Considerable – Trial already commenced with PW-1 examined – Disputed questions of fact (including cancellation deed and admissions in civil suit evidence) require full trial – Accused cannot rely on defence material in Section 482 proceedings – Court restricted to complaint, charge-sheet and prosecution material only [Paras 16, 18].

Abuse of Process – Test Not Satisfied – Cheating Allegations Specific and Consistent – Court held case not falling under rarest category warranting interference under Section 482 CrPC – Complaint, witness statements and charge-sheet disclose clear criminality beyond mere breach of contract – No abuse of process demonstrated [Paras 21–22].

Decision: Criminal Petition dismissed – Proceedings in C.C. No.307/2016 to continue – However, petitioner’s personal appearance before trial court dispensed with except when specifically required – Trial Court directed to proceed uninfluenced by observations in the order.

Anticipatory Bail – Sexual Relationship on False Promise of Marriage – Refusal – Petitioner sought anticipatory bail in crime alleging cheating, criminal intimidation and promise to marry – Allegations disclosed sustained sexual relationship induced by promise of marriage – Mediation failed and petitioner refused to file affidavit agreeing to marry – Held: Considering gravity of allegations and necessity of custodial interrogation, anticipatory bail declined [Paras 7–8, 22–23].

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Section 69 – Sexual Intercourse by Deceitful Means – Scope – Section 69 criminalises sexual intercourse induced by deceitful means or false promise of marriage without intention to fulfil – Distinguished from offence of rape under IPC – Held: Provision squarely attracted where promise to marry is made fraudulently to obtain sexual consent [Paras 10–11, 21].

Direction to Add Penal Provision – Duty of Investigating Agency – FIR registered under IPC and BNS provisions excluding Section 69 BNS – Court directed inclusion of Section 69 BNS in light of factual allegations disclosing offence of sexual intercourse by deceitful promise of marriage [Para 12].

Live-in Relationships – Vulnerability of Adult Women – Judicial Concern – Court observed absence of adequate legal protection for women in live-in relationships compared to minors under POCSO or married women under matrimonial laws – Highlighted socio-cultural stigma and mental trauma faced by women abandoned after sexual exploitation [Paras 14–17].

Concept of Gandharva Marriage – Judicial Observation – Court noted that consensual love relationships akin to live-in arrangements may resemble Gandharva marriage recognised in ancient Indian law – Observed need to accord protective legal status to women in such relationships to prevent exploitation [Paras 18–19].

False Promise to Marry – Legal Consequences – Held: Where accused refuses marriage after sexual relationship induced by promise, prosecution under Section 69 BNS is warranted – Men must face statutory consequences if marriage is refused after exploiting promise to marry [Paras 20–21].

Decision: Criminal Original Petition dismissed – Anticipatory bail refused – Investigating agency directed to invoke Section 69, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Custodial interrogation held necessary.

Food Safety – FSSA vs IPC – Overriding effect of Section 89 FSSA – Police cannot register FIR for food adulteration offences – Prosecution must follow Section 42 mechanism – Ingredients of IPC offences (Ss. 420, 270, 272, 273, 308) not made out – FIR and subsequent proceedings quashed [Paras 2–5, 7, 8, 10].

Food Safety Law – Special Statute Prevails – Section 89 FSSA – Complete code – FSSA overrides IPC in matters concerning adulterated, misbranded, sub-standard or unsafe food – Held: offences under IPC Ss. 272 & 273 cannot operate simultaneously where field covered by Section 59 FSSA [Paras 24–32].

Jurisdiction – Police Power – Registration of FIR – Police not competent authority to initiate prosecution for offences under the Food Safety Act – Only Food Safety Officer/Designated Officer/Commissioner can proceed as per Section 42 FSSA – FIR lodged by police without jurisdiction – Void ab initio [Paras 3, 4, 26–27, 32].

IPC Offences – Sections 420, 270, 272, 273, 308 – Cheating under S. 420 absent – No allegation of inducement, dishonest intention or wrongful gain/loss – Ingredients of Ss. 270, 272, 273 covered by special statute – Consequential charge under S. 308 unsustainable – Held: No IPC offence made out [Paras 8, 28].

Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Stage of proceedings – Quashing permissible even after filing of chargesheet and framing of charge where proceedings constitute abuse of process – Reliance on Mukesh v. State of U.P., SC (2024) [Para 9].

Decision – FIR No. 679/2019 and all proceedings quashed – Petition allowed [Paras 10–12].

Tenancy Law - Lease Rent Demand – One-time Lease Rent – Delay in Payment – Petitioner deposited one-time lease rent equivalent to 11 annual instalments on 08.01.2007 in accordance with prevailing GNIDA policy – Lease rent was payable by 16.01.2007, and payment made on 08.01.2007 was within the stipulated period – Held: There was no default attracting penal consequences – Authority’s subsequent demand in 2025 for lease rent dues is legally untenable and arbitrary [Paras 14–17, 24–25]

Natural Justice – No Prior Notice or Explanation – Impugned demand letter dated 10.07.2025 issued without any show-cause notice or opportunity to respond – Held: Violative of principles of natural justice – Arbitrary quantification without calculation details renders the demand unsustainable [Paras 19–20]

Promissory Estoppel – Issuance of No Dues Certificates – GNIDA had issued No Objection Certificates in 2010 and 2020 and also granted mortgage permission in 2024 – Held: Authority is estopped from raising lease rent dues in 2025 after a long period of inaction – Such reversal of stand violates principles of promissory estoppel and fairness [Paras 21–23]

Legitimate Expectation – Consistency in Administrative Conduct – Repeated certifications by GNIDA confirming no dues and subsequent permission to mortgage created legitimate expectation that no lease rent remained unpaid – Held: Sudden reversal of position violates doctrine of legitimate expectation and Article 14 of the Constitution [Paras 21–22]

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Demand letter dated 10.07.2025 quashed – Direction issued to GNIDA to process petitioner’s pending applications for permission to mortgage dated 08.10.2024 and 02.01.2025 within six weeks from receipt of certified copy of this order [Paras 26–27]

Civil Law – Rejection of Plaint – Territorial Jurisdiction – Petitioners/Defendants sought rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC claiming no part of cause of action arose in Delhi – Trial Court rejected application, finding that goods were dispatched from Delhi, payments made to plaintiff’s Delhi bank account, and issue on territorial jurisdiction had already been framed – Held: Where disputed facts regarding jurisdiction exist and trial is at an advanced stage, plaint cannot be rejected but can only be returned if jurisdiction is ultimately not proved – Rejection not permissible at this stage [Paras 5, 7–9, 10.2–10.3].

Civil Procedure – Filing of Additional Documents – Bank Certificate – Plaintiff relied on post-suit bank certificate showing payments received in Delhi – Objection raised that document was filed without leave under Order XI Rule 1(5) CPC – Held: Trial Court justified in accepting the document as it did not exist at the time of suit filing and leave may be oral – No formal application needed if reasonable cause explained and accepted by Court [Paras 6–6.3].

Delay Tactics – Abuse of Process – Defendants filed counterclaim, delayed court fee, and repeatedly sought adjournments – Application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC filed late in trial, after issues were framed and evidence concluded – Held: Application a strategy to delay and frustrate plaintiff – Rejected with costs [Paras 10.3, 11].

Procedural Law – Supreme Court Precedent – Applied M/s Bhagya Estate Benchers Pvt. Ltd. v. Narne Estates Pvt. Ltd. (2023) – Held: Order VII Rule 11 CPC is meant for threshold scrutiny and cannot be invoked at advanced stages of trial where merits are already under consideration – Delay defeats the object of Rule 11 and wastes court resources [Para 10.2].

Decision:

Petition dismissed – No merit found in plea of lack of jurisdiction – No perversity in trial court order – Costs of Rs. 25,000 imposed on petitioners to be paid within one week [Para 11].

Criminal Law – Rash and Negligent Driving – Death in Motor Accident – Res Ipsa Loquitur – Truck fell 200–250 feet into a gorge resulting in death of conductor – Accused admitted driving – Mechanical inspection showed no defect – Accident of such nature, absent any other explanation, attracts the principle of res ipsa loquitur – Held: burden shifts to accused to explain accident; defence version (deceased putting stone under wheel) inherently improbable, does not explain fall of truck – Negligence proved [Paras 25–31].

Criminal Law – Section 304-AA IPC – Intoxication – Requirement of Blood Alcohol Level – As per Lyon’s Medical Jurisprudence, intoxication begins at 150 mg% – Report showed only 21.68 mg% alcohol – Below even the statutory limit under Section 185 MV Act (30 mg%) – Held: accused cannot be held “intoxicated” for the purposes of Section 304-AA IPC – Conviction under Section 304-AA IPC unsustainable [Paras 14–16].

Criminal Law – Conversion to Lesser Offence – Section 304A IPC – When ingredients of aggravated offence (Section 304-AA IPC) not proved but negligence causing death established – Court may convict for lesser offence despite charge for higher one – Held: conviction altered from Section 304-AA to 304A IPC [Para 32].

Evidence – Statement under Section 313 CrPC – Admissibility – Accused admitted driving – Supreme Court jurisprudence (Sukhdev Singh, Mohan Singh, Ramnaresh) permits use of inculpatory statements under Section 313 CrPC where consistent with prosecution evidence – Held: admission corroborates PW15 (vehicle owner); fact of accused driving treated as proved [Paras 17–24].

Motor Vehicles – Intoxication Standard – Harmonious Construction – Legislature cannot intend that a person under 30 mg% alcohol is punishable under IPC but not under MV Act – Held: interpreting Section 304-AA IPC to punish persons below statutory MV Act limit would be absurd and contrary to legislative intent [Para 16].

Sentencing – Substantial Reduction – Trial Court awarded seven years under Section 304-AA IPC – After alteration to Section 304A IPC (maximum 2 years), High Court imposed 18 months imprisonment with fine of ₹10,000; in default, four months SI – Set-off under Section 428 CrPC allowed [Para 33].

Decision: Conviction under Section 304-AA IPC set aside – Conviction modified to Section 304A IPC – Sentence reduced to 18 months imprisonment with ₹10,000 fine (4 months SI in default) – Conviction under Section 279 IPC affirmed – Appeal disposed of accordingly.

Dowry Death – Sentence under Section 304-B IPC – Reduction of Life Imprisonment – Husband Convicted – Sentencing Principles Applied – Appellant-husband convicted under Section 304-B IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment by Trial Court – Appellate Court held that life imprisonment is not mandatory under Section 304-B IPC and sentence must be proportionate to culpability – Appellant was 20 years old at the time of incident, with no criminal antecedents – Already undergone more than 14 years in incarceration – No conviction under Section 302 IPC – Held: Sentence reduced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment while upholding conviction [Paras 25-28, 30, 31, 33, 37].

Criminal Law – Conviction Based on Legal Presumption – Evidentiary Threshold under Section 304-B IPC – Court reiterated that conviction under Section 304-B IPC often rests on legal presumptions unlike Section 302 IPC – Hence, quantum of sentence must account for lack of direct evidence and nature of presumption-based liability – Sentence of life imprisonment not justified in absence of extreme aggravating circumstances [Paras 30, 31].

Criminal Law – Acquittal – Omnibus Allegation Against Mother-in-law – No Specific Role Attributed – Accused mother-in-law convicted under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and Section 4 DP Act – Court found that FIR and testimonies only contained general allegations without any specific overt act against her – Two other co-accused similarly situated (jeth and jethani) exonerated during investigation – Applying parity and settled law, conviction of mother-in-law unsustainable – Held: Appeal allowed, conviction and sentence set aside, appellant acquitted [Paras 28, 32, 33, 35].

Sentencing – Principles of Proportionality and Judicial Discretion – Need to Consider Reformative Theory – Appellate Court reiterated settled law that punishment must be proportionate to the nature and degree of offence – Courts must weigh both aggravating and mitigating factors – Age, background, possibility of reform and factual matrix relevant – Life imprisonment to be reserved for exceptional cases – Reliance placed on Bachan Singh, Machhi Singh, and Nadeem decisions – Held: Undue harshness in sentencing without justification liable to correction [Paras 29-32].

Family Members in Dowry Cases – Caution Against Roping in Relatives Without Specific Allegations – Court emphasized that general tendency to implicate in-laws, especially female relatives, in dowry cases must be curbed unless supported by specific, credible evidence – Parity with similarly exonerated co-accused a relevant factor – Held: Conviction of mother-in-law in absence of specific role violates settled jurisprudence [Paras 28, 32, 33].

Decision:

Appeal of Chandra Pal @ Rachit partly allowed – Conviction upheld – Sentence under Section 304-B IPC reduced to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment – Sentences to run concurrently – Appeal of Smt. Atarkali allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellant acquitted – Bail bonds discharged.

Criminal Law – Murder – Acquittal – Appellants convicted under Sections 302/34 IPC and 25/27 Arms Act for alleged brutal killing of a woman – Trial court sentenced them to life imprisonment – High Court found serious discrepancies in prosecution evidence – FIR silent on gunshot injuries – Medical report shows death by gunshot, but no bullet was recovered and ballistic report was not sought – Contradictions between statements under Sections 161, 164 Cr.P.C and deposition in court by PW2 and PW3 (minor children of deceased) – Inconsistent ocular and medical evidence – Trial court failed to appreciate lack of corroboration and major procedural lapses – Held: Conviction unsustainable, prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Benefit of doubt extended to accused [Paras 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35].

Evidence – Child Witness – Reliability – PW2 and PW3, son and daughter of the deceased, were key eye-witnesses – Their deposition before the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C and before the trial court materially contradictory – PW2 claimed shooting as cause of death under Section 164 Cr.P.C., later stated sharp cutting weapons used – PW3 did not state gunshot injury in initial statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C – Medical evidence showed only gunshot wound, no sharp weapon injuries – Evidence of child witnesses not found wholly reliable – No corroboration from other local witnesses – Held: In absence of corroboration, contradictory statements from child witnesses weaken prosecution case [Paras 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 32].

Criminal Procedure – FIR – Delay – FIR lodged by deceased’s sister only after verifying facts and visiting hospital – Delay in lodging FIR held explained – However, three-day delay in forwarding FIR to Magistrate remained unexplained – Held: Delay in forwarding FIR to court assumes significance in view of discrepancies in eyewitness accounts and possibility of embellishment – FIR appears to be post-deliberation document [Paras 3, 31, 32].

Criminal Procedure – Investigation Lapses – Arms recovered not connected to incident – Recovered in another case and improperly tagged with the present case – No forensic examination to link bullet injury with seized arms – No ballistic expert report obtained – Held: Failure to obtain ballistic opinion and improper arms recovery fatally affect prosecution’s credibility – No clear evidence on who fired fatal shot – Trial court failed to evaluate lapses [Paras 3, 9, 10, 11, 12, 32, 33].

Medical Jurisprudence – Ocular vs Medical Evidence – Medical report confirmed death by gunshot, but no exit wound or bullet recovered – FIR did not mention gunshot injury – Eye-witnesses’ version included sharp cutting weapons, which was medically ruled out – Contradictions between medical and ocular evidence not resolved – Held: Medical evidence contradicted eye-witnesses’ version, further undermining prosecution case [Paras 6, 7, 9, 32, 33].

Judicial Precedents – Application – High Court relied upon multiple Supreme Court rulings – Jagdish v. State of Haryana, Ram Singh v. State of U.P., Siba Nial v. State of Odisha, Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab, K. Venkateshwarlu v. State of A.P., among others – Held: Where child witnesses are unreliable, ballistic reports are missing, and ocular evidence inconsistent, conviction cannot be sustained – Prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Trial court misapplied principles and ignored crucial discrepancies [Paras 10–30].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 302/34 IPC and 25/27 Arms Act set aside – All nine appellants acquitted – Ordered to be released immediately if not wanted in any other case [Paras 34, 35, 36, 37].