Gangster Act – Quashing of Proceedings – Solitary Base Case – Validity of Gang Chart – Application under Section 528 BNSS filed seeking quashing of proceedings under Section 2/3 of the U.P. Gangster Act, including charge-sheet and cognizance order – Applicant contended that initiation of Gangster Act proceedings on the basis of a solitary case was impermissible and contrary to the Gangster Rules, 2021 – Held: In view of Rule 22 of the Gangster Rules, 2021 and law laid down by the Supreme Court in Shraddha Gupta v. State of U.P., Gangster Act can be invoked even on the basis of a single case – No illegality found on this ground [Paras 4, 10, 28–29].

Gang Chart – Compliance with Rule 5(3) – Joint Meeting and Satisfaction of Authorities – Challenge raised on the ground that gang chart was approved without due discussion and joint meeting – Court found that gang chart was prepared and approved on 21.09.2024 after completion of investigation of the base case and after a joint meeting – Satisfaction of forwarding and approving authorities recorded in their own handwriting – Held: Requirements of Rule 5(3)(a) and Rule 16 duly complied with – Case distinguishable from Sanni Mishra, Mohd. Arif @ Guddu and Vinod Bihari Lal [Paras 7–9, 13, 18].

Rule 5(3)(c) – Completion of Investigation of Base Case – Applicant contended that gang chart was approved prior to completion of investigation of the base case – Court noted that charge-sheet in the base case was prepared on 20.09.2024 and gang chart was prepared on 21.09.2024 – Held: Statutory requirement that investigation must be completed prior to approval of gang chart was fully satisfied – No violation of Rule 5(3)(c) [Paras 3, 8, 21].

Rule 8(2) – Allegation of False or Unconfirmed Information – Submission that unverified and false information was entered in the gang chart – Applicant failed to point out any specific false entry – Court held that status of base case and relevant particulars were correctly mentioned – No violation of Rule 8(2) established [Paras 9, 16, 26].

Rule 10 – Requirement of Certified Copy of Charge-Sheet – Argument that certified copy of charge-sheet was not annexed with the gang chart – Court relying on Ambuj Parag Dubey and Narendra Kumar held that Rule 10 does not require a certified copy issued by the court – Copy of charge-sheet prepared and certified by the Investigating Officer after completion of investigation is sufficient – Held: No violation of Rule 10(1) [Paras 9, 21–25].

Rule 16 & Rule 17 – Independent Application of Mind – Applicant alleged mechanical approval of gang chart – Court found that authorities recorded satisfaction independently and not by signing a pre-printed proforma – Held: Mandatory requirement of independent application of mind under Rules 16 and 17 complied with [Paras 13, 18, 29].

Scope of Interference under Section 528 BNSS – Court reiterated that at the stage of quashing, it cannot undertake a roving enquiry into sufficiency of evidence – Once statutory procedure under the Gangster Act and Rules is followed, proceedings cannot be quashed merely on technical objections – Application held devoid of merit [Paras 11, 29–30].

Decision: Application dismissed – Proceedings under Section 2/3 of the U.P. Gangster Act upheld – No order as to costs.

Partition – Joint Sale Deed – Presumption of Co-Ownership – Suit property purchased under registered sale deed (Ex.A1) dated 08.05.1995 in joint names of plaintiff and defendant – Defendant contended entire consideration paid by him and plaintiff was a name lender – Held: When sale deed stands in joint names, parties are presumed to be co-owners – Mere plea of payment of entire sale consideration insufficient to dislodge presumption without cogent evidence – Plaintiff entitled to seek partition and separate possession of half share [Paras 2, 11–12].

Adverse Possession – Between Co-Owners – Ouster – Defendant pleaded exclusive possession since 1995 and perfection of title by adverse possession – Held: Mere long or exclusive possession by one co-owner does not amount to ouster – To establish adverse possession against co-owner, clear proof of hostile animus, open and exclusive possession to knowledge of other co-owner for statutory period is required – No evidence adduced by defendant to prove ouster or animus possidendi – Plea rejected [Paras 3, 11–12].

Benami Plea – Bar under Benami Transactions Act – Defendant contended plaintiff was only a name lender and transaction was benami – Held: In absence of specific pleadings and proof, and in view of bar under Sections 3 and 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, plea not sustainable – Burden heavily lies on person alleging benami nature – Not discharged in present case [Para 12].

Burden of Proof – Failure to Adduce Evidence – Defendant neither examined witnesses nor produced documentary evidence to substantiate claim of exclusive payment of sale consideration or adverse possession – Revenue records (Ex.A2 & Ex.A3) reflected joint possession – Non-reply to legal notice demanding partition leads to adverse inference – Concurrent findings of fact by courts below justified [Paras 4, 12].

Second Appeal – Scope under Section 100 CPC – Substantial Questions of Law – Questions framed relating to payment of consideration and adverse possession answered against appellant – No perversity or misapplication of law shown in concurrent findings of trial and first appellate courts – No ground for interference in second appeal [Paras 6, 12].

Decision: Second Appeal dismissed – No costs – Decree and judgment dated 23.08.2016 in A.S. No. 9 of 2013 confirming decree dated 12.08.2013 in O.S. No. 140 of 2010 upheld – Connected miscellaneous petition closed.

Criminal Law – Quashing - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Section 69 – Sexual Intercourse on False Promise of Marriage – Accused married man allegedly concealed marital status and induced victim through social media – Repeated sexual relations resulting in pregnancy – Allegation of deceit from inception – Held: Prima facie ingredients of Section 69 BNS disclosed – Whether victim knew about marital status is matter of trial – Proceedings cannot be quashed at threshold [Paras 11, 13, 17].

Consent – Misconception of Fact – Promise to Marry – Distinction between false promise made without intention to fulfil and breach of promise made in good faith – Court reiterates principle laid down in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar – Allegation that accused, being already married, knew promise to marry could not be fulfilled – Prima facie case of deceitful means made out – Issue of voluntariness of consent to be examined during trial [Paras 13, 17].

Section 528 BNSS – Scope of Inherent Jurisdiction – Quashing of Charge-sheet – Power to be exercised sparingly and in rarest of rare cases – At stage of quashing, Court only to see prima facie material and not conduct mini trial – Where FIR, statements under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS and medical record disclose commission of cognizable offences – Interference not warranted – Reliance placed on Bhajan Lal and other precedents [Paras 10, 18].

Criminal Intimidation and Hurt – Co-accused – Allegations of threats, pressure for compromise and intimidation by wife, sister and brother-in-law of main accused – Specific allegations present in FIR and statements – Matter requires evidence – Proceedings against co-accused also not liable to be quashed at this stage [Paras 2, 11.7, 17].

Distinguishing Precedents – Judgments in Amol Bhagwan Nehul, Mahesh Damu Khare and Uday held inapplicable on facts – Present case involves allegation of deceit from inception by married accused and repeated exploitation – Factual matrix materially different [Paras 14-16].

Decision: Application under Section 528 BNSS dismissed – Charge-sheet dated 22.07.2025, summoning order dated 26.08.2025 and proceedings of Case No. 554 of 2025 (State v. Vipin Kumar and others) upheld – Trial to proceed in accordance with law.

Environmental Law – Fly Ash Pollution – Construction of National Highway – Alleged damage to crops, ponds and groundwater – Environmental degradation affecting air and water bodies – Petitioners alleged indiscriminate dumping of fly ash during construction of NH-49 without safeguards – Fly ash washed into farmlands, ponds and village roads causing pollution and damage to agriculture and pisciculture – Held: Issues raised are serious environmental concerns requiring expert adjudication [Paras 3–5].

Writ Jurisdiction – Article 226 – Alternative Statutory Remedy – National Green Tribunal – Rule of discretion and not compulsion – Availability of specialized forum under NGT Act does not oust jurisdiction of High Court – However, writ court may refuse to entertain petition where effective statutory remedy exists – Held: Self-imposed restraint warranted where dispute falls squarely within jurisdiction of NGT [Paras 2, 9–10].

National Green Tribunal – Jurisdiction – Sections 14 and 22 – No absolute ouster of High Court’s powers under Articles 226 and 227 – High Court’s power of judicial review and superintendence forms part of basic structure – Remedy under Article 226 remains intact despite statutory appeal to Supreme Court under Section 22 of NGT Act – Held: Jurisdiction preserved but to be exercised sparingly [Paras 6–7, 9].

Environmental Disputes – Specialized Tribunal – Need for technical expertise – Environmental issues relating to air and water pollution require scientific and technical evaluation – NGT constituted with expert members to address such disputes effectively – Held: Matters concerning fly ash pollution during highway construction can be conveniently and appropriately adjudicated by NGT [Paras 5, 10].

Precedents – Judicial Review vis-à-vis NGT – Limits of Tribunal’s power – NGT does not possess general power of judicial review akin to Article 226 – Appeal being creature of statute, jurisdiction of NGT confined to matters expressly provided – High Court retains constitutional oversight [Paras 6–8].

Decision:

Writ petition disposed of – High Court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction – Petitioners relegated to approach the National Green Tribunal – Liberty granted to raise all grievances and seek appropriate reliefs before NGT.

Criminal Law – Quashing of Proceedings – Abuse of Process – Loan Recovery Dispute – Public Servant Acting in Official Capacity – FIR and charge-sheet alleged house trespass, criminal force, insult to modesty and intimidation against senior official of West Bengal Financial Corporation during visit for loan recovery – Materials revealed visit was pursuant to official duty for recovery of substantial public dues – Complaint lodged to stall recovery proceedings – Held: Continuation of prosecution would amount to gross abuse of process of law [Paras 16–21].

Section 354 IPC – Outraging Modesty – Essential Ingredients – Absence of Prima Facie Case – To attract Section 354 IPC, criminal force must be applied with intent to outrage modesty – Allegations did not disclose conduct capable of shocking sense of decency of a woman – No material to infer requisite mens rea – Held: Offence under Section 354 IPC not made out [Paras 14, 16].

Delay in Investigation – Inordinate and Unexplained – Effect on Prosecution – Charge-sheet filed nearly four years after FIR – Case diary silent on investigation progress for long periods – Investigating Officer failed to wait for or consider official reply and did not seek further investigation – Magistrate erred in taking cognizance without considering unexplained delay – Held: Procedural lapses vitiate prosecution [Paras 12–13, 17].

Section 161 & 164 CrPC – Defective Investigation – Non-recording of Crucial Statements – Statements of witnesses recorded twice without explanation – Statement of de facto complainant under Section 164 CrPC not recorded despite long delay – Investigating Officer ignored material documents and official correspondence – Held: Investigation conducted in perfunctory and mechanical manner [Paras 4, 7, 12, 17].

Inherent Powers – Section 482 CrPC – Preventing Harassment and Vexatious Prosecution – High Court empowered to look beyond allegations and examine attending circumstances – Where prosecution is maliciously instituted with ulterior motive, proceedings deserve to be quashed – Held: Case squarely falls within parameters laid down in Bhajan Lal and L. Muniswamy [Paras 13, 19–20].

Decision: Criminal Revision allowed – Charge-sheet and criminal proceedings pending before the 5th Judicial Magistrate, Howrah quashed – No order as to costs.

Motor Vehicles Act – Injury Claim – Minor Girl – Amputation of Right Leg Below Knee – Tribunal assessed notional income at Rs.24,000 per annum and disability at 36% – Applied multiplier of 15 – Awarded Rs.8,77,000 – High Court held that minimum wages of Rs.5,750 per month prevailing in 2013 with 40% future prospects to be considered – Multiplier of 18 applicable – Functional disability to be assessed at 50% considering nature of amputation and impact on earning capacity – Compensation enhanced to Rs.21,19,400 – Appeal partly allowed [Paras 7, 9, 12-14, 17-18].

Compensation – Assessment of Income of Minor – Minimum Wages – Future Prospects – In light of Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel and Sarla Verma and Pranay Sethi principles – Even in case of minor, loss of earning capacity to be assessed on basis of minimum wages of skilled worker – 40% addition towards future prospects permissible – Monthly income computed at Rs.8,050 – Total loss of income Rs.17,38,800 – 50% functional disability applied [Paras 7, 12, 14].

Disability – Physical vs Functional Disability – Amputation Below Knee – Doctor assessed 36% whole body disability – Court held that functional disability must be independently assessed – Considering stump length of 6.5 cm below knee and inability to perform heavy work – 50% permanent functional disability appropriate – Tribunal erred in mechanically accepting 36% [Paras 13-14].

Non-Pecuniary Damages – Pain, Shock and Suffering – Loss of Marriage Prospects – Loss of Amenities – Artificial Limb – Special Diet and Attendant Charges – Tribunal awarded meagre amounts – High Court, relying on Kajal v. Jagdish Chand, Master Ayush, Sidram and Pappu Deo Yadav, emphasized need for just, liberal and humane approach in cases of severe disability of minors – Enhanced pain and suffering to Rs.5,00,000 – Loss of marriage prospects Rs.3,00,000 – Loss of amenities Rs.2,00,000 – Artificial limb Rs.1,50,000 – Special diet, attendant and transportation Rs.1,00,000 [Paras 8, 10-11, 15-16].

Just Compensation – Duty of Tribunal – Sensitive and Humane Approach – Courts must consider lifelong deprivation, emotional trauma and loss of dignity under Article 21 – Compensation to be awarded once and for all and not as token damages – Nigardly approach deprecated [Paras 10-11].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Award modified from Rs.8,77,000 to Rs.21,19,400 – Appellant entitled to additional Rs.12,42,400 with proportionate costs and interest – Respondents directed to deposit enhanced amount within four weeks – Record remitted to Tribunal for disbursement.

NDPS Act – Supurdnama of Seized Vehicle – Owner-cum-Driver Accused – Joint Possession of Contraband – Refusal of Interim Custody Justified – Applicant sought interim release of Pick-up vehicle seized in Crime No.397/2025 registered under Sections 8/20 NDPS Act – Vehicle registered in applicant’s name and contraband (18 kg 600 gms ganja) recovered from joint possession of applicant and co-accused – Applicant arrayed as accused and also driver of vehicle – Held: Case falls within first/second category of seizure where owner/driver is accused – Vehicle cannot be released till reverse burden is discharged – Order rejecting Supurdnama not perverse [Paras 9–12, 16–19].

Supreme Court Guidelines – Bishwajit Dey / Denash Case – No Straight-Jacket Formula – Facts Distinguishable – Supreme Court held that release of vehicle depends on factual matrix and is not automatic – In Denash v. State of Tamil Nadu, vehicle released as owner was not accused and contraband carried without owner’s knowledge along with lawful cargo – In present case, owner himself was driving vehicle and no other lawful cargo was being carried – Held: Benefit of Denash judgment not applicable [Paras 13–17].

Section 451 CrPC – Discretion of Trial Court – Limited Scope of Revisional Interference – Interim custody of seized property is discretionary – Revisional Court will interfere only if order is arbitrary or perverse – Trial court considered nature of offence, role of accused and seizure circumstances – Held: No perversity or illegality warranting interference [Paras 8, 19].

NDPS Offences – Reverse Burden of Proof – Impact on Release of Conveyance – Where owner is directly involved in transportation of contraband, presumption under NDPS Act operates – Vehicle forms part of offence and may be liable for confiscation – Held: Release at interim stage would defeat statutory scheme [Paras 14–16].

Decision: Criminal Revision dismissed – Order dated 31.12.2025 rejecting Supurdnama application affirmed – No interference warranted.

Rent Control – Shop-cum-Flat (SCF) – Change of User – Residential Portion used for Commercial Tailoring Activity – Tenant initially inducted in ground floor portion for commercial purpose – Subsequently shifted to first and second floor (residential portion) for store purpose – Tenant running tailoring business from residential portion without permission – Held: Use of residential portion for commercial activity without permission of Rent Controller violates Section 11 of the 1949 Act – Eviction justified [Paras 18, 20, 25].

Chandigarh – SCF – Nature of Building – Reference to Division Bench – Question whether entire SCF to be treated as commercial – Division Bench answered that SCF in Chandigarh is a non-residential building in view of 1982 Amendment and law laid down in Rakesh Vij – Ejectment permissible on bona fide ground in both residential and non-residential buildings – Issue settled against tenant [Paras 2, 3, 17].

Misuse Notices – Estate Office Proceedings – Show cause notices issued by Estate Officer for misuse of SCF contrary to allotment terms – Property allotted as Shop-cum-Flat (shop at ground floor and flat at upper floors) – No conversion obtained – Held: Landlord cannot be made to suffer for tenant’s misuse – Misuse supports ground of eviction [Paras 19, 20].

Appellate Authority – Appreciation of Evidence – Rent Controller dismissed eviction petition for want of proof of misuse – Appellate Authority reappreciated evidence and found change of user established – High Court in revision found no illegality or perversity warranting interference – Order of eviction upheld [Paras 10, 18, 25].

Precedents – Applicability – Judgments relied upon by tenant distinguished on facts – Judgment in Nand Kishore v. Yashpal Singh supports eviction where residential premises used for commercial purpose – Revision petition dismissed [Paras 22–24, 25].

Decision: Revision petition dismissed – Order dated 24.11.2015 of Appellate Authority upheld – Pending miscellaneous applications disposed of [Paras 25, 26].

Motor Accident – Rash and Negligent Driving – FIR initially against unknown vehicle – Registration number and driver’s name introduced after 21 days – Eyewitness (PW2) stated driver got down after accident but he could not note entire number – Minor discrepancies in cross-examination held not fatal – Driver did not step into witness box – Criminal acquittal not decisive in MACT proceedings – Held: Involvement of offending vehicle and negligence proved – Plea of planted case rejected [Paras 7, 10; ].

Assessment of Income – Minimum Wages as Yardstick – Deceased aged 21 years working in shop – Tribunal assessed income at ₹9,000 per month based on Deputy Commissioner rates for semi-skilled/skilled labour – Court held minimum wages not absolute rule but guiding factor – Some guesswork permissible – Income of ₹9,000 per month upheld as just and reasonable [Paras 11; ].

Future Prospects – Correction from 50% to 40% – Deceased on fixed income – As per Pranay Sethi, addition should be 40% and not 50% – Tribunal’s award modified accordingly [Para 12; ].

Conventional Heads – Consortium – Tribunal awarded ₹1,00,000 for consortium and ₹3,00,000 for love and affection – Held not in consonance with Pranay Sethi, Magma General Insurance and N. Jayasree – Reworked to:

– ₹18,000 towards loss of estate

– ₹18,000 towards funeral expenses

– ₹48,000 each towards consortium (spousal, filial, parental) – Total ₹1,92,000 [Paras 12–13; ].

Recalculation of Compensation – Monthly income ₹9,000 – Deduction 1/4th – Multiplier 18 – Future prospects @ 40% – Total compensation reduced from ₹26,12,000 to ₹22,69,200 – Interest @ 9% per annum from date of claim petition maintained [Para 13–14; ].

Apportionment – Minor’s share to be kept in FDR till attaining majority – Balance amount to be adjusted from deposited sum; excess to be returned to Insurance Company [Paras 14–15; ].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Award modified – Compensation reduced to ₹22,69,200 with 9% interest – Other findings of Tribunal affirmed.