Criminal Law - Matrimonial Cruelty – Section 498A IPC – Dowry Demand – Conviction Upheld – Petitioner No. 1, who married PW1 on 09.01.2000, along with his parents (Petitioners 2 and 3), subjected PW1 to physical and mental cruelty demanding more dowry, assaulted her while pregnant on 26.06.2000, and expelled her from the matrimonial home – Trial Court convicted all three petitioners under Section 498A read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced them to imprisonment till the rising of the Court with fines; Appellate Court confirmed – In revision, High Court found no ground to interfere with the concurrent findings – Held: Concurrent findings of guilt under Section 498A read with Section 34 IPC affirmed; revision petition dismissed [Paras 2, 3, 8].

Evidence – Credibility of Prosecutrix – Embellishments and Contradictions – Amicus Curiae and petitioners' counsel contended that the Trial Court had acknowledged embellishments, omissions, and contradictions in PW1's testimony, and had decided the matter on probabilities – Held: A casual remark in para 14 of the Trial Court judgment referring to "probabilising" PW1's version did not mean the case was decided on probabilities; minor embellishments and contradictions usual in matrimonial cruelty cases do not by themselves vitiate the prosecution case – Evidence of PW1 corroborated by PW2, PW3 (eye-witnesses to expulsion), and PW4 (father of complainant) [Paras 6, 7].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Scope – Concurrent Findings – Sentence – High Court reiterated that in exercise of revisional powers it is not permissible to unsettle concurrent findings of the courts below unless there is a manifest illegality or grave injustice – Sentence of imprisonment till rising of Court and fine (Rs. 50,000/- on Petitioner 1; Rs. 10,000/- each on Petitioners 2 and 3, with fine directed to be paid as compensation to PW1) held to be extremely lenient given that Section 498A IPC provides for imprisonment up to three years – No modification warranted [Para 8].

Amicus Curiae – Third Petitioner Deceased – Notice to Petitioners 1 and 2 duly served but they remained unrepresented – Notice to Petitioner 3 returned with endorsement "addressee is no more" – Adv. Ms. Nanda Surendran appointed as Amicus Curiae; original counsel also heard – Court placed on record its appreciation for the assistance rendered by the Amicus Curiae [Para 4, 5].

Decision: Criminal revision petition dismissed – Concurrent verdicts of conviction and sentence under Section 498A read with Section 34 IPC confirmed.

Criminal Law - Preparation to Commit Dacoity – Section 399 IPC – Mandatory Requirement of Five or More Persons – Prosecution failed to prove presence of fifth accused – The appellants-accused were arrested from a busy public road near Natraj Hotel, Naroda Patiya on the basis of secret information alleging that five named persons including one 'Munno' would assemble there, armed with weapons, to make preparation for committing dacoity at a petrol pump situated 28 kms. away – Four accused were apprehended and weapons recovered; the fifth person 'Munno' allegedly fled and could never be identified despite police remand of the accused – Trial Court convicted accused nos. 1 to 3 under Section 399 IPC, Section 25(1B)(a) of the Arms Act and Section 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act, and accused no. 4 under Section 399 IPC – Held: Section 399 IPC read with Section 391 IPC mandatorily requires that five or more persons conjointly make preparation for commission of dacoity – Trial Court erred in formulating the point for determination with reference to conspiracy of "any one or more" of the accused, contrary to the statutory mandate – Identity and existence of 'Munno' remained unproved; no supplementary chargesheet was filed and no proceedings were initiated to establish his identity – Prosecution wholly failed to prove presence of five or more persons – Conviction not sustainable [Paras 11, 12, 13, 50, 69, 70, 71, 92, 93].

Secret Information – Non-Recording in Station Diary – Privilege under Section 125 of Evidence Act – Leader of raiding team (PW2) received information from an informant but did not record it as 'Janva Jog' entry in the police station diary, did not inform the superior officer, and did not record the information in any personal diary – The informant accompanied the raiding party throughout and identified the accused at the spot, yet was not examined as a prosecution witness – PW2 made no attempt to verify whether the informant harboured any enmity against the accused – Held: Where the leader of the raiding party did not shield the informant from team members or Panchas, the privilege under Section 125 of the Evidence Act could not be claimed – Non-recording of information and non-examination of the informant who was present throughout the raid renders the prosecution case untrustworthy [Paras 23, 24, 37, 38, 57, 79, 81, 93].

Investigation – Investigating Officer as Member of Raiding Party – Interested Witness – The Investigating Officer (PW8) was himself a member of the raiding party led by PW2 and was an eye-witness to the trap – No request was made by PW8 to be recused from investigation – Held: Where the Investigating Officer was a subordinate member of the same raiding team and was following instructions of PW2, the independence of investigation was fatally compromised and the investigation becomes partisan – Such investigation cannot be relied upon to prove the prosecution case [Paras 39, 43, 73, 93].

Panchas – Non-Corroboration – Contradictions – Both Panchas of the raid failed to corroborate the prosecution case – Panch PW1 stated that four persons were caught from a rickshaw; Panch PW3 stated that only two accused were present when the Panchnama was drawn – Neither Panch could establish the presence of five persons – One of the two Panchas for recovery of Muddamal turned hostile and the second was not examined – Held: Panchas in a raid are required to depose the complete sequence of events they observed; failure of Panchas to corroborate police witnesses renders the prosecution case doubtful – Mere recovery of weapons, without corroboration by independent witnesses, is insufficient to prove preparation for dacoity [Paras 20, 72, 74, 82, 93].

Recovery of Weapons – Procedural Irregularities – No seizure receipts issued to accused as required under Section 51 CrPC – Members of the raiding party, all armed with weapons, did not subject themselves to personal search before searching the accused – Seized Muddamal not produced in a timely manner before the Magistrate – No ballistic report on record – General Diary under Section 44 of the Police Act not produced – Held: Non-compliance with mandatory procedural requirements under Sections 51 and 52 CrPC creates serious doubt about the authenticity of recovery – The police were required to prove fairness, independence and compliance with law [Paras 28, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34, 83, 93].

Sentencing – Enhancement of Sentence – State's Appeal – In view of acquittal of all accused, no occasion arises to consider the State's appeal for enhancement of sentence – Criminal Appeal No. 1139 of 2005 filed by the State accordingly dismissed [Para 94].

Decision: Criminal Appeal Nos. 412 of 2005 and 715 of 2005 allowed – Criminal Appeal No. 1139 of 2005 dismissed – Judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 28.02.2005 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad City in Sessions Case No. 51 of 2004 set aside – All appellants-accused acquitted of all charges – Bail bonds discharged.

Compassionate Appointment — Adopted Child — Validity of Unregistered Adoption Deed — Clause 2.5 of Compassionate Appointment Policy dated 29.09.2014 — Petitioner adopted by deceased government servant (Superior Field Worker, Malaria Department) and his wife in 2010 — Adoption deed executed on 15.06.2020 during lifetime of deceased, duly stamped, notarized and signed by necessary parties — Deceased died on 29.04.2021 — Application for compassionate appointment rejected by Respondent No. 4 on the ground that the registered adoption deed dated 23.10.2021 was executed after the employee's death and that no succession certificate was produced — High Court held: Registration is not a mandatory pre-condition for validity of adoption under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 — Adoption fulfilling substantive requirements of Sections 6 to 11 of the Act is legally valid irrespective of non-registration — Clause 2.5 uses the phrase "legally adopted" and does not stipulate a registered deed — Rejection order quashed — Respondents directed to grant compassionate appointment within sixty days — Writ petition allowed [Paras 3–5, 30, 36, 40–41].

Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 — Validity of Adoption — Registration not Mandatory — Sections 5, 6, 7, 10 and 11 — Statute places primacy on capacity of parties, consent of spouse, and the actual physical act of giving and taking the child with requisite intent — Nowhere in Chapter II does the Act prescribe registration of an adoption deed as a mandatory statutory pre-condition for validity — Section 16 of the Act creates only a rebuttable presumption in favour of a registered document and is a rule of evidence; it does not render an unregistered yet factually compliant adoption void or illegal — Deed of adoption not one of the documents mandatorily requiring registration under Section 17(1) of the Registration Act — Held: An adoption satisfying the conditions of Sections 6 to 11 is valid in law even in the absence of a registered deed [Paras 21–30].

Effect of Adoption — Section 12 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 — Adopted child deemed to be child of adoptive parent for all purposes from the date of adoption — All ties with the birth family severed and replaced by those in the adoptive family — Legal fiction created is absolute and complete — Adopted child acquires same legal status, rights and privileges as a biological child — Provisos to Section 12 merely restrict marriage within birth family and protect previously vested properties but do not dilute the parent-child relationship — Respondent's insistence on succession certificate or registered deed as mandatory pre-condition for compassionate appointment held to be addition of requirements not existing in law or policy [Paras 31–32, 36].

Compassionate Appointment — Governing Principles — Compassionate appointment is an exception to general recruitment procedure designed to enable family of deceased employee to overcome sudden financial crisis — It is not a vested right exercisable at any time in future — Must be provided immediately to redeem family in distress — Improper to keep such cases pending for years — In determining financial crisis, all relevant aspects including income, liabilities, terminal benefits, age and dependency of family members must be considered [Para 38].

Rejection Order — Arbitrary Exercise of Power — Respondent No. 4 acted mechanically and misdirected itself in law by insisting on registered adoption deed or succession certificate — Reliance on Jitendra Kumar Sen v. State of M.P. (W.P. No. 3156/2020) held misplaced as that case dealt with adoption initiated after death of employee, whereas present adoption was complete and documented in 2020 prior to employee's death in April 2021 — Held: Impugned order suffers from the vice of arbitrary exercise of administrative power based on flawed understanding of adoption laws [Paras 36–37, 39].

Decision: Writ petition allowed — Impugned order dated 10.12.2021 passed by Respondent No. 4 quashed and set aside — Respondents directed to treat adoption as valid and occurring during lifetime of deceased employee — Respondents directed to reconsider application for compassionate appointment in accordance with the 2014 Policy and pass appropriate orders granting appointment and consequential benefits within sixty days from receipt of certified copy of this order — No order as to costs.

Real Estate Law – RERA – Locus Standi of Regulatory Authority – Person Aggrieved – Section 58, RERA 2016 – Preliminary objection raised that M.P. RERA, being an adjudicatory authority, cannot maintain appeals under Section 58 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 against orders of the Appellate Tribunal setting aside its decisions – Authority contended it discharges three distinct functions — administrative, regulatory and adjudicatory — and is covered within the inclusive definition of "person" under Section 2(zg) of the Act – Held: A quasi-judicial authority acting as an adjudicator is not an "aggrieved party" and lacks locus standi to challenge an appellate order setting aside its adjudicatory decision – However, where authority acts in a distinct statutory or regulatory capacity, it can maintain an appeal – Appeals held maintainable [Paras 3–4, 21–22].

RERA – Distinction Between Adjudicatory and Regulatory Functions – Locus to Appeal – The Act, 2016 confers three types of functions on the Authority — administrative, regulatory and adjudicatory — as mapped across its provisions – When exercising adjudicatory powers, the Authority decides disputes between parties and cannot maintain an appeal to defend its own decision – When exercising regulatory powers, the Authority has a vital interest in protecting public interest and can be impleaded and can maintain an appeal – A quasi-judicial authority must not be impleaded in an appeal against an order issued solely in exercise of its adjudicatory function but must be impleaded where the order was issued in exercise of its regulatory role [Paras 14, 19, 21].

Person Aggrieved – Meaning and Scope – Expression "aggrieved person" is an elastic and elusive concept that cannot be confined to the bounds of a rigid definition – Its scope depends on the content and intent of the statute, specific circumstances of the case, and the nature and extent of prejudice suffered – Expression does not include a person suffering from a psychological or imaginary injury – A person aggrieved must be one whose right or interest has been adversely affected or jeopardised – Once the Authority was impleaded as a respondent before the Appellate Tribunal by the respondents themselves, it became an "aggrieved party" upon an adverse order being passed [Paras 16–18, 20].

Doctrine of Judicial Discipline – Quasi-Judicial Authority – Limits of Appellate Challenge – Judicial discipline ordinarily requires that an adjudicatory authority cannot challenge the order passed by the higher authority setting aside its decision – Legislature has not conferred upon the Authority under the Act, 2016 any specific power to defend its order before a higher forum in its adjudicatory capacity – Ratio decidendi and not the mere outcome of cited judgments is binding – Distinctions between regulatory and adjudicatory roles must be carefully maintained to avoid undermining judicial discipline and creating absurdity [Paras 6–7, 10].

Decision: All four miscellaneous second appeals (MSA Nos. 76/2025, 87/2025, 90/2025 and 09/2026) filed by M.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority held maintainable – Matter listed for hearing on admission on 21.04.2026 [Paras 22–23].

Writ Jurisdiction – Clean Hands – Suppression of Material Facts – Petitioner sought mandamus directing demolition of constructions by Respondents 3 and 4 alleged to be encroachments on his property covered by sale deed – In course of proceedings, Thandaper account of petitioner's father in respect of the suit property stood cancelled by revenue authorities – Petitioner had not disclosed the cancellation of the Thandaper account and was found to be involved in other alleged land-grabbing activities in Devikulam Taluk – Held: Petitioner did not approach the Court with clean hands and had not disclosed full facts; equitable relief sought in writ petition not granted [Paras 15, 16].

Government Scheme – Constructions on Puramboke Land – Allotment under Life Mission and IAY PMRY Schemes – Respondents 3 and 4 constructed residential houses under the IAY PMRY Scheme and Life Mission Scheme on puramboke land to which no patta had been issued – Assignment applications of Respondent No. 3 pending with revenue authorities – Buildings below 1000 sq. ft. exempted from building permit requirement – Held: Whether houses can be allotted under Government schemes on puramboke lands is a matter requiring enquiry by the competent authorities; encroachments by petitioner as well as Respondents 3 and 4 on Government lands to be enquired into by District Collector [Paras 13, 14, 16].

District Collector – Duty to Enquire – Encroachment on Government Land – Court, upon finding that the encroachments committed by the petitioner as well as Respondents 3 and 4 on Government lands had not been adequately investigated, directed the District Collector, Idukki, to conduct a detailed enquiry regarding such encroachments and take appropriate decision in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing, within three months from the date of receipt of the judgment [Para 16].

Decision: Writ petition disposed of – District Collector, Idukki, directed to conduct a detailed enquiry into encroachments, if any, committed by the petitioner as well as Respondents 3 and 4 on Government lands and take appropriate decision in accordance with law after hearing all parties, within three months from the date of receipt of the judgment [Para 16].

Framing of Charge — Speaking Order — Application of Judicial Mind — Sections 250 and 251 BNSS — Remand — The petitioner/accused was charged under Sections 351(3) and 351(1) of the BNS by the Additional Sessions Judge, Berasia on the allegation that he threatened the victim to maintain contact with him and to reveal the victim's relationship with the co-accused if she refused — The petitioner challenged the charge-framing order in criminal revision contending that no allegation of death threat was made in the FIR and the Trial Court failed to disclose the material basis for framing the charge under Section 351(3) BNS — Held: The impugned order is non-speaking and does not indicate the material on which the court formed its prima facie satisfaction — The order framing charge under Section 351(3) BNS is unsustainable as no allegation of threat to cause death appears in the FIR, and the Trial Court failed to mention the document from which such inference was drawn — Impugned order set aside — Matter remanded to the Trial Court for fresh consideration [Paras 6-9, 23-26].

Standard at Stage of Framing Charge — Sections 250 and 251 BNSS — No Material Difference from Sections 227 and 228 CrPC — At the stage of framing charges, the Trial Court must apply its judicial mind to the material on record and sift it for the limited purpose of ascertaining whether a prima facie case is made out — The court is not required to write a detailed or elaborate order, but the order must reflect judicial satisfaction based on material available on record — A mechanical or non-speaking order which merely reproduces statutory sections or records bare assertions without indicating the material considered is impermissible — Held: Framing of a charge must be preceded by at least a brief indication of the material or document which satisfies the court of the existence of the essential ingredients of the alleged offence [Paras 10-23].

Revisional Jurisdiction — Limitation — Where the subordinate court has failed to record necessary findings or has omitted to apply judicial mind, the revisional court cannot undertake independent appreciation of evidence or substitute its own conclusions — The proper course in such circumstances is to remand the matter to the Trial Court for recording findings afresh [Para 24].

Direction for Circulation — The Principal Registrar (J) directed to place a copy of the order before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for circulation among all judicial officers across Madhya Pradesh through the respective Principal District and Sessions Judges, so as to avoid recurrence of such errors [Para 28].

Decision: Criminal revision allowed — Impugned order dated 28.01.2026 set aside — Matter remanded to the Court below for passing a fresh reasoned order in accordance with the settled legal position — Pending applications, if any, stand closed.

Personal Liberty – Live-In Relationship – Police Protection – Right to Life – Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution – Petitioners, both married to different individuals and having children with their respective spouses, entered into a live-in relationship at Hyderabad on 25.02.2026 out of their own free will – Petitioner no. 1 alleged harassment and torture by her husband since 2016 – Family members and husband of petitioner no. 1, along with local police officials, allegedly intimidated and threatened the petitioners, causing them to relocate to Delhi – Petitioners executed a Memorandum of Understanding inter se on 11.03.2026 and sent representations to authorities which remained unacted upon – Held: Both petitioners being Indian national citizens and consenting adults are entitled to the protection of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution – Marital status or nature of relationship (whether married or in a live-in relationship) is not a germane factor when the Court is dealing with protection of life and personal liberty – Petition allowed; petitioners directed to be free to contact the SHO and Beat Constable/Duty Officer of PS Lodhi Colony, Delhi for assistance and protection as and when required [Paras 3–11].

Writ of Mandamus – Police Protection – Consenting Adults – Scope – A writ of mandamus or appropriate direction for police protection may be issued by a High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, in favour of consenting adults whose right to life and personal liberty is under threat – The validity or enforceability of a Memorandum of Understanding executed between the petitioners inter se is not required to be gone into for the purposes of granting such protection – Delhi Police directed to extend adequate assistance and protection to the petitioners in accordance with law – In the event of change of residence to another police station's jurisdiction, petitioners directed to share their details with the SHO of the concerned PS within three days of shifting [Paras 9–12].

Decision: Petition allowed – Petitioners entitled to police protection in accordance with law – SHO and Beat Constable/Duty Officer of PS Lodhi Colony, Delhi directed to provide adequate assistance and protection as and when required – In case of change of residence, petitioners to apprise the SHO of the concerned PS within three days.

Res Judicata – Territorial Jurisdiction – Subsequent Change in Law – Same Cause of Action – Effect of Finality of Earlier Orders – Plaintiff, a former Relationship Manager of HDFC Bank, filed suit at Nagpur for declaration, restoration of service and damages upon termination – Appointment letter contained a clause conferring exclusive jurisdiction on Courts at Mumbai – Defendants' initial application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC for return of plaint rejected by Trial Court and confirmed by this Court in Civil Revision Application No. 81 of 2018; application for review also rejected – Subsequently, the Supreme Court in Rakesh Kumar Verma v. HDFC Bank interpreted an identical clause to hold that Courts at Mumbai alone have jurisdiction – Defendants filed a fresh application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC relying on the said decision – Trial Court rejected the fresh application on the ground of res judicata – Held: Since the earlier order on territorial jurisdiction had attained finality between the parties and was not challenged further, it operates as res judicata – A fresh application seeking to revisit the same order on the basis of a subsequent Supreme Court decision is, in substance, a review and is barred by the express prohibition in Explanation to Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, which provides that reversal or modification of a decision on a question of law by a subsequent decision of a superior Court in any other case is not a ground for review – Civil Revision dismissed [Paras 20, 21, 22, 24, 35, 36, 40].

Res Judicata – Exceptions – Distinction Between Inherent Jurisdiction and Territorial Jurisdiction – The rule that an erroneous decision on a pure question of jurisdiction does not operate as res judicata applies only to subject matter jurisdiction (inherent jurisdiction) and not to procedural aspects of jurisdiction such as territorial jurisdiction or pecuniary jurisdiction – An order passed without inherent jurisdiction is a nullity in the eyes of law and can be ignored; an order passed without territorial jurisdiction is not a nullity, is completely binding on the parties until set aside, and must be challenged to be vacated – Exclusion of territorial jurisdiction by agreement between parties does not deprive other Courts of their inherent jurisdiction; it merely restricts the forum among Courts otherwise competent to try the matter – Held: The exception to res judicata recognised in Mathura Prasad Bajoo Jaiswal with respect to erroneous decisions on jurisdiction is confined to subject matter jurisdiction and cannot be extended to errors of territorial jurisdiction [Paras 14, 23, 27, 28, 38, 39].

Res Judicata – Change in Interpretation of Law – Same Cause of Action – The rule that change in interpretation of law by a superior Court does not operate as res judicata applies where the pure question of law falls for consideration in a separate proceeding on a different cause of action – Where the cause of action is the same and the subsequent application is filed in the same civil suit, the prior decision on the question of law operates as res judicata with greater force, notwithstanding a subsequent Supreme Court decision taking a different view – Explanation to Order 47 Rule 1 CPC expressly enacts that subsequent reversal or modification of the legal basis of an order is not a ground for review, thereby giving primacy to the principle of res judicata – Held: The ratio in Mathura Prasad Bajoo Jaiswal and Canara Bank v. N.G. Subbaraya Setty does not assist the defendants where cause of action and proceedings are identical [Paras 26, 27, 29, 30, 34, 35].

Decision: Civil Revision dismissed – No order as to costs.

Motor Accident Claim — Negligence — Death of Pillion Rider — Appeal by Insurer Dismissed — The deceased, aged 38 years, working as Principal of Sri Chaitanya E-Techno School, Madhira, was travelling as pillion rider on a motorcycle when the offending lorry came from behind in a rash and negligent manner and hit the motorcycle, resulting in the instantaneous death of the deceased on 15.03.2012 — Crime No. 190 of 2012 was registered under Section 304-A IPC against the driver of the lorry — The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs. 30,05,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum, holding all respondents jointly and severally liable — Insurer challenged the award primarily contending that the accident occurred due to sole negligence of the deceased — Held: The insurer failed to examine the driver before the Tribunal and raised no challenge to the charge sheet before the competent Court — The absence of cross-examination of PW3 left the evidence of the deceased's salary of Rs. 30,000/- per month unrebutted — No illegality or infirmity found in the Tribunal's order [Paras 3, 10-11, 15-17].

Quantum of Compensation — Multiplier Method — Loss of Dependency — The Tribunal deducted 20% towards income tax and professional tax, arriving at net salary of Rs. 24,000/- per month, and further deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses, computing net annual contribution to the family at Rs. 1,92,000/- — Applying multiplier of 15 as per Sarla Verma, loss of dependency was assessed at Rs. 28,80,000/- — Rs. 1,00,000/- awarded towards loss of consortium to the widow as per Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh — Rs. 25,000/- towards funeral and transportation expenses — Total compensation: Rs. 30,05,000/- — Held: The Tribunal was legally correct in its approach and the award calls for no interference [Paras 13-14, 17].

Cross Objection — Enhancement — Dismissed as Infructuous — The claimants filed Cross Objection No. 42 of 2024 seeking enhancement of compensation — Since the main appeal by the insurer was dismissed upholding the Tribunal's award, no further order was called for on the Cross Objection and the same was dismissed [Paras 19-20].

Decision: M.A.C.M.A. No. 2037 of 2016 dismissed — Award of the Tribunal dated 30.12.2015 in M.V.O.P. No. 241 of 2013 upheld — Cross Objection No. 42 of 2024 dismissed as infructuous — No order as to costs — Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed.