Permanent Injunction – Tenant Holding Over – Section 116, Indian Evidence Act – Relief Denied - Plaintiff, a tenant under the Municipal Committee, sought permanent injunction claiming title after lease expiry – Trial Court dismissed the suit; First Appellate Court reversed – Held: Tenant estopped from denying landlord’s title under Section 116 during or after tenancy unless lawfully surrendered – Injunction cannot protect unlawful possession [Paras 8, 12].

Title Dispute – Unconstitutionality of Statute – No Vesting in Tenant – The Haryana Municipal Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1974 was declared unconstitutional in Rajinder Prashad case – Held: This did not vest title in tenants or co-sharers – Vesting dispute may lie between Panchayat and Committee, but tenant has no locus to claim possession on that basis [Paras 9, 13].

Biswedar Claim – No Documentary Proof – Equitable Relief Refused - Plaintiff claimed co-sharer (biswedar) status in shamlat land – No documentary evidence produced – Both Trial Court and First Appellate Court found no basis for such claim – Held: Equitable relief of injunction cannot be granted without legal entitlement or proof of ownership [Para 10].

Lease Evidence – Revenue Records and Auction Entries – Estoppel Applied - Documents including auction record (Ex. D8) and Rapat Roznamcha (Ex. D10) proved plaintiff took land on lease – Held: Having accepted lease, plaintiff estopped from challenging landlord's title – Possession after lease expiry deemed unauthorized [Paras 11-12].

Final Disposition – Appeal Allowed – Appellate Court Judgment Set Aside - High Court found First Appellate Court erred in ignoring legal principles on estoppel and tenancy – Held: Judgment dated 10.02.1994 set aside; Trial Court’s decree restored; Plaintiff not entitled to injunction – Suit dismissed [Paras 13-14].

Criminal Writ - Child Custody – Habeas Corpus – Biological Parent vs. Grandparent – Petitioner, biological father and natural guardian, sought custody of son from maternal grandmother – Respondent contended emotional bond, financial incapacity of father, and pending custody proceedings – Held: Biological parents’ right to custody prevails unless welfare of child is demonstrably at risk – Grandparent has no superior right over natural guardian – Custody directed to be restored to petitioner [Paras 12-14, 16].

Maintainability – Habeas Corpus vs. Guardians and Wards Act – Pendency of custody proceedings before Family Court no bar – Writ jurisdiction may be exercised in exceptional cases where detention is unlawful – Habeas Corpus maintainable where biological parent is deprived of custody by third party – Supreme Court precedents in Tejaswini Gaud (2019) 7 SCC 42 and Gautam Kumar Das (2024 INSC 610) applied [Paras 10-12, 14].

Welfare of Child – Paramount Consideration – Petitioner and wife living together, gainfully employed – Already caring for twin brother suffering from cerebral palsy – Nothing on record to show incapacity – Property disputes irrelevant – Welfare best served in custody of parents – Adjustment difficulties temporary – Welfare safeguarded with visitation rights to grandmother [Paras 12-14, 17].

Visitation Rights – To balance child’s welfare and existing bond with grandmother, respondent no. 5 allowed weekday visitation (9:00 am to 6:00 pm) at petitioner’s residence for three months – Respondent nos. 6 to 8 permitted to accompany – Petitioner directed to cooperate [Para 17].

Decision – Petition partly allowed – Police directed to secure custody of minor from respondent no. 5 and hand over to petitioner within two weeks – Visitation rights granted – No order as to costs [Paras 16-18].

Criminal Law – Murder, Extortion, Conspiracy – Section 302, 120-B IPC & Arms Act – Partial Relief – Trial Court convicted Pradeep (A1) for murder, conspiracy, extortion and Arms Act offences, and Divya (A2) for conspiracy and destruction of evidence – On appeal, Court upheld conviction of Pradeep based on ransom calls, eyewitness account, and ballistic evidence – However, Divya was acquitted, as mere illicit relationship and phone conversations were insufficient to prove conspiracy – Appeal of Pradeep dismissed, appeal of Divya allowed [Paras 22-79, Order].

Criminal Trial – Circumstantial Evidence – Section 302 IPC – Conviction Upheld – The case was based on ransom calls, threatening messages, and eyewitness account – Recovery of pistol and bullets linked to fatal shot through ballistic report – Test identification parade corroborated – Held: Prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that appellant Pradeep committed murder of Jitendra Bhatiya – Conviction under Section 302 IPC affirmed [Paras 22-64].

Electronic Evidence – Admissibility – Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act – Certificates Issued by Nodal Officers Valid – Defence challenged CDRs and SDRs for want of compliance – Court held certificates fulfilled requirements of Section 65-B – Electronic evidence admissible and reliable – Supported case of ransom calls and threats by appellant Pradeep [Paras 30-39].

Test Identification Parade – Delay – Evidentiary Value – P.W.12 identified accused after one month – Defence raised objection of dilution – Court held parade was properly conducted, and witness had ample opportunity to see accused at close distance – Identification accepted as trustworthy [Paras 46-53].

Conspiracy – Section 120-B IPC – Insufficient Evidence Against Wife – Prosecution relied on alleged illicit relations between Pradeep and Divya and claimed financial assistance by Divya – Court held mere relationship does not prove conspiracy – No overt act attributable to Divya – Benefit of doubt granted – Conviction set aside [Paras 65-79].

Confessional Statement – Section 164 CrPC – Statement Recorded by Special Executive Magistrate – Inadmissible – Court reiterated that only Judicial Magistrate (F.C.) or Metropolitan Magistrate can record such confessions – Statements discarded [Para 69].

Decision – Criminal Appeal No.364/2017 (Pradeep) dismissed – Conviction and life sentence upheld – Criminal Appeal No.345/2017 (Divya) allowed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 120-B and 201 IPC quashed – Divya acquitted and set at liberty [Order, Paras 79].

Public Interest Litigation – Road Safety – Median Cut Closure – Dismissal of PIL – The petitioner sought reopening of a median cut on National Highway No. 44 near village Khari, which was earlier closed due to safety concerns following accidents – The National Highways Authority of India submitted that the closure was based on recommendations from a Road Safety Audit Report in accordance with MoRTH guidelines – Held: The Court found no reason to interfere with expert advice taken for public safety – Mere inconvenience due to an alternative cut being 1.5 km away was not a sufficient ground to reopen the closed median cut [Paras 1-6].

Judicial Review – Role of Courts in Expert Decisions – Limited Scope – The Court reiterated that judicial review does not extend to substituting expert opinion with judicial wisdom, especially in matters involving technical expertise and road safety audits – Held: Courts should defer to technical assessments unless manifestly arbitrary or mala fide – Petition rightly dismissed [Para 5].

Public Safety vs Local Convenience – Balancing Interests – Median Cut Closure Justified – Though the petitioner cited inconvenience to villagers due to distant alternate routes, the Court observed that safety considerations on a National Highway override such inconvenience – The closure was deemed in public interest to avoid accidents – Petition dismissed accordingly [Paras 4-6].

Final Decision – Petition Dismissed – The High Court declined to entertain the PIL citing valid expert recommendation and public safety grounds – No interference warranted – Petition dismissed [Para 7].

NDPS Act – Second Bail Application – Commercial Quantity – Allegation of conscious possession – 151.6 kg of ganja recovered from intercepted DCM truck – Applicant apprehended on spot along with driver – Held: Once contraband is recovered from vehicle and accused was present therein, presumption of conscious possession applies – Burden on accused under Section 35 & 54 to rebut – Mere status as “cleaner” insufficient to displace statutory presumption – Bail rightly refused [Paras 2-3, 20-21]

Bail – Section 37 NDPS Act – Stringent Conditions – Twin requirements under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) not met – No reasonable grounds to believe applicant is not guilty – Likelihood of re-offending not ruled out – Held: Bail under NDPS Act cannot be granted unless both limbs of Section 37(1)(b) are satisfied – No special circumstances warranting deviation found [Paras 8-9, 13-14, 21-23]

Criminal Procedure – Non-filing of FSL Report with Charge Sheet – Not Fatal – Charge sheet filed on 31.12.2023 based on sufficient evidence – FSL report dated 02.12.2023 included later in case diary under Section 173(8) – Held: Non-inclusion of FSL report with charge sheet does not vitiate proceedings or entitle accused to bail – FSL report is corroborative evidence admissible under Section 293 CrPC [Paras 5-6, 14-20]

Section 52A NDPS Act – Delay or Non-Compliance – Not Ground for Bail – Supreme Court’s ruling in NCB v. Kashif (2024) reiterated – Purpose of Section 52A is early disposal of seized drugs – Lapse is procedural irregularity, not illegality – Does not vitiate prosecution case or entitle accused to bail [Paras 9-13]

Search and Seizure – Applicability of Section 50 NDPS Act – Section 50 applies only to personal search – Not applicable to search of vehicles – Argument of non-compliance with Section 50 rejected based on settled Supreme Court law [Para 17]

Decision: Bail application dismissed – Court finds no reasonable ground under Section 37 of NDPS Act to enlarge applicant on bail – Application rejected with reference to conscious possession and sufficiency of evidence including FSL report.

Criminal Law – Attempt to Rape converted to Outraging Modesty – Sections 354/323 IPC – Conviction Set Aside – Trial Court convicted appellant for outraging modesty despite charge under Sections 376/511 IPC – High Court found victim’s evidence inconsistent with FIR, medical records, and Section 164 statement – Hostile witnesses and alternative version of incident (dispute over spitting at gate) created reasonable doubt – Benefit of doubt extended; conviction set aside; appeal allowed. Acquittal. [Paras 10-15, 21].

Victim’s Evidence – Weight and Corroboration – Law recognises that sole testimony of prosecutrix can sustain conviction if trustworthy – In present case, contradictions between FIR, deposition, Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement, and medical report undermined reliability – Court held victim’s testimony lacked cogency and required corroboration, which was absent [Paras 13-15].

Interested/Hostile Witnesses – Evaluation – PWs 3 and 4 (relatives in same premises) did not support prosecution version – PW 4 gave different account of quarrel between accused and victim’s husband – Witness not declared hostile – Lack of corroboration from neighbours and family members further weakened prosecution [Paras 14, 16-17].

Medical Evidence – Injury Report – Doctor noted only tenderness on chest and limbs, no signs of scuffle, sexual assault, or vomiting as alleged – Injury report used against accused though not put to him under Section 313 Cr.P.C. – Inadmissible for conviction as per Sujit Biswas principle – Medical evidence failed to corroborate prosecution story [Paras 13, 19-20].

Section 313 Cr.P.C. – Principles of Natural Justice – All incriminating materials must be put to accused – Failure to confront with injury report violated audi alteram partem – Such evidence excluded from consideration [Paras 19-20].

Standard of Proof – Two Possible Views – As per Kali Ram and Raj Kumar Singh, where two views are possible, one favouring accused must prevail – Prosecution evidence not free from doubt; alternative version supported by some witnesses – Accused entitled to acquittal [Paras 18, 21].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and conviction dated 17/09/2014 set aside – Appellant acquitted of charges under Sections 354 and 323 IPC – Bail bond discharged in terms of Section 437A Cr.P.C. (corresponding Section 481 BNSS, 2023) [Paras 21-24].

Registration of Sale Deed – Role of Registering Officer – Refusal Held Illegal – The Sub-Registrar and District Registrar, Samba, refused registration of a sale deed on the ground that petitioner’s title was unclear, relying on the Advocate General’s opinion – Held: Registering Officer has no adjudicatory role to assess title – Registration cannot be refused if procedural requirements are met and there is no legal bar – Orders of refusal quashed [Paras 12-14, 17-19].

Ownership Rights – Government Order 254-C of 1965 – No Restriction on Transferability – The petitioner acquired land under Government Order No. 254-C of 1965 – Held: Such ownership is full and unrestricted – No condition prohibits sale or transfer – Reliance on Advocate General’s pending opinion without legal notification is unjustified [Paras 15-16, 18].

Rule-Making Power – Section 69 of Registration Act – Scope Limited – Any rule or instruction not covered under Section 69(1)(a) to (j) is ultra vires – Registration Rules cannot override the Act – Cited SC judgment in K. Gopi vs. Sub-Registrar declaring Rule 55A ultra vires to emphasize limited powers of Registering Officers [Paras 11, 13].

Registration Act – Procedural Compliance Sufficient – No Requirement to Prove Title – Under Sections 34, 52, and 58 of the Registration Act, 1908, registration depends on execution, identity, and procedural formalities – Held: Title disputes beyond the scope of registration proceedings – Petitioner cannot be denied registration solely due to absence of clarification from Government [Paras 6-10, 12].

Decision of Coordinate Bench – Binding Authority – Jarnail Singh Case Followed – Coordinate Bench ruling in Jarnail Singh vs. UT of J&K affirmed that ownership under Order 254-C is absolute – Held: Sub-Registrar cannot disregard this legal precedent in absence of contradictory statutory provision [Para 16].

Final Relief – Writ Allowed – Registration Directed – Impugned orders of Sub-Registrar and District Registrar set aside – Petitioner permitted to re-present the sale deed – Sub-Registrar directed to register if no other legal impediment exists [Paras 19-20].

Real Estate Regulation – Interest for Delay – Section 18(1)(a) RERA – Interest is Automatic – Tribunal justified in awarding interest for delay in possession without inquiry – Delay in possession admitted by promoter – Interest for period 01.01.2020 to 13.10.2022 rightly granted at MCLR + 1% – Held: Section 18(1)(a) is mandatory in nature and operates without need for further adjudication where delay is established – Interpretation of phrase “as the case may be” limited to eventualities within Section 18 itself [Paras 25–32].

Appellate Tribunal Powers – Jurisdiction under Sections 44(6) and 53 – Tribunal Not Bound by CPC – Tribunal has power to grant appropriate relief including awarding interest – Held: Tribunal rightly exercised powers to modify Adjudicating Officer’s order and award interest instead of compensation – Exercise of power in conformity with object of Act and guided by principles of natural justice [Paras 26–32].

Statutory Pre-Deposit – Section 43(5) RERA – Appropriation Valid – Pre-deposit can be appropriated toward interest payable to allottee – Held: Pre-deposit is not merely procedural but represents part payment of liability – Tribunal rightly directed release of amount to allottee after verification – Refund permissible only if amount exceeds liability [Paras 33–38].

Maintainability of Appeal – Challenge to Interest on Admitted Delay – Appeal Not Maintainable – No substantial question of law involved – Held: Where facts such as date of agreement, delay, and possession are undisputed, Tribunal’s award of interest cannot be challenged under Section 58 read with Section 100 CPC – Appeal lies only on substantial question of law – Admission of delay precludes challenge [Paras 39–43].

Final Decision – All Appeals Dismissed – Promoter’s appeals dismissed for lack of merit – Allottee’s appeal also dismissed due to absence of arguments for compensation – Held: Tribunal's orders justified in law and fact – No substantial question of law arises [Para 43].

Bail Application – Fraudulent Investment Scheme – Sections 406, 409, 420, 120-B IPC & Sections 3, 4 MPID Act – Bail Rejected – Applicant accused of luring more than 127 investors into depositing over ₹7 crores under a scheme promising 5–10% monthly returns, diverting funds to personal accounts – Court held that Designated MPID Court has jurisdiction to try IPC offences along with MPID offences – Transactions amount to “deposits” under MPID Act – Prima facie case of criminal breach of trust and conspiracy established – Antecedents of similar offences and gravity of fraud weighed against bail – Bail Application dismissed [Paras 22-55].

Jurisdiction of MPID Court – Designated Court remains Sessions Court – Possesses full powers under Cr.P.C. – Designation enlarges, not curtails jurisdiction – IPC offences connected with MPID offences can be tried together to avoid multiplicity – Argument of losing appellate forum under Articles 14 & 21 rejected [Paras 22-34].

Criminal Conspiracy – Section 120-B IPC – Applicability affirmed – Prosecution case shows applicant and co-accused conspired to cheat investors – Company’s non-natural status irrelevant where natural persons executed fraudulent scheme [Para 35].

Deposit under MPID Act – Section 3 – Investment with assured fixed returns amounts to “deposit” – Prosecution material shows inducement and extraordinary promises – Argument of non-deposit rejected at bail stage [Paras 37-40].

Criminal Breach of Trust – Section 409 IPC – Entrustment and misappropriation established – Investors’ funds dishonestly diverted to applicant’s personal account – Prima facie case under Section 409 IPC made out; defence of civil dispute rejected [Paras 41-46].

Parity in Bail – Prior bail order in Crime No.123/2021 distinguished – Present fraud involved larger number of investors and higher amount (over ₹7 crores) – Antecedents of repeat offence – Principle of parity not applicable [Para 47].

Personal Liberty vs. Public Interest – While bail is a rule, economic offences form an exception – Magnitude of fraud, antecedents, and likelihood of repetition outweigh Article 21 considerations – Larger public interest in protecting depositors prevails – Bail rejected [Paras 48-54].

Decision: Bail Application dismissed. No case made out for grant of bail in view of gravity, scale of fraud, antecedents, and public interest [Para 55].