Civil Law - Land Dispute – Claim of Succession – Section 171 UPZA & LR Act – Relationship Not Established – Petitioner claimed inheritance rights over land previously held by Ruda Singh – Claimed to be nephew through maternal line – Court held: No reliable documentary or oral evidence was filed to establish familial relationship – Certificate from Gram Pradhan found vague and unauthorized – Earlier order vesting land in State unchallenged for decades – Held: No succession right established [Paras 3, 14, 21, 39– 44, 56–63]. 
 
Consolidation Proceedings – Effect of Prior Orders – Order Vesting Land in State Remained Unchallenged – Despite initiation of consolidation in 1995, earlier order dated 17.09.1984 under Section 194 UPZA & LR Act vesting land in State was never properly challenged – Revision against consequential order dismissed – Consolidation authorities erred in ignoring prior final order – Deputy Director rightly rectified error [Paras 9, 26, 41–48, 55, 69–71]. 
 
Pleadings and Conduct – Suppression and Contradictory Claims – Petitioner filed multiple objections under Section 9-A(2) with inconsistent grounds—initially on succession, later on unregistered will – No evidence of will brought – Serious discrepancies in age, identity documents, signatures, and name aliases found – Execution of gift deeds soon after name entry recorded in revenue record raised suspicion – Petitioner acting as proxy for third party with history of land grabbing – Held: Petition tainted by concealment, lacks merit [Paras 24–25, 52–54, 64–68, 70]. 
 
Decision: Writ Petition Dismissed – Deputy Director of Consolidation’s order upheld – Earlier unchallenged order of land vesting in State prevails – Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer erred in granting rights to petitioner without examining credibility and prior orders – Interim order vacated – Costs made easy [Paras 69–71]. 
 
 

Anticipatory Bail – Bank Fraud – Section 438 Cr.P.C. – Accused Alleged to Have Withdrawn Rs.1.5 Crores – Petitioner added as A20 in large-scale financial fraud involving bank employees and misuse of overdraft and fixed deposit schemes – Court held that custodial interrogation necessary due to non-recovery of funds and lack of explanation – Bail denied [Paras 3–5, 12–15, 22–23]. 
 
BNS Offences – Section 316(5) and 318(4) – Applicability Disputed – Petitioner argued that as he is neither a banker nor public servant, ingredients of Section 316(5) BNS are not met – Court noted doubt on applicability but held custodial interrogation still warranted due to gravity of offence and evidence of dishonest intent in fund withdrawal [Paras 11, 13, 16]. 
 
BNSS – Section 35(3) Notice – Applicability Contested – Petitioner claimed benefit under Section 35(3) BNSS for offences punishable up to 7 years – Court held discretion to arrest lies solely with investigating officer – Judicial interference with arrest procedure under Section 35 not warranted [Paras 17–19]. 
 
Grant of Anticipatory Bail – Discretionary Power – Extraordinary Relief – Court emphasized that pre-arrest bail is exceptional and should be sparingly granted – Noted risk of compromising investigation and recovery of funds if bail granted – Petition dismissed [Paras 20–23]. 
 
Decision: Criminal Petition dismissed – Anticipatory bail denied – Custodial interrogation found necessary for effective investigation – No expression of final opinion on merits of case [Paras 23–25]. 
 

Protection Petition - Live-in Relationship – Minor Partner – Relief Denied - Petitioners sought protection alleging threat from family members opposing their live-in relationship – Petitioner No.2 was a minor (17 years 6 months) at the time of filing – Held: A minor is legally incompetent to make choices involving live-in relationships under applicable statutory laws including Guardians and Wards Act and Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act – The Court refused to extend protection as it would amount to judicial recognition of a relationship not sanctioned by law involving a minor [Paras 3-4]. 
 
Judicial Duty – Parens Patriae Principle – Welfare of Minor Paramount - Court reaffirmed its duty to act as Parens Patriae for minors – The welfare and protection of the minor outweighs individual liberty to enter into live-in relationships – Minor’s custody must vest with parents or lawful guardians till attainment of majority unless there is an imminent threat to life – No such exceptional circumstance was pleaded or proved [Para 4]. 
 
Precedent – Yash Pal vs. State of Haryana – Applied - The Division Bench judgment in Yash Pal vs. State of Haryana, 2024 SCC OnLine P&H 10239 was followed – Held that protection in live-in relationships involving minors is impermissible under the law – Any such protection would dilute statutory protections meant to shield minors from exploitation and imprudent decisions [Paras 3-4]. 
 
Decision – Petition Dismissed - The petition seeking protection of life and liberty in context of the live-in relationship was dismissed – SSP, Tarn Taran, Punjab directed to take steps as per law regarding the welfare and protection of the minor – No costs imposed [Paras 4-5]. 
 

Criminal Law – Appeal against acquittal - Abetment of Suicide – Essentials of Section 306 IPC – Acquittal Upheld – The Court reiterated that mere harassment or disputes over financial transactions are insufficient to constitute abetment unless direct or indirect incitement to commit suicide is proved – The deceased had the option to seek recovery of debt legally – Absence of instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid by the accused – Ingredients of Section 306 IPC not satisfied [Paras 15-19].

Suicide Note – General Allegation Not Sufficient – The suicide note vaguely referred to harassment by Subhash and the police without naming any officer or detailing specific acts of abetment – No nexus between the alleged harassment and the act of suicide was established – Suicide due to loan dispute does not by itself constitute abetment [Paras 18-19].

Delay and Absence of Proof – No Evidence of Finance Business or Loan Transaction – The prosecution failed to prove that the deceased was actually running a finance business or that a loan was advanced to the accused – Absence of documentary or reliable oral evidence regarding the alleged debt transaction and threats – Defence plea of false implication accepted [Paras 18-19].

Temperament of Deceased – No Proof of Prudence or Instigation – No evidence produced by the prosecution to establish that the deceased was prudent and was compelled to commit suicide due to unbearable harassment – Suicide attributed to hypersensitivity rather than actionable abetment – Courts must be cautious to avoid penalizing routine disputes as abetment [Paras 17-19].

Final Decision – Revision Petition Dismissed – No merit found in the challenge to the judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court – Petition dismissed with no relief granted [Para 20].
 

Criminal Law – Quashing of Criminal Complaint - Defamation – Reporting Public Figure’s Statement – Fair and Truthful Reporting – Summoning Set Aside - Petitioners being editors and journalists had truthfully reported the statement made by MP Bhagwant Mann regarding alleged monetary inducement to the complainant MLA – Court held that the news report merely reproduced the speech without distortion and lacked any independent imputation by petitioners – Mens rea for defamation absent – Petitioners’ actions fall under First Exception to Section 499 IPC – Summoning order quashed [Paras 9-13].

Section 499 IPC – Requirement of Intention or Knowledge to Defame – Not Satisfied – Proceedings Quashed - Held: Essential ingredients of defamation include intention, knowledge or reasonable belief of harming reputation – No such material found in the complaint or preliminary evidence against petitioners – Magistrate's finding without evidentiary basis – Summoning order is unsustainable [Paras 9-11].

First Exception to Section 499 IPC – Accurate Reporting of True Statement in Public Interest – Journalistic Protection Available - Reporting of public figures’ statements without embellishment or distortion, when relevant to public interest, is protected – Petitioners’ act of publishing unaltered version of MP's statement falls within legal protection – No offence made out [Paras 8-12].

Quashing of Proceedings – Power under Section 482 CrPC Invoked – Abuse of Process Prevented - In the absence of essential ingredients of defamation, summoning petitioners to trial would result in abuse of process and miscarriage of justice – Complaint and proceedings quashed in exercise of inherent powers [Paras 11-13].

Decision – Petitions Allowed – Criminal Complaint and Summoning Order Quashed – Bail/Surety Discharged [Para 13].

Limitation – Applicability of Extended Limitation due to COVID-19 – Petition and Appeal held to be within time - Appellant’s original petition filed during the Covid-19 limitation relaxation period as per Supreme Court directions – The Appeal filed within 90 days as provided by Section 28(4) of the Hindu Marriage Act was also within limitation despite Section 19(3) of Family Courts Act prescribing a shorter limitation – Appeal held to be maintainable [Paras 15-23].

Customary Divorce – Burden of Proof – Customary Divorce not Proved – Respondent failed to lead any documentary or oral evidence to establish customary divorce from first wife as required under Section 29(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act – Mere pleading without proof rejected – The Trial Court erred in not framing an issue regarding the existence and validity of customary divorce – Appellant entitled to succeed on this ground [Paras 24-39].

Impleadment of First Wife – Rule 8 of the Rules Under Hindu Marriage Act – Impleadment Not Mandatory – Court held that the first wife need not be impleaded as a co-respondent since the question was one of legal validity of marriage and not of her personal rights – The Trial Court's reliance on non-impleadment was misplaced – Appellant’s petition not defective for want of co-respondent [Paras 40-52].

Maintenance/Alimony – Maintainability of Claim by Second Wife – Though Appellant did not press for alimony, Court clarified that second wife is entitled to claim maintenance under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act even where the marriage is declared void – Reference made to Sukhdev Singh v. Sukhbir Kaur, 2025 INSC 197 – The Trial Court’s contrary view was incorrect [Para 53].

Offence of Rape – Misconception of Marriage – Respondent liable under Section 375 IPC / Section 63 BNS – Consent of appellant obtained on mistaken belief of valid marriage – Respondent’s conduct falls under ‘Fourthly’ clause of Section 375 IPC and Section 63(d)(iv) of BNS – Appellant’s mistaken belief of lawful marriage proved – Respondent committed rape punishable under Section 375/376 IPC and corresponding BNS provisions [Paras 54-58].

Desertion – Respondent’s Conduct Amounts to Desertion – Respondent failed to prosecute his restitution petition and remained unrepresented before the High Court despite due service – Court concluded that Respondent deserted the appellant and wilfully abstained from proceedings [Paras 59-62].

Trial Court Judgment – Improper Appreciation of Evidence – Judgment Set Aside – Trial Court wrongly presumed appellant’s knowledge of first marriage, failed to frame necessary issues, and misapplied rules on maintenance and impleadment – Findings were contrary to settled law and unsupported by evidence – Impugned order dated 19.11.2024 set aside and appeal allowed [Paras 63-72].
 

Circumstantial Evidence – Last Seen Theory – Standard of Proof – Appeal Dismissed - The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence including last-seen theory, police dog trail, accused’s conduct, and past misconduct – The minor witness (P.W.2) who initially supported the last-seen theory turned hostile and admitted inability to identify accused due to darkness – The Court held that the last-seen theory is a weak piece of evidence unless corroborated with additional material which was lacking in the present case – Absence of proximity in time between the alleged last-seen incident and the recovery of the dead body breaks the necessary chain of circumstances [Paras 13-14].

Police Dog Evidence – Unreliable Without Corroboration – Not Sufficient for Conviction - The Court noted that no evidence was led regarding the training, credibility, or procedural safeguards followed in using the police dog – Without forensic corroboration or supporting evidence, the police dog’s tracking trail was held to be insufficient and speculative to link the accused to the crime [Paras 17-18].

Past Conduct and Bad Character – Cannot Substitute Proof of Present Offence – The prosecution sought to rely on prior allegations of misconduct against Respondent No.1, including unproven past instances of rape within the village – The Court held that prior bad character, in the absence of a clear nexus to the current offence, cannot substitute for direct or circumstantial proof linking the accused to the charged crime [Para 15].

Suspicious Behaviour – Insufficient to Establish Guilt – Requires Conclusive Chain – The accused’s non-participation in the search, distracted demeanor, and remarks made during the search were deemed inadequate in the absence of other incriminating evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Such behaviour may be inappropriate but does not constitute legal proof [Para 16].

Forensic Evidence – Absence of Blood, Semen, or Biological Link – Failure of Prosecution – The Court noted that the chemical examination report (Ext.13) did not reveal any incriminating material on the seized articles or clothing of the accused – The lack of scientific evidence further weakened the prosecution's case [Para 19].

Acquittal Upheld – Chain of Circumstances Incomplete – The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish a cogent, credible, and continuous chain of circumstances against Respondents – Acquittal recorded by the trial court was upheld and the leave to appeal was refused [Paras 20-22].
 

NDPS Act – Compliance with Section 50 – Search Procedure Properly Followed – Bail Denied - The petitioner alleged non-compliance of Section 50 NDPS Act, claiming he was not informed about his right to be searched before the nearest Gazetted Officer or Magistrate – Court held that the petitioner was informed in English of his right under Section 50 and refused to avail it in writing – Referring to Supreme Court rulings, the Court held that “nearest” does not mandate proximity, only intent to ensure fair procedure – Thus, compliance with Section 50 was held to be sufficient [Paras 15-16].

Constructive Possession – Recovery from Rented Premises – Exclusive Possession Proven – Bail Rejected - Petitioner challenged the recovery of 205 gms of contraband from his rented room, arguing lack of exclusive possession – Court relied on landlord’s statement under Section 161 CrPC confirming petitioner was sole occupant of the room – Held: Recovery attributable to the petitioner – no benefit of doubt at bail stage [Paras 17-18].

Procedural Lapses – Sections 57 and 52A NDPS Act – Delay in Sampling Not Fatal – Procedural Irregularities Do Not Entitle Bail - Petitioner argued non-compliance of Sections 52A and 57 due to delay in presenting the accused and drawing of sample – Court held that such procedural irregularities are not grounds for bail unless serious prejudice is shown – Sampling conducted next day held permissible – Supported by Supreme Court judgments in NCB v. Kashif and UOI v. Mohan Lal [Paras 19, 22-25].

Presence of ACP – Non-Signing of Seizure Memo Not Material – No Ground for Bail - Petitioner contended the ACP’s presence was doubtful as his signature was not on seizure memo – Court rejected this, noting the seizure memo was signed by IO and witnesses and presence of ACP was otherwise established [Paras 20-21].

Section 37 NDPS Act – Commercial Quantity Recovery – Bail Denied – Petitioner in Custody Since 15.06.2023 – No Grounds Made Out to Satisfy Twin Conditions - Charges framed, trial ongoing, and commercial quantity of contraband recovered – No material before Court to infer petitioner is unlikely to reoffend or that case is prima facie not true – Bail application dismissed in view of Section 37 embargo [Paras 26-27].

Decision – Bail Application Dismissed – Commercial Quantity Recovery Attracts Section 37 NDPS Bar – Court found that the recovery from the petitioner’s person and exclusive rented premises amounted to commercial quantity – No procedural violations that would vitiate the trial were made out – Held: No case for bail is made out under the stringent conditions of Section 37 – Application dismissed [Para 27].
 

Civil Law – Mortgage by Conditional Sale – Redemption – Appellant filed a suit for redemption of mortgage and possession of land mortgaged by his father – Trial court and First Appellate Court dismissed the suit treating the document (Ex.P/1) as an absolute sale deed – High Court held that Ex.P/1 is a "Shartiya Farokhtnama" i.e., mortgage by conditional sale – Substantial question of limitation resolved in favor of appellant as redemption period is 30 years under Article 61(a) of Limitation Act – Suit filed within limitation – Appellant being Karta of Hindu Undivided Family is competent to file suit alone without impleading other heirs – Estoppel under Section 115 of Evidence Act not applicable [Paras 1-40].

Mortgage Deed – Nature of Document – Courts below erred in construing Ex.P/1 as an absolute sale ignoring clear recital of condition of redemption within five years – Comparison with contemporaneous transactions showed Ex.P/1 was not an outright sale but a mortgage – Consideration amount disproportionate to area compared to other sale deeds suggesting mortgage nature – Courts failed to apply Section 58(c) of Transfer of Property Act defining mortgage by conditional sale [Paras 17-19].

Limitation – Period for Redemption – Suit for redemption governed by Article 61(a) of Limitation Act – Period of limitation is 30 years from the date of right to redeem accrued – Right accrued on 17.03.1974, suit filed in 2002 well within limitation – Courts below erred in applying 3 years limitation treating transaction as sale [Paras 29-33].

Locus Standi – Right of Karta – Appellant as Karta of Joint Hindu Family entitled to sue alone – Non-joinder of brothers does not affect maintainability – No objection raised by other heirs – Courts below wrongly held suit defective for non-joinder [Paras 34].

Estoppel – Applicability – Doctrine of estoppel under Section 115 of Evidence Act not applicable where transaction adjudged as mortgage and suit within limitation – Redemption right cannot be estopped [Paras 35].

Decision: Second Appeal allowed – Judgments and decrees of Trial Court and First Appellate Court set aside – Suit decreed for redemption and possession – Respondent directed to execute redemption deed on payment of Rs. 11,000/- within stipulated period – Parties to bear their own costs [Paras 40-41].