Family Law - Marriage – Validity of Hindu Marriage – Section 7 of the HMA – Appeal dismissed – Husband sought declaration that marriage was void on ground that Saptapadi was not performed – Held: Section 7(1) allows solemnisation of marriage as per customary rites of either party, without mandating Saptapadi in all cases – Sub-section (2) applies only if Saptapadi forms part of customary rites – Thus, absence of Saptapadi does not by itself invalidate marriage [Paras 8-9].

Burden of Proof – Non-performance of Saptapadi – Appellant failed to discharge burden – Husband, despite alleging non-performance, did not examine priest, relatives, or witnesses – Mere non-production of marriage album by wife does not shift burden – Presumption of validity of marriage operates in law – Hence, plea of invalidity rejected [Paras 7, 10, 13].

Presumption of Marriage and Legitimacy – Evidence Act, Sections 50 and 114 – Strong presumption arises when parties cohabit as husband and wife and child is born – Such presumption cannot be lightly rebutted – Reliance placed on Ningu Vithu Bamane v. Sadashiv Ningu Bamane, 1986 SCC OnLine Bom 30, affirming presumption of marriage and legitimacy of children – Appellant failed to adduce strong and conclusive evidence to rebut presumption [Paras 10-11].

Decision – The Family Court’s dismissal of husband’s suit upheld – Appeal dismissed – Presumption of valid marriage stands, and no ground to declare marriage void [Paras 14].

Bailable Offences – Right to Bail – Sections 480 & 483 BNSS – Magistrate and ADJ dismissed bail pleas despite offences being bailable – Held: In bailable offences bail is a matter of right, not discretion – Denial violated Article 21 – Orders mechanical and casual [Paras 1-2, 5, 13].

Personal Liberty – Constitutional Safeguard – Article 21 – Right to life and liberty includes right to live with dignity – Courts must protect liberty from arbitrary police and judicial action – Reliance placed on Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) – Detention in bailable offences unjustified [Paras 3-4].

Power of Arrest – Abuse and Misuse – Section 35 BNSS – Arrest must be based on necessity, not routine – Arrest in bailable cases unjustified – Police officers and Magistrates must apply judicial mind – Reliance on Moti Ram v. State of MP (1978) 4 SCC 47 – Arrest power is not absolute; must be exercised sparingly [Paras 6-11].

Judicial Responsibility – Casual Approach – Magistrate, ADJ, IO, and prosecution all failed to discharge duties – Petitioners illegally detained for 43 days – Court expressed regret and directed DGP to seek explanation from IO – Registrar to bring matter before Guardian Judge [Paras 12-17].

Decision – Bail Granted – Petitioners released – Court regretted violation of rights and directed corrective action [Paras 15-18].

Service Law – Promotion – Clause 3(a) Army Order – FIR Does Not Constitute Prosecution – Promotion Withheld Illegally – Petitioner promoted as JCO via order dated 25.05.2022 – Promotion not implemented citing pending FIR and Clause 3(a) of Army Order – Held: Mere registration of FIR without charge-sheet or cognizance by court does not amount to prosecution – Withholding promotion on this basis is illegal – Directions issued to treat petitioner as JCO with all consequential benefits [Paras 1–14].

Applicability of Sealed Cover Procedure – Supreme Court Precedent in K.V. Jankiraman – Clarified – Promotion can be withheld only after issuance of charge-sheet or memo in criminal/disciplinary proceedings – FIR not sufficient ground to trigger Clause 3(a) of Army Order – Tribunal’s contrary view held perverse and unsustainable [Paras 8–13].

Decision – Tribunal Order Dated 14.12.2023 Set Aside – Petitioner to be Treated as Promoted – Promotion to JCO w.e.f. 25.05.2022 restored with consequential salary and service benefits – Compliance within 8 weeks [Paras 13–16].

PIL - Constitutional Validity – Section 193(9) BNSS and Default Bail under Section 187(3) – Provision Upheld – Challenge rejected to Section 193(9) BNSS, 2023 as arbitrary and violative of Article 21 – Held: Provision allows further investigation post charge-sheet with court permission; safeguards including 90-day limit and judicial oversight provided – No violation of right to default bail or personal liberty found [Paras 11-16].

Right to Personal Liberty – Article 21 and Detention – No Infringement – Power of further investigation under BNSS not unfettered – Requires court permission and limited by 90-day timeline, extendable only by court – Hence, does not defeat the statutory safeguard of default bail under Section 187(3) [Paras 13-16].

Interpretation of Statutes – Presumption of Constitutionality – Possibility of Misuse Not a Ground – Mere apprehension of potential abuse of lawful provision not sufficient to declare it unconstitutional – Courts must interpret law, not legislate – Appropriate remedy lies with Legislature in case of misuse – Challenge dismissed [Paras 17-20].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – No merit found in challenge to Sections 193(9) and 187(3) of BNSS, 2023 – Court upheld constitutionality of impugned provisions and dismissed PIL [Paras 21-22].

Criminal Law – Appeal Against Conviction - Sections 376(2), 366A IPC, and Section 6 of POCSO Act - Testimony of Child Victim – Credibility and Sufficiency – Conviction Upheld – The child victim aged about 5 years clearly narrated that the appellant lured her to his house under the pretext of giving her toffees and inserted his finger into her vagina and bit her cheeks – The Trial Court found her competent to testify – Her testimony was consistent and categorical, corroborated by medical evidence noting fresh hymenal tear and bloodstains – No evidence was led to establish tutoring or motive of false implication – Held: Sole testimony of the child, found credible and reliable, is sufficient for conviction under Section 376(2) IPC and Section 6 POCSO – Appeal dismissed [Paras 7–9, 11, 17].

POCSO Act – Presumption under Section 29 – Applicability – Section 29 of POCSO creates presumption of guilt once foundational facts are established – In this case, foundational facts were proven through credible testimonies of child victim and parents, along with medical evidence – Defence of false implication owing to quarrel over water found unsubstantiated – Held: Presumption under Section 29 applies; appellant failed to rebut it [Paras 15–17].

Evidence Law – Corroboration of Child’s Testimony – Not Mandatory – The Supreme Court rulings in State of M.P. v. Balveer Singh, State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh, and Ganesan v. State reaffirmed that child victim’s testimony does not require corroboration if found reliable – Trial Court satisfied with child’s competence; demeanour and consistency upheld during cross-examination – Held: Conviction can rest solely on such testimony [Paras 12–14].

Appeal – Dismissal – Sentence and Conviction Affirmed – The appellant’s plea of false implication due to prior quarrel not substantiated – No material contradiction found in testimonies – Medical evidence consistent – Inconclusive FSL report not sufficient to rebut credible oral and documentary evidence – Held: No merit in appeal – Conviction and sentence upheld [Paras 11, 17].

Civil Writ - Securitisation Application – Rejection on Technical Grounds – Signatures of All Applicants – Rejection Held Illegal – Securitisation Application under Section 17 of SARFAESI Act was dismissed by DRT solely on the ground that not all applicants had signed the petition or affidavit and that all borrowers were not impleaded – Held: Once the petition was entertained in 2020 and kept pending for five years with interim orders, it could not be dismissed later on hyper-technical procedural grounds – Procedural rules must subserve the ends of justice [Paras 2-4, 10-12].

Maintainability of Writ – Alternative Remedy under SARFAESI Act – Exceptions to Rule – Held: Though remedy before DRAT exists, High Court can exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 where order passed is in defiance of fundamental principles of judicial procedure – Present case falls within exception as per Supreme Court’s ruling in PHR Invent Educational Society v. UCO Bank [Paras 6-7, 13].

Procedural Law – Not a Tyrant – Application of Sathyanath v. Sarojmani – Held: Rules of procedure are meant to advance cause of justice – Non-signing of affidavit by all borrowers not fatal when all parties had executed vakalatnama and were duly represented – DRT ought to have decided matter on merits [Paras 5, 11].

Decision – DRT Order Quashed – Matter Remitted – Held: Impugned order dated 12.08.2025 passed by DRT rejecting Securitisation Application is set aside – Matter remanded for decision on merits within two months [Paras 14-15].

Criminal Writ - Maintainability under Article 227 – Challenge to Orders in Criminal Proceedings – Petition Held Maintainable – Objection to maintainability overruled as Article 227 permits interference in exceptional circumstances involving miscarriage of justice, even when alternate remedy under Section 482 CrPC exists – Petition entertained as interim relief had already been granted [Paras 15-19].

Civil vs. Criminal Proceedings – Simultaneous Proceedings Permissible – Criminal Trial Permitted to Continue – Pendency of civil suit for cancellation of will deed and mutation does not bar criminal prosecution where prima facie ingredients of offence under IPC are made out – Held: Mere pendency of civil proceedings not a ground to quash criminal case [Paras 20-24].

Discharge under Section 239 CrPC – Grounds for Discharge Absent – Charges Not Groundless – Petitioners failed to show that the charges were groundless as per standard laid down by Supreme Court – Material placed by prosecution sufficient to proceed to trial – Discharge rightly refused by Trial Court and upheld in Revision [Paras 28-31, 36].

Forgery and Misrepresentation – Prima Facie Offence Made Out – Allegations of Manipulating Family Register and Executing Forged Will – Petitioners claimed as wife and daughter of deceased despite contradictory records and absence of adoption/marriage proof – Held: Enough prima facie material to proceed under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, and 471 IPC [Paras 25, 32-35].

Decision – Petition Dismissed – Orders of Trial Court and Revisional Court upheld – No legal or procedural error found warranting interference – Criminal proceedings to continue [Paras 37-38].

Quashing Petition – Further investigation, Article 20(3) protection, and Section 8 PC Act – Petition dismissed – Court upholds validity of supplementary challan, rejects self-incrimination plea, and holds Section 8 PC Act applicable to private person.

Criminal Procedure – Further investigation vs. reinvestigation – Sections 173(2) & 173(8) CrPC – Quashment declined – Court reiterates distinction between “further investigation” (supplementary report continuing the primary investigation) and “reinvestigation/de novo” (which requires superior court’s specific order) – Prior judicial directions and subsequent SIT probe culminating in supplementary challan held to be valid “further investigation”; mere pendency of trial on first challan not a bar – Trial Court must consider primary and supplementary reports conjointly unless a superior court excludes any – Petition to quash on this ground rejected [Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali, Amrutbhai Shambhubhai Patel discussed].

Constitution – Article 20(3) – Self-incrimination – No violation – Protection attaches only when a person stands as an “accused” at the time of making the statement – Materials furnished by the petitioner before he was formally arrayed as accused (status attained only upon supplementary challan dated 06.03.2025) can be used; hence Article 20(3) plea fails [State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad; Veera Ibrahim v. State of Maharashtra].

Prevention of Corruption – Section 8 PC Act – Applicability to private persons – Offence under Section 8 can be committed by a private person even without a public servant being arraigned – Petitioner cannot claim benefit of provisos: he was neither compelled to give “undue advantage” nor did he report within 7 days; lodging FIR only after the deal soured does not attract the proviso – Prima facie Section 8 made out notwithstanding IPC heads originally invoked [State (CBI) v. Jitender Kumar Singh; Sandeep Deshwal v. State (NCT of Delhi)].

Quashing of FIR/Proceedings – Scope – Presence of triable allegations under any cognizable offence (here, Section 8 PC Act and IPC heads emerging from conjoint reading of reports) defeats plea for quashment – Proper course is for Trial Court to assess all reports and frame appropriate charges; deficiency in initial sections is not decisive at 482/528 stage [Ghanshyam Sharma v. Surendra Kumar Sharma].

Decision – Petition dismissed – First order framing charges based on the first report under Section 173(2) CrPC and all consequential proceedings quashed; police directed to conduct further investigation keeping Section 8 PC Act (and any other disclosed offence) in view and submit a final report; the first report (173(2)), the supplementary report (173(8)) and the fresh final report to be considered conjointly by the Trial Court for framing of charges, if any.

Civil Law - Impleadment in Specific Performance Suit – Order 1 Rule 10 and Order 43 Rule 1 of the CPC -  Appeal against Addition of Third Party – Appeal Allowed – The appellant challenged an order of the Single Judge allowing the impleadment of her brother-in-law (Respondent No. 4) in a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell – Held: A third party not privy to the contract and claiming independent title cannot be impleaded – Such impleadment would enlarge the scope of the suit into a title dispute – Appeal allowed and impleadment set aside [Paras 1–3, 16–26].

Appealability – Order Not Enumerated Under Order XLIII CPC – Maintainability Under Section 10 of Delhi High Court Act – Upheld – The respondent objected to the maintainability of the appeal under Order XLIII CPC and Commercial Courts Act – Held: Even if not appealable under Order XLIII, the impugned order qualifies as a “judgment” under Section 10 of DHC Act as it affects valuable rights and changes the character of the suit – Appeal maintainable [Paras 10–15].

Impleadment Test – Necessary and Proper Party – Order I Rule 10 CPC – Not Satisfied – Court reiterated that only those parties whose presence is necessary to adjudicate the issues in the suit can be impleaded – Respondent No. 4, claiming co-ownership but not being a party to the contract, failed the test – His dispute lies in a separate title suit, not in a specific performance suit [Paras 17–20, 24–25].

Binding Precedents – Supreme Court Judgments in Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal and Anil Kumar Singh v. Shivnath Mishra – Applied – The Court relied on established law that in a suit for specific performance, a stranger to the contract cannot be added merely because of a claimed interest in the property – Doing so alters the nature of the suit and is impermissible [Paras 19–21].

Distinguished Cases – Sumtibai and Rajesh Kumar Arora – Not Applicable – Respondent No. 4 cited judgments where impleadment was permitted – Held: These cases were fact-specific and do not dilute the general bar on impleading third parties in specific performance suits – Those decisions did not form ratio applicable to present case [Paras 22–23].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Impugned Order Set Aside – Respondent No. 4’s impleadment struck off – Liberty granted to pursue independent remedy – Suit to proceed without alteration of scope [Paras 27–28].