Criminal Law - Dishonour of Cheque - Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 - Sections 138, 118 and 139 - Complainant challenged the acquittal of the accused by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-II (Mobile) Kottayam - Case involved dishonour of a cheque for Rs. 4,50,000/- dated 09.03.2004 - PW1-complainant admitted during cross-examination that the money was given by his father in five installments - Complainant stated his father maintained a notebook for transactions which was not produced - Complainant lacked knowledge of the repayment period or specific details of the agreement - Accused argued the father was a police officer prohibited from money lending and was intentionally withheld from the witness box - Trial court acquitted the accused finding the complainant failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt - High Court noted that for statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 to apply the complainant must prove the transaction and execution in a convincing manner - Held - evidence regarding the transaction and passing of consideration must be provided by a person having direct knowledge - complainant lacked direct knowledge as the transaction was between his father and the accused - failure to examine the father was fatal - acquittal confirmed - [Paras 1-11].

Evidence Law - Direct Knowledge - Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 - Sections 118 and 139 - Presumptions - Complainant sought the benefit of twin presumptions regarding consideration and debt - Evidence showed the loan transaction was handled by the complainant's father and not the complainant himself - Father was not examined and the ledger/notebook recording installments was withheld - Held - evidence of a person who does not have direct knowledge of the transaction or execution is insufficient to prove the case - the initial burden to prove the transaction as a precondition for statutory presumptions was not discharged - [Paras 10-11].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court is confirmed.

Evidence Law - Confrontation of Documents - Constitution of India - Article 227 - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 145 - Civil Procedure Code 1908 - Order 13 Rule 3 - Petitioner-Defendant No 2 challenged docket orders allowing Defendant No 4 to confront PW 1 with a Release Deed and Relinquishment Deed executed by the deceased father - Documents were not on record and PW 1 was not a party to them - Petitioner contended that confrontation is permissible only to contradict a witness or refresh memory - Trial Court allowed confrontation for admission of documents - High Court observed that Plaintiff and Defendant No 4 were sailing together and were not adversaries - High Court held that confrontation of a document to a witness can only be for contradiction or refreshing memory - Held - Trial court committed a jurisdictional error - Confrontation cannot be used to bring a document on record when the witness is not a party to it and the document was not produced as per law - Revision allowed - [Paras 1-35].

Civil Law - Adversary Proceedings - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Sections 137 and 145 - Cross-examination - Adverse interest - Plaintiff and Defendant No 4 were found to be sailing together - Trial Court directed Defendant No 4 to cross-examine PW 1 first - High Court noted that the right of cross-examination and contradiction arises only between adversary parties with conflicting defenses - Held - Confrontation for the purpose of admission of a document is impermissible where no adversary interest exists and the document was not previously filed in accordance with procedure - [Paras 24-29].

Evidence Law - Admissibility and Proof - Civil Procedure Code 1908 - Order 13 Rules 2 and 3 - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 155 - Procedure for marking documents - Document sought to be confronted was a private document whose execution was denied by the defendants - Trial court permitted confrontation without the document being part of the record - High Court emphasized that the procedure for admissibility is provided under CPC and must be strictly followed - Held - Mere admission of a document during confrontation does not amount to proving it - Procedure adopted by the trial court was erroneous and required interference - [Paras 31-34].

Decision: Civil Revision Petition allowed – Docket order dated 22.11.2021 passed by X Additional Chief Judge City Civil Court Hyderabad set aside – Trial Court directed to de-exhibit the document – Liberty granted to parties to take appropriate steps to get documents admitted into evidence as per procedure prescribed under law.

Criminal Law - Issuance of Non-Bailable Warrant - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 - Sections 528, 355 and 482 - Petitioner Trinath Guru was granted bail on 23.12.2025 and had furnished bail bonds - On 06.05.2026 the JMFC Lakhanpur issued NBWA against the petitioner for his absence after repeated calls despite service of summons - High Court observed that Section 355 BNSS confers wide discretion to dispense with personal attendance and NBWA is not mandatory - Court noted that under Section 482(3) BNSS the Magistrate should ideally issue a bailable warrant or notice to bailors in the first instance - Held - Liberty of a person cannot be taken away without proper procedure and bail once granted continues until cancelled or set aside - Impugned order quashed - [Paras 1-7].

Criminal Law - Discretion to dispense with attendance - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 - Section 355 - Absence of accused during trial - The High Court analyzed the scope of Section 355 BNSS which empowers the Magistrate to proceed with inquiry or trial in the absence of the accused - Held - It is the discretion of the Magistrate to dispense with personal attendance rather than mandatorily issuing NBWA for non-appearance - [Para 5].

Criminal Law - Procedural Safeguards - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 - Section 482 - Procedure for warrants - The Court emphasized that before resorting to the extreme step of NBWA the Magistrate should consider less coercive measures like issuing notice to bailors or bailable warrants - Held - Impugned order failed to reveal any compelling reason for issuance of NBWA and did not mention notice to bailors making it legally unsustainable - [Paras 5-6].

Decision: Petition allowed – Impugned order dated 06.05.2026 quashed qua petitioner Trinath Guru – Petitioner permitted to continue on previous bail subject to appearing on the next date to regularize proceedings.

Criminal Law - Issuance of Non-Bailable Warrant - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 - Section 528 - Petitioner No 2 Trinath Guru challenged the order dated 06-05-2026 passed by JMFC Lakhanpur issuing NBWA due to non-appearance on a scheduled date - Petitioner No 1 Tosharam Naik @ Anish was not pressed and stands disposed - Petitioner was previously granted bail on 23-12-2025 and had furnished bail bonds - Trial Court issued NBWA straight away after repeated calls without considering alternative procedures such as issuing notice to bailers or a bailable warrant - High Court emphasized that liberty of a person cannot be taken away without proper procedure and custody brings significant harassment - Held - Impugned order does not reveal any compelling reason to issue NBWA and fails to stand legal scrutiny - Order quashed - [Paras 1-7].

Criminal Law - Discretion to dispense with personal attendance - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 - Section 355 - Attendance of accused - Section 355 confers wide discretion on the Court to dispense with personal attendance of the accused during inquiry or trial - Issuance of NBWA is not mandatory even if the accused is absent on the fixed date - Magistrate has discretion to proceed in the absence of the accused and may direct personal attendance at any subsequent stage - Held - Trial court should have exercised discretion to dispense with attendance rather than issuing coercive process - [Para 5].

Criminal Law - Procedure for Warrants and Continuity of Bail - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 - Section 482 and Section 528 - Bailable Warrants - Section 482-3 of BNSS provides that if a Magistrate decides a warrant should be issued in the first instance it shall be a bailable warrant in conformity with sub-section 1 - General principle of law establishes that bail once granted should continue until it is cancelled or the granting order is set aside - Impugned order did not disclose necessity to issue NBWA or reveal issuance of notice to bailers - Held - The procedure adopted by the learned JMFC was improper and violated the liberty of the petitioner - [Paras 5-6].

Decision: Petition allowed – Impugned order dated 06-05-2026 quashed qua petitioner Trinath Guru – Petitioner allowed to continue on previous bail subject to regularizing proceedings by appearing on the next fixed date.

Civil Law - Rejection of Plaint - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order 7 Rule 11 - Plaintiffs filed suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction regarding thirty-three plots - Defendant No. 39 filed an application for rejection of the plaint against him and in respect of Item No. 13 of the suit property alleging lack of cause of action and limitation - Trial Court allowed the application and rejected the entire plaint - High Court observed that a plaint cannot be rejected in part against one defendant or for a specific item of property - Averments in the plaint must be read as a whole and accepted as correct at the threshold stage - Plaintiffs alleged that the General Power of Attorney became inoperative upon the death of the principals and subsequent sale deeds were illegal - Interference in possession was alleged in the year 2017 - Held - Trial Court erred in conducting a mini-trial at the stage of Order 7 Rule 11 - Order set aside - Appeal allowed - [Paras 1-98].

Civil Law - Rejection of Plaint - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order 7 Rule 11 - Partial rejection - Rejection of a plaint can only be in its entirety and not in part - The court does not have the power to cull out a portion of the plaint or dismiss the suit against one of many defendants while keeping it alive against others - Trial Court failed to appreciate that Defendant No. 39's prayer for partial rejection was legally unmaintainable - Held - Plaint has to be rejected as a whole or not at all - [Paras 13-19].

Civil Law - Cause of Action - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order 7 Rule 11(a) - Disclosure of cause of action - Cause of action is a bundle of facts which if traversed the plaintiff must prove to sustain the claim - Plaint should be nipped in the bud only if it is manifestly vexatious or meritless by clever drafting creating an illusion of a cause of action - Where plaintiffs pleaded cancellation of GPA and subsequent illegal sales by the agent after the death of the principal it constitutes a triable issue - Held - Trial Court cannot look into the written statement or defense pleas while deciding an application for rejection of plaint - [Paras 21-36, 47-57].

Civil Law - Limitation - Limitation Act 1963 - Article 58 - Mixed question of law and fact - Rejection on ground of limitation is possible only if the suit appears ex facie barred by the statements in the plaint - Where the plaintiff alleges knowledge of fraud or recent interference as the starting point of limitation it becomes a triable issue requiring evidence - Plea of constructive notice under Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act regarding registered documents cannot be summarily used to reject a plaint where physical possession and interference are contested - Held - Limitation aspect cannot be decided summarily when specific dates of cause of action are pleaded - [Paras 39-41, 72-83, 91-95].

Civil Law - Agency - Indian Contract Act 1872 - Sections 201 and 202 - Termination of agency - Agency is terminated by the death of either the principal or the agent - Exception exists only if the agent has a pre-existing interest in the subject matter of the agency - In the present case the agent was appointed only to develop and sell the property without personal interest - Agency stood terminated on the death of the principals - Legality of sale deeds executed by the agent after the death of principals is a matter for trial - Held - Agent holds property only on behalf of the principal and acquires no independent title - [Paras 61-71, 87-88].

Decision: Appeal allowed - Impugned order dated 11.12.2025 passed in I.A.No.9 of 2018 set aside - Trial Court directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible.

Writ Law - Confiscation of vehicle - Indian Forest Act 1927 - Sections 61-A and 61-D - Petitioner challenged judgment of Additional Sessions Judge Baramati affirming confiscation of Tata 909 vehicle used for transporting 60 bags of charcoal without a valid permit - Forest officials intercepted the vehicle and the driver fled - Authorized Officer initiated proceedings under Section 61-A and ordered confiscation - Petitioner contended that he was not provided a hearing and that conviction for a forest offence is a condition precedent for confiscation under Section 55 - High Court found that the Petitioner and the person to whom he allegedly delivered the vehicle were given ample opportunities and appeared through a legal practitioner - Court observed that Section 61-A contains a non-obstante clause and provides an independent mechanism for confiscation - Held - Confiscation under Section 61-A is a deterrent object to prevent deforestation and does not require a prior conviction - Writ Petition dismissed - [Paras 1-42].

Criminal Law - Statutory Interpretation - Indian Forest Act 1927 - Section 61-A - Confiscation vs Conviction - Petitioner argued that under Section 55 conviction is a condition precedent for confiscation - Court noted that the Maharashtra Act 7 of 1985 inserted Sections 61-A to 61-G providing a specific mechanism for confiscation by Authorized Officers - Section 61-A(1) begins with a non-obstante clause overriding Chapter IX and other laws - Authorized Officer is empowered to order confiscation upon satisfaction that a forest offence was committed notwithstanding whether a prosecution is instituted - Held - Submission that conviction is a must before confiscation cannot be countenanced under the stringent statutory regime of Section 61-A - [Paras 34-37].

Criminal Law - Forest Offence - Maharashtra Forest Rules 2014 - Rules 31 and 82 - Illegal transit of forest produce - Charcoal is defined as forest produce under Section 2(4) - Rule 31 mandates a pass for movement of forest produce - Rule 82 prescribes penalties for breach of Rule 31 - Section 2(3) defines forest offence as an offence punishable under the Act or rules - Found that charcoal was being transported clandestinely without a valid pass - Held - Factum of illegal transportation of forest produce was established constituting a forest offence justifying exercise of power under Section 61-A - [Paras 29-33].

Evidence Law - Presumption - Indian Forest Act 1927 - Section 69 - Property of Government - Petitioner challenged the presumption applied by the lower court - Section 69 enacts a presumption that forest produce belongs to the Government until the contrary is proved - High Court observed that when a question arises in proceedings under the Act the produce shall be presumed to be government property - Held - In the absence of a valid transit pass the presumption under Section 69 was rightly invoked and the finding of the lower court remains unvitiated - [Paras 20-21 and 40-41].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – Rule discharged – No costs – Application for stay of the order rejected.

Criminal Law - Quashing of Proceedings - Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 and Indian Penal Code 1860 - Section 498A - Petitioners being the mother-in-law and father-in-law of Respondent No. 2 sought quashing of criminal proceedings under the DV Act and the IPC - Marriage solemnized in June 2021 and husband resided in the United States of America - Husband obtained a decree of divorce from the Superior Court of New Jersey on 15.02.2023 - Complainant filed an FIR on 28.02.2023 and a DV complaint in March 2023 based on an alleged incident dated 15.12.2022 - High Court observed that the complainant had barely resided with the petitioners for a period of two to three months - Court found that the accusations were omnibus general and utterly nonspecific - It was held that the complaints were a counterblast to the successful divorce action initiated by the petitioners son - High Court relied on Supreme Court precedents regarding the rising trend of using matrimonial litigation as an arm-twisting tool for financial settlements - Held - Continuation of the impugned proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law - Petitions allowed and proceedings quashed - [Paras 1-12].

Criminal Law - Matrimonial Disputes - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Section 498A - Vexatious Litigation - Abuse of Process - High Court emphasized the duty of courts to subject matrimonial complaints to thorough scrutiny to separate genuine cases of oppression from those filed out of personal animosity - It was observed that there is a growing tendency to implicate all members of the husband’s family in matrimonial discords without specific allegations of active involvement - Mere reference to the names of family members in a criminal case without concrete evidence should be nipped in the bud to prevent unnecessary harassment - Held - Invoking criminal process in domestic disputes without specific allegations and credible material has disastrous consequences for the institution of family - [Paras 9-11].

Decision: Petitions allowed – Proceedings in Criminal Misc. Application No. 309 of 2023 and FIR C.R. No. 11191030230011 of 2023 (C.C. No. 23712 of 2023) are quashed and set aside.

Civil Law - Proof of Will - Indian Succession Act 1925 - Section 63 - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Sections 68 and 69 - Suspicious circumstances - Plaintiff-appellant filed suit for declaration as owner and recovery of possession of suit property based on an unregistered Will executed by his father on 10.07.1964 - Plaintiff claimed to have discovered the Will in a sealed cover in an almirah only after his mother's death in 1999 - All three attesting witnesses were deceased - Plaintiff examined P.W.2 (son of one attestor) to prove the handwriting of his father - Trial Court dismissed the suit citing lack of proof and presence of suspicions - High Court observed that the Will excluded one daughter without assigned reasons and was produced 20 years after the testator's death - P.W.2 failed to provide documentary proof of his identity or his father's parentage and variance was found between the attestor's name in the Will and P.W.2's deposition - No application was filed under Section 45 Evidence Act for expert opinion on signatures - Held - The onus is on the propounder to remove all legitimate suspicions by cogent and satisfactory evidence to satisfy the judicial conscience - Cumulative effect of unusual features justifies close scrutiny - Initial burden not discharged - Appeal dismissed - [Paras 1-92].

Evidence Law - Secondary Evidence - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 69 - Attesting witnesses deceased - Procedure for proof - When no attesting witness can be found the propounder must prove the attestation of at least one witness is in his handwriting and the signature of the testator is in his handwriting - Reliability of such evidence remains subject to judicial satisfaction - P.W.2 identified his father's signature but variance in parentage and lack of corroborating school or identity records weakened the testimony - Held - Strict proof under Section 68 is relaxed only if requirements under Section 69 are clearly met and suspicions are removed - [Paras 50-72].

Evidence Law - Presumption as to old documents - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 90 - Presumption for 30-year-old documents - Appellant sought benefit of presumption for the 1964 Will - Court noted the document must be thirty years old on the date of its production in Court - Trial Court found that the associated Trust Deed was only 29 years old when produced in 2002 - Presumption under Section 90 is discretionary and does not automatically apply to Wills if the Court's conscience is not satisfied - Held - Presumption not attracted in the absence of material showing the Will existed 30 years prior to production - [Paras 76-78].

Civil Law - Woman's Property - Hindu Succession Act 1956 - Section 14 - Enlargement of interest - Appellant challenged Trial Court's finding that the mother's life interest enlarged to absolute ownership under Section 14(1) - Claimed restricted rights under Section 14(2) by virtue of the Will - High Court held that since the execution of the Will was not proved the nature of interest as restricted under a testamentary instrument could not be established - Held - Burden lies on the claimant to prove the Will before seeking benefit of restricted interest - [Paras 87-88].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree dated 04.08.2006 in O.S. No. 331 of 2002 affirmed – Any pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

Criminal Law - Murder and Attempt to Murder - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Sections 147 148 149 302 307 323 and 324 - Appellants Satish Shiv Kumar Ashok Bhupat Rakesh Vijay and Vikram were convicted by the Trial Court for an incident occurring on 10.08.1982 near Dak Kothi - Deceased Satish Kumar was dragged from a bicycle and assaulted with guptis and knives while witness Shri Ram was attacked with a cycle chain and witness Nathiram was fired upon with a country-made pistol - Accused Rakesh died during pendency and his appeal abated - The Trial Court sentenced the appellants to life imprisonment under Section 302/149 IPC and various terms for other offences - High Court observed that the F.I.R. was lodged promptly within seventy minutes and the presence of the eye-witnesses was natural as they were returning with medicine for the informant's father - Chemical examination of blood-stained clothes of the informant further corroborated his presence at the spot - Held - The prosecution successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt - Trial Court judgment affirmed and appeals dismissed - [Paras 1-30].

Evidence Law - Interested and Inimical Witnesses - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 3 - Reliability - Appellants contended that witnesses were highly interested and inimical due to prior litigation including a case where a hand bomb was thrown at the deceased's brother - Held - Evidence of an injured eyewitness cannot be discarded in toto on the ground of inimical disposition - Presence of injuries on witness PW-2 and corroboration of the presence of PW-1 at the spot renders their testimony credible - Deep scrutiny revealed no concoction or artificiality in their statements - [Paras 12 14-16 21-22].

Criminal Law - Non-recovery of Murder Weapon - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Section 302 - Impact of investigative omission - Investigating officer failed to recover the guptis and knives used in the commission of the crime - Held - Recovery of the murder weapon is not a sine qua non for conviction - If the prosecution story is fully corroborated by reliable ocular evidence and medical reports the non-recovery of the weapon does not affect the veracity of the case - [Paras 24-25].

Evidence Law - Ocular vs Medical Evidence - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 3 - Corroboration - Post-mortem of the deceased revealed fifteen injuries including incised and stab wounds on vital parts - Medical examination of witness PW-2 showed six injuries caused by a blunt object compatible with a cycle chain - Held - Ocular testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 found direct support from the medical evidence provided by PW-3 and PW-4 - [Paras 6-7 16 23].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court affirmed – Appellants directed to serve out the remaining sentence.