Criminal Law – Magistrate’s Direction to Register FIR – Revision – The revisionists challenged the order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hathras directing the police to register an FIR under Section 156(3) CrPC – High Court held that such an order is interlocutory in nature and not open to revision at the instance of a person against whom neither cognizance has been taken nor process issued – Held: Revision not maintainable in light of Full Bench ruling in Father Thomas vs. State of U.P. [Paras 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10].

Criminal Procedure – Interlocutory Orders – Section 156(3) CrPC – Order passed by Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC directing police to investigate is an interlocutory order – Bar under Section 397(2) CrPC applies – No revision lies against such order – Held: Present revision dismissed as not maintainable [Paras 5, 8, 9, 10, 11].

Binding Precedent – Full Bench Decision – Father Thomas Case – Full Bench held that a direction under Section 156(3) CrPC is not revisable by proposed accused and is interlocutory – Any view contrary to this, including that in Ajay Malviya vs. State of U.P., not good law – Held: Court bound by Full Bench ruling – Present revision not entertainable [Paras 7, 8, 9].

Decision: Criminal revision dismissed – Order under Section 156(3) CrPC directing registration of FIR is interlocutory and not revisable at the instance of proposed accused – No merits found in revision petition [Paras 10, 11].

Partnership Act - Unregistered Firm - Eviction Suit - Maintainability - Statutory Right - Section 69(2) of Indian Partnership Act, 1932 - A suit for eviction based on a statutory right under the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, is maintainable even if filed by an unregistered partnership firm, as the bar under Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, applies only to rights arising from a contract-

Indian Partnership Act, 1932 - Section 69(2) - M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 - Eviction Suit - Bonafide Requirement - The respondent/plaintiff, an unregistered partnership firm, filed a suit for eviction of the appellants/defendants from a rented shop on the ground of bonafide requirement for business expansion under Section 12(1)(f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961- The appellants contended that the suit was not maintainable under Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, as the plaintiff was an unregistered firm- Both lower courts decreed the suit- The High Court, in second appeal, framed a substantial question of law regarding the applicability of Section 69(2) to such a suit- Held: The bar under Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, applies only to suits enforcing rights arising from a contract, not to statutory rights like eviction under the Rent Act- Therefore, the suit for eviction by an unregistered firm to enforce a statutory right is maintainable- The authorization of one partner to file the suit, supported by a partnership deed and power of attorney, further confirms maintainability- Findings on bonafide requirement are factual and not perverse, thus not warranting interference in second appeal- Paras [1-18, 20]

Indian Partnership Act, 1932 - Section 69(2) - Scope - Contractual vs. Statutory Rights - Held: Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, bars suits by unregistered firms only for the enforcement of rights arising from a contract- It does not apply where the claim originates from a statutory obligation- The right to eviction under Section 12(1)(f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, is a statutory right- Therefore, a suit filed by an unregistered partnership firm to enforce such a statutory right is maintainable and not hit by Section 69(2)- Paras [14, 16]

Partnership Law - Authority to Sue - Unregistered Firm - Held: A suit filed by an unregistered partnership firm through one of its partners is maintainable if the partner is duly authorized by all other partners- In the present case, the plaintiff proved authorization through a partnership deed and power of attorney, which was considered by the lower courts- Paras [17]

Second Appeal - Scope of Interference - Findings of Fact - Held: In a second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC, the High Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts unless they are perverse or illegal- The findings on bonafide requirement are pure findings of fact and do not raise any substantial question of law- Paras [20]

Decision: Appeal dismissed - The judgment of the lower courts decreeing the eviction suit is upheld - Paras [22].

Criminal Law – Murder – Appeal against Conviction – Life Imprisonment – Appellants convicted under Section 302/34 IPC for causing death of deceased Kallu by lathi and danda – During pendency of appeal three appellants died and appeal abated against them – Appeal considered only in respect of surviving appellant Bakuni – Held: Prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction unsustainable [Paras 1-3, 28].

Evidence Act – Sole Eye-Witness – Related / Interested Witness – Conduct of Witness – P.W.1 Batuni, brother of deceased, claimed to be eye-witness to assault but fled from spot and stayed entire night away without informing police or making any effort to ascertain fate of deceased – Presence at place of occurrence found doubtful – His conduct held unnatural – Testimony not trustworthy for sustaining conviction [Paras 21, 23-24].

Criminal Trial – Last Seen Theory – Failure of Proof – Prosecution case that witness saw only initial assault and not the actual murder – No reliable evidence to establish that appellants were last seen with deceased prior to his death – Held: Last seen circumstance not proved [Paras 21, 27].

Evidence Appreciation – Non-examination of Material Witness – Heera, alleged independent eye-witness present with informant and deceased, not examined by prosecution – No explanation offered – When sole eye-witness unreliable, non-examination of independent witness assumes significance – Adverse inference drawn against prosecution [Paras 25].

Motive – Weak and Inconsistent Evidence – Prosecution alleged old enmity relating to murder of appellants’ father as motive – Informant himself stated that relations were cordial and matrimonial alliance existed between families – No immediate or proximate cause shown – Held: Motive not proved and extremely weak [Paras 26].

Medical and Ocular Evidence – Corroboration – Medical evidence proved homicidal death but did not conclusively link appellant with commission of crime – Ocular version unreliable – Benefit of doubt extended to accused [Paras 22, 27-28].

Precedent – Appreciation of Evidence – Supreme Court decision in Hem Raj v. State of Haryana, (2005) 10 SCC 614 applied – When presence of eye-witness doubtful, non-examination of independent witnesses becomes fatal to prosecution case [Para 25].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and order dated 21.03.1990 passed by 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Allahabad in Sessions Trial No. 308 of 1986 set aside – Surviving appellant Bakuni acquitted of offence under Section 302/34 IPC – Directed to be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case.

Election Law – Writ of Quo Warranto - Reservation and Caste Certificate – Requirement for Reserved Posts – Appellant contested and won election for Zila Panchayat Member from a seat reserved for OBC category – Appellant submitted an affidavit claiming OBC status ("Pal Baghele") but admittedly did not possess a caste certificate – Held: A candidate contesting for a reserved post must possess a valid caste certificate as proof of belonging to that category – Self-declaration via affidavit is insufficient to contest an election for a reserved seat – The requirement is mandatory to ensure the benefit of reservation reaches the intended beneficiaries – [Paras 11, 14].

Constitutional Law – Writ of Quo Warranto – Maintainability after Election Petition Dismissal – Respondent No. 6 sought a writ of quo warranto challenging appellant's authority to hold office after his wife's election petition was dismissed on technical grounds – Appellant argued that the dismissal of the election petition barred the writ – Held: Dismissal of an election petition does not debar an independent voter/citizen from seeking a writ of quo warranto if the holder of the office lacks the fundamental eligibility (caste certificate) – No right can be conferred on an individual which they cannot possess under law – The writ is maintainable to prevent a usurper from holding public office – [Paras 8, 12, 13].

Constitution of India – Article 226 – Interference in Election Matters – Held: While Article 329(b) bars interference during the election process, the High Court can exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 after the election process is over if there is a violation of constitutional provisions or statutory eligibility criteria – Allowing a person ineligible for a reserved seat to continue in office would be a fraud on the Constitution – [Paras 13, 14].

Decision: Appeal dismissed - The order declaring the appellant ineligible to hold the post of Member, Zila Panchayat is upheld - [Para 15].

Criminal Law – Double Jeopardy – Section 300 Cr.P.C. – Article 20(2) of Constitution – Petitioner sought quashing of trial at Karera, Madhya Pradesh on ground that he had already been tried and acquitted in a connected case by courts in Rajasthan – Held: Protection against double jeopardy applies only when second prosecution is for the same offence and by a court of competent jurisdiction – Distinct FIRs registered in different States constitute separate causes of action – Bar under Section 300 Cr.P.C. not attracted [Paras 13, 18, 28–30].

Antiquities and Art Treasures Act – Theft and Trafficking of Idols – Multiple FIRs – Large-scale gang involved in stealing and exporting antiquities from different States – Each FIR relating to recovery of distinct stolen property gives rise to independent prosecution – Acquittal in one case does not immunize accused from prosecution in other cases involving separate offences and recoveries [Paras 21–28].

Territorial Jurisdiction – Sections 177–189 Cr.P.C. – Competency of Court – Only court within whose territorial jurisdiction offence was committed is competent to try the case – Proceedings before Jaipur Courts could not bar prosecution for offence committed within jurisdiction of Police Station Karera, District Shivpuri – Doctrine of autrefois acquit not applicable [Paras 18, 28].

Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Inherent Powers – Scope – Power to quash criminal proceedings to be exercised sparingly – No abuse of process or failure of justice demonstrated – Trial court and revisional court orders rejecting plea of double jeopardy found legal and proper – High Court declined interference [Paras 16, 30].

Acquittal on Benefit of Doubt – Effect – Acquittal by Rajasthan High Court was on benefit of doubt and not a clean acquittal on merits – Even otherwise, acquittal related to different FIRs and offences – Does not create statutory bar to continuation of trial in Madhya Pradesh [Paras 27–28].

Precedent – “Same Offence” Test – Supreme Court reiterated that for Article 20(2) to apply, offences must be identical in ingredients – Similarity of facts not sufficient – Reliance placed on State of Bombay v. S.L. Apte – Distinct offences cannot attract constitutional bar [Para 29].

Direction – Speedy Trial – Trial Court directed to conduct proceedings expeditiously, preferably on day-to-day basis – Clarified that no opinion expressed on merits of case [Paras 31–32].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Orders of Trial Court and Revisional Court affirmed – Plea of double jeopardy rejected – Criminal trial to proceed in accordance with law.

Civil Procedure – Impleadment – Necessary Party – Order I Rule 10(2) CPC – Suit filed for injunction with twofold prayer: (1) restraining defendants from interfering with plaintiff’s possession, and (2) restraining official defendants from altering Field Measurement Book (FMB) entries contrary to plaintiff’s sale deed – Revision Petitioner, who purchased property from 1st defendant before first hearing, sought to implead himself – Trial Court dismissed application, treating petitioner as pendente lite purchaser not necessary for injunction suit – Held: While plaintiff is dominus litis in an injunction suit, second prayer affects petitioner’s rights directly – Petitioner’s presence necessary to avoid prejudice and multiplicity of litigation [Paras 4, 9].

Injunction Suits – Dominus Litis Principle – Limitations – Though plaintiff controls who to sue in a bare injunction suit, when suit reliefs (e.g., FMB directions) affect third-party purchasers, such purchasers may be impleaded to protect their interests and ensure complete adjudication – Revision allowed [Paras 6, 9]

Constitution of India – Article 227 – Scope of Interference – High Court held that Trial Court failed to appreciate the implications of second relief sought and erred in dismissing impleadment plea – To ensure justice and avoid future litigation, High Court set aside Trial Court’s order and allowed impleadment [Paras 8–10].

Decision: Revision Petition allowed – Trial Court’s order rejecting impleadment set aside – Interlocutory Application under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC allowed – Petitioner to be impleaded as 7th defendant – No costs.

Banking Law – Unauthorized Appropriation by Bank – Petitioner Axis Bank, despite specific orders dated 07.07.2012 and 03.06.2013 by Magistrate to hold auction proceeds in FDR till trial conclusion, appropriated Rs. 8.20 crore based on DRT's temporary direction dated 20.04.2018 – Held: Bank’s action is in gross violation of Trial Court’s binding orders and amounts to disobedience of judicial directions [Paras 1, 16–20, 23] –

Judicial Authority – Supremacy of Trial Court Directions – Orders of Trial Court, upheld by Rajasthan High Court and not interfered with by the Supreme Court (SLP withdrawn), had attained finality – DRT's order permitting temporary appropriation passed in ignorance of these binding decisions – Held: DRT order does not override Trial Court’s order – Any action contrary is non-est [Paras 12–14, 22–23] –

Rule of Law – No One Above the Law – High Court reiterates foundational constitutional principle that all authorities including banks are bound by court orders – Disobedience undermines rule of law and invites judicial censure – Court warns of consequences for future violations while taking lenient view in current case [Paras 21, 23–24] –

Interim Orders – DRT Permitting Temporary Appropriation – DRT permitted Axis Bank to appropriate auction proceeds during pendency of OA with condition to reimburse if claim fails – DRT not informed of prior criminal court directions restraining withdrawal – Held: Non-disclosure by Bank fatal – DRT order passed in ignorance cannot justify bank’s action [Paras 16–18, 22] –

Criminal Procedure – Section 457 CrPC – Magistrate correctly exercised powers to auction perishable goods (seized grains) and safeguard proceeds in FDR – Bank’s unilateral withdrawal defeated the purpose of judicial custody of property – Court upholds Magistrate’s direction to refund and initiate action against bank officials if not complied [Paras 11, 19–20] –

Decision: Petition dismissed – Order of Trial Court directing Axis Bank to redeposit appropriated amount with interest upheld – Stay and pending applications disposed [Para 25–26].

Family Law – 125 CrPC - Maintenance – Assessment of Income – Reliance on ITR – Petitioner-husband claimed low income but his ITR for AY 2018-19 showed annual income of Rs. 5,18,268/- (approx. Rs. 43,189/- pm) – Petitioner claimed subsequent ITRs showed reduced income – Held: Family Court rightly relied on the ITR of AY 2018-19 as the most reliable indicator, rejecting subsequent lower ITRs and undated salary certificates as unreliable attempts to conceal income – [Paras 8, 9, 11].

Family Law – Maintenance – Quantum and Apportionment – Annurita Vohra Formula – Family Court awarded Rs. 25,000/- pm to wife out of husband's assessed income of Rs. 43,189/- pm – Held: Awarding more than half of the husband's income is excessive – Applying the principle of apportionment (2 shares for husband, 1 for wife), the wife is entitled to roughly 1/3rd of net income – Considering inflation and need for dignified living, maintenance modified to Rs. 17,000/- per month – [Paras 12, 13].

Criminal Procedure – Section 125 vs. Interim Order – Petitioner argued final maintenance cannot exceed interim maintenance without proof of changed circumstances under Section 127 Cr.P.C. – Held: Final determination under Section 125 is independent of the interim order and is based on evidence led during trial – It is not a modification under Section 127 Cr.P.C. – Family Court can enhance or reduce amount in final judgment based on evidence – [Para 10].

Decision: Petition disposed of. Impugned judgment modified; maintenance reduced from Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 17,000/- per month.

Land Laws – Validity of Housing Site Allotment (Patta) – Requirement of Prior Approval – Section 122-C of U.P.Z.A.L.R. Act – Petitioner claimed title over land based on a Patta allegedly granted by the Gram Pradhan in 1973/1981 without producing the actual lease deed or Form 49-F – Held: Section 122-C(2), introduced by the 1971 Amendment, mandates prior approval of the Assistant Collector for any allotment of housing sites – This requirement is mandatory and jurisdictional, not directory – The contention that prior approval was introduced only in 1975 via Rule amendment is incorrect as the substantive statutory provision existed since 1971 – Any Patta issued without such approval is void ab initio and unenforceable – Paras [76-78], [86-87], [89(ii)].

Land Laws – Eligibility for Allotment – Order of Preference – Petitioner’s father was an Ex-Army personnel belonging to the General Category – Held: Under Section 122-C(3), preference is given to SC/ST, OBC, and General Category persons living below the poverty line – The Petitioner’s father did not fall within any eligible category for preferential allotment of housing sites – No legal allotment could have been made in his favor – Paras [89(vi)].

Administrative Law – Procedure for Allotment – Adherence to Statutory Mode – Petitioner relied on receipts issued by Gram Pradhan and entries in Parivar Register made by the Pradhan – Held: When a statute prescribes a particular act to be done in a particular manner, it must be done in that manner alone (Rule in Taylor v. Taylor) – Entries in the Parivar Register can only be made by the Secretary under the relevant Rules, not the Pradhan – Receipts issued without following the procedure of Rules 115-L to 115-O (public announcement, LMC meeting, drawing of lots) hold no evidentiary value – Paras [75], [89(iii)-(v)].

Civil Law – Fraud and Misrepresentation – Suppression of Material Facts – Petitioner concealed details of prior civil suits and the fact that the land was acquired by LDA and compensation paid to recorded tenure holders – Held: Jurisdiction under Article 226 is equitable and discretionary – A litigant who suppresses material facts or approaches the Court with unclean hands plays fraud on the Court – Such petitions are liable to be dismissed at the threshold without considering merits – Suppressio veri, expressio falsi applies – Paras [80-85], [89(vii)].

Property Law – Encroachment vs. Title – Cancellation of Void Documents – Petitioner argued that the Patta was never cancelled – Held: Cancellation presupposes the existence of a validly issued document – Since the alleged Patta was void ab initio due to lack of competence and statutory compliance, it never legally existed – The Petitioner’s status is that of an encroacher on government land acquired by LDA – Paras [87], [89(i)].

Decision: Appeal dismissed - The Court upheld the LDA's actions as lawful, declaring the petitioner an encroacher with no valid title - Paras [89-90].