Transfer of Proceedings – Matrimonial Dispute – Overlapping Reliefs – Application Allowed – Applicant sought transfer of DV Case No. 62/DV/2024 pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 71st Court, Bandra, to the Family Court at Bandra to be heard along with Divorce Petition and Restitution Petition – Court noted substantial overlap in reliefs and parties in both proceedings – Held: To avoid conflicting findings, duplication of evidence and conserve judicial time, DV proceedings transferred to Family Court [Paras 1-4, 9].

Jurisdiction – DV Act and Family Court – Overlapping Remedies – Court Held – Family Court competent to grant reliefs similar to those under the DV Act – DV reliefs related to protection, custody and residence can be adjudicated by Family Court – Proximity of courts and shared social context justify transfer – Respondent failed to demonstrate any prejudice or inconvenience [Paras 3-5, 9].

Distinguishing Precedents – Anurag Agarwal vs. Poonam Agarwal – Not Applicable – Court held that unlike the precedent cited by the Respondent where proceedings were at an advanced stage, here the DV matter was at preliminary evidence stage – Hence, transfer was not prejudicial [Paras 6, 10].

Consolidation of Proceedings – Avoiding Multiplicity – Supreme Court Guidelines Followed – Relying on N.C.V. Aishwarya v. Saravana Karthik Sha, Court emphasized the need for consolidation when proceedings involve common questions of law and fact – Held: Transfer promotes judicial economy and consistency in adjudication [Paras 11-12].

Final Decision – Transfer Allowed – DV Case No. 62/DV/2024 ordered to be transferred to Family Court, Bandra – Family Court directed to issue notice within 3 weeks and proceed expeditiously [Paras 13-15].

Criminal Law – Conviction for Sexual Offences – Testimony of Victim Not Reliable – Acquittal Ordered – Appellants convicted for offences under Sections 452/354/323/34 IPC for allegedly assaulting and molesting a woman – Trial Court acquitted them under Section 376(D) IPC – High Court found the victim’s testimony riddled with material improvements, inconsistencies, and contradictions with police and medical evidence – Held: Victim's version failed to meet the standard of a "sterling witness" – Conviction not sustainable [Paras 13–18].

Evidence – Material Improvements and Contradictions – Testimony Discredited – Allegation of sexual assault (finger insertion) was introduced only in the third supplementary statement after delay of several days – Testimony inconsistent with initial FIR and police statements – Tenant witness found to be untrustworthy and not corroborated by record – Court found witness to be planted and testimony unreliable – Resulted in total discrediting of prosecution's version [Paras 14–17].

Criminal Jurisprudence – Delay in Disclosure – No Corroboration – Accused Entitled to Benefit of Doubt – Though delay in naming assailants can be explained in sexual assault cases, such explanation must be reasonable and consistent – In present case, delay of 10 hours in naming known neighbours without plausible reason – Absence of medical injuries or forensic support further weakens case – Benefit of doubt extended to accused [Paras 12–14, 18].

Witness Testimony – Standard of 'Sterling Witness' – Not Met in Present Case – Court reiterated that uncorroborated testimony can lead to conviction only if it is cogent, consistent and natural – Victim’s evidence failed on this test – Cited Supreme Court’s decision in Rai Sandeep v. State (NCT of Delhi) – Held: Inconsistencies in victim’s statements, and contradictions with police and tenant evidence made her testimony unreliable – Acquittal justified [Para 18].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – Conviction and Sentence Set Aside – Appellants Acquitted – All four appeals allowed – Judgment of conviction dated 30.11.2016 and order on sentence dated 15.12.2016 set aside – Appellants acquitted of all charges – Bail bonds cancelled, sureties discharged – Judgment to be uploaded and communicated to Trial Court and Jail Superintendent [Paras 19–21].

Election Petition – Maintainability – Requirement of Material Facts – Section 83(1)(a) RP Act – Petition Dismissed - The petitioner alleged non-disclosure of assets, liabilities, and arbitral awards by the returned candidate and sought invalidation of the election – The Court held that the Election Petition lacked concise statement of material facts and failed to show how the alleged omissions materially affected the election result – As per law, pleadings must establish cause of action and fully disclose factual foundation for challenge under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) – In absence of such foundation, the petition is not maintainable and must be dismissed at threshold under Order VII Rule 11 CPC [Paras 12-17, 31].

Non-disclosure of Loan and Property – Allegation of Suppression – Not Sustainable – The allegation regarding Rs.90 lakh housing loan taken jointly with daughter was held to be devoid of merit – Respondent No.1 was merely a co-applicant; property was solely owned and loan serviced by his daughter – No obligation arose for the Respondent to disclose such loan in Form No.26 – Accordingly, this ground of challenge was rejected [Paras 8.1, 10].

Arbitral Award – Pending Litigation – Non-Disclosure – Not Material – Section 100(1)(d)(iv) – Dismissal Upheld - The award of Rs.2.72 crore against the Respondent had been stayed by the Court and was under challenge – Court held that liability under a stayed award is not a "government due" requiring disclosure – Suppression not established – Petition failed to show how this affected electoral outcome [Paras 8.2, 9.3, 10, 16].

Form No.26 Disclosure – Loans, Guarantees, Financial Liabilities – CRIF/CIBIL Reports Not Originally Filed – Deficiency in Pleading – Petition Dismissed – Documents relied upon by petitioner, such as CRIF and CIBIL reports, were not annexed with petition but produced later – Court found this impermissible and held that pleadings cannot be improved through replies – Material facts must be stated in the petition itself [Paras 8.4, 9.5, 12, 15-17].

Cause of Action – Materially Affected Result – Mandatory Requirement under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) RP Act – Petition Dismissed - The Election Petition failed to plead and demonstrate how the result was materially affected by alleged omissions – Mere allegation of non-disclosure is insufficient – Petition does not disclose cause of action – Rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC [Paras 12-17, 31].

Decision – Application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC allowed – Election Petition dismissed in limine for want of cause of action and failure to plead material facts as required under Section 83(1)(a) of the RP Act – No triable issue made out under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) RP Act [Para 31].

Matrimonial Law – Title over Joint Property – Claim of Exclusive Ownership – Allowed – Husband sought declaration of exclusive ownership over 85 cents purchased jointly with wife – Evidence including Ext.B1 Sale Deed, bank withdrawals, and father’s loan established that consideration flowed from husband – Wife’s claim of contribution by sale of trees and loan unsupported by evidence – Family Court erred in overlooking documentary proof – Held: Sale consideration proceeded from husband – Husband declared exclusive owner – Family Court judgment set aside [Paras 9-11].

Matrimonial Appeals – Claim for Damages – Defamation and Mental Agony – Rs.5,00,000 Award Upheld – Wife alleged persistent false accusations of illicit relationships by husband with colleagues, doctor, students, and others – Evidence showed husband made baseless allegations causing wife to quit employment and suffer mental trauma – Husband failed to substantiate charges – Family Court awarded Rs.5,00,000 damages for mental agony – Held: Findings justified and decree warrants no interference – Appeal dismissed [Paras 12].

Decision – Mat.Appeal No.674/2018 allowed – Judgment of Family Court set aside and O.P. No.5/2014 allowed – Husband declared absolute owner of property – Mat.Appeal No.675/2018 dismissed – Award of Rs.5,00,000 damages to wife affirmed – Parties to bear own costs [Paras 11-12].

Cheque Dishonour – Presumption under Section 139 of N.I. Act – Conviction Restored – The trial court had convicted the accused for issuing a dishonoured cheque of ₹30 lakhs, finding that the cheque was issued in discharge of legally enforceable debt – Sessions Judge reversed the conviction on the ground of absence of documentary proof of loan and by considering unrelated case records – Held: Sessions Judge committed perversity by relying on extraneous material and inventing a defence not raised by the accused – Since execution of cheque was admitted and there was no rebuttal evidence or cross-examination disputing the debt, the presumption under Section 139 stood unrebutted – Conviction restored against respondent no.2 only [Paras 1-25].

Cross-examination – Effect of Omission – Section 138, Evidence Act – Defence Not Put to Witness – The accused failed to put any suggestion during cross-examination that the cheque was not issued for a legally enforceable debt – Held: In absence of cross-examination, testimony remains unimpeached and must be accepted – Sessions Judge erred in disbelieving such evidence without challenge or contradiction [Paras 17-20].

Personal Knowledge by Judge – Illegality – Judgment Based on Facts from Another Case – Reversal Set Aside – Sessions Judge erred in taking judicial notice of findings from another complaint case between the parties without placing it on record or giving opportunity to the complainant to rebut – Such reliance amounts to grave violation of fair trial principles and resulted in miscarriage of justice [Para 21].

Money Lending without Licence – Presumption Not Rebutted – Accused’s Defence Absent – Though complainant admitted money lending without licence, no question was put to link that the cheque was issued in such context – Held: Without specific plea or cross-examination, court cannot assume cheque was issued in course of illegal money lending – Presumption under Section 139 not rebutted [Para 23].

Final Decision – Acquittal Set Aside – Conviction Restored Against Respondent No.2 – As the other two accused had died and Respondent No.3 was not party to the original trial or appeal, conviction restored only against Respondent No.2 – Acquittal appeal allowed to that extent [Paras 24-26].

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR - POCSO Act – Gender Neutrality – Sections 3, 4, 5, 6 POCSO – Held Gender Neutral – The Court held that the POCSO Act, as evident from its objects and reasons (2012 and 2019 amendments), is intended to protect all children (male or female) below 18 years from sexual offences – Section 2(2) POCSO read with Section 8 IPC clarifies that pronoun “he” includes male and female – Delhi High Court judgment in Sundari Gautam v. State of NCT of Delhi relied upon – Thus, POCSO is gender neutral [Paras 9-11].

POCSO – Offence by Woman – Sections 4 & 6 – Applicable – Held that offences of penetrative sexual assault under Sections 3–4 and aggravated penetrative sexual assault under Sections 5–6 can be alleged against a woman also – Clause (a) to (d) of Section 3 uses “a person” as subject, with phrases “makes the child to do so with him or any other person” widening scope beyond male-only penetration – Hence, a woman compelling or manipulating a male child to penetrate her falls within the statutory ingredients – The contention that a woman cannot be prosecuted under Sections 4 & 6 rejected [Paras 12-13].

Ingredients of Offence – Sections 4 & 6 POCSO – Met – Complaint, victim’s statement, statement of mother, Child Protection Officer’s report, and charge sheet narrate detailed acts of manipulation and coerced penetration by petitioner – Allegations fit squarely within statutory phrases “makes the child do so with her” – Held that ingredients of Sections 4 and 6 are satisfied – Narrow interpretation excluding women would defeat legislative intent to protect children – Hence, case fit for trial [Paras 14-17].

Delay in FIR – Effect – Four-year delay between incident (2020) and complaint (2024) – Held: In cases of child sexual abuse, delay cannot be treated as fatal – Trauma, silence, and stigma explain delay – Victim disclosed only after therapy – Supported by precedents (Shreekant Sharma v. State of W.B., Satpal Singh v. State of Haryana) – Delay held to be matter of trial and not ground to quash under Section 482 Cr.P.C. [Paras 18].

Potency Test – Non-Conduct – Not Fatal – Contention that no potency test of victim was conducted rejected – At 13 years, issue of puberty or erection irrelevant for offence under POCSO, which punishes inducement or manipulation of child to perform penetration regardless of physiological maturity – Held: Non-conduct of potency test does not vitiate proceedings [Implied Paras 16-17].

Decision – Criminal Petition Dismissed – The Court held that POCSO is gender neutral; offences under Sections 4 and 6 can be alleged against a woman; ingredients of the offence were prima facie met; delay in FIR not fatal – Hence, petition for quashing dismissed – Proceedings to continue before trial court [Paras 9-18].

Civil Law - Partition Suit – Validity of Family Settlement – Registration Not Required – Partition Upheld – The Appellants contended that the Family Settlement was superseded by a Builders’ Agreement and required registration – Court held that the Memorandum of Family Settlement merely delineated enjoyment rights and did not create or extinguish any rights in immovable property – Hence, registration was not necessary – The Family Settlement had already been acted upon, and estoppel applied – Partition decree upheld [Paras 11, 16-19, 23, 25].

Contract Novation – Builders’ Agreement vs Family Settlement – No Substitution Found – Builders’ Agreement did not result in novation of the Family Settlement – As the agreement was with third-party developers and not inter se between family members, it did not override or modify the Family Settlement – No intention or agreement to substitute the earlier arrangement was found under Section 62 of the Indian Contract Act [Paras 19-22].

Admissibility Objection – Stamp Act Barred – Section 36 of Indian Stamp Act – Late Objection Overruled – The Appellants’ objection to admissibility of the Family Settlement on the ground of improper stamping and registration was rejected as not raised at the correct stage – Once the document was admitted in evidence, Section 36 barred retrospective objection [Paras 26].

Mesne Profits – Unauthorized Possession – Use and Occupation Charges Awarded – The Appellants had occupied the fourth floor, depriving Respondents of their share – Court upheld direction to pay mesne profits of ₹48,000 per month with 6% p.a. interest from the date of suit till physical possession is delivered [Paras 10, 27].

Criminal Complaint – False Claim Regarding Family Settlement – Section 379 BNSS Invoked – The Appellants falsely alleged the Family Settlement to be forged and practiced fraud – Court upheld Single Judge’s direction to Registrar General to initiate complaint under Section 379 of BNSS (erstwhile Section 340 Cr.P.C.) due to dishonest conduct of Appellants [Para 28].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Validity of Family Settlement Affirmed – Builders’ Agreement did not affect partition rights – Decree of possession, mesne profits, and criminal complaint direction sustained [Paras 29].

Criminal Law - Murder – Section 302/34 IPC – Common intention – Conviction partly upheld – Principal assailants identified by multiple eyewitnesses including injured witnesses – Court finds Moijuddin, Faijuddin and Latif restrained the deceased while Maynul delivered the fatal Ramdao blow on the nape of the neck – Held: Conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC sustained for these accused [Paras 58–61, 80].

Acquittal – Benefit of Doubt – Alleged use of pistol – Absence of recovery or gunshot injury – Witnesses differed whether pistol was placed on chest or neck – Held: Evidence insufficient against Waser Sk. @ Wacher Mayra either for Section 302/34 or 326/34; acquittal directed and bail bonds discharged [Paras 81–82, 88].

Grievous Hurt – Section 326/34 IPC – Eyewitness and medical corroboration – PW2 hospitalized 11 days; PWs 3 & 4 three days – Weapons were sharp agricultural implements – Non‑production of dying declaration immaterial once declarant survived and deposed – Held: Convictions under Section 326/34 IPC upheld for named accused [Paras 84–87].

Inquest Report – Scope under Section 174 CrPC – Investigative lead, not substantive determinative evidence – Court declines to fault investigation for not pursuing “son of Tajer Bere” line recorded by inquest witnesses not present at the scene – Reliance placed on Pedda Narayana (1975) 4 SCC 153 – Held: No infirmity [Paras 42–43].

Minor Discrepancies – Witness Credibility – Variations on who held the deceased’s hands and sequence of blows – Court treats as normal discrepancies in a melee; cites Bharwada Bhoginbhai (1983) 3 SCC 217 and Kalki (1981) 2 SCC 752 – Injured eyewitness testimony accorded higher weight; Balu Sudam Khalde (2023) applied – Held: Prosecution version substantially reliable [Paras 41, 49, 51–52, 61–62].

Medical Evidence – Time of last meal and “empty stomach” – PM opinion not conclusive of exact time of death; possibility deceased skipped morning meal – Over‑emphasis on digestion timelines rejected – Held: Argument rejected [Paras 44–47].

Delay/Choice of Medical Facility – Skipping nearer centres for better hospital – Not fatal where deceased likely died on the spot and injuries to others were promptly treated – Defense failed to prove prejudice – Held: No adverse inference [Paras 54, 79].

Non‑Recovery of Weapons/Pistol – Effect – Faulty investigation not a ground for acquittal when ocular and medical evidence are unimpeachable; however, non‑recovery of pistol noted as material omission vis‑à‑vis accused with pistol – Held: Convictions sustained notwithstanding non‑recovery of sharp weapons; pistol non‑recovery underpins Waser’s acquittal [Paras 55, 81–82].

Doctors not told assailants’ names – Whether fatal – In emergency treatment names may not be recorded; not ipso facto exculpatory – Reliance on State of Bihar v. Ramnath Prasad (1998) 9 SCC 49 – Held: Argument rejected [Para 65].

Final Orders – CRA 320/2015 allowed; CRA 283/2015 and CRA 266/2015 dismissed – Surrender directions issued; costs: none [Paras 87–91].

Company Law – Transfer of Assets During Pendency of Winding-Up Proceedings – Section 536(2) & 537(1)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956 – Transfer Held Void – The applicant entered into a registered sale deed on 03.01.2018 for a property belonging to the 1st respondent company after the presentation of a winding-up petition on 20.11.2015 but before the order for winding-up dated 06.12.2019 – Held: Disposition of property made after commencement of winding-up proceedings without leave of court is void unless validated by court – In the absence of publication of notice or due diligence by the applicant, the court rejected the plea that the applicant was a bona fide purchaser – The sale was declared in violation of Sections 536(2) and 537(1)(b) – Application dismissed [Paras 27, 28, 33, 36].

Winding-Up – Discretion to Validate Post-Petition Transactions – Judicial Principles – Court may validate transactions post-petition if they are bona fide and in the interest of company and creditors – However, burden lies on transferee to prove good faith – In this case, absence of public notice and suppressed knowledge of winding-up petition led court to conclude lack of bona fides – Judicial discretion not exercised in favour of the applicant – Transaction not validated [Paras 22, 23, 33, 36].

Real Estate Transaction – Bonafide Purchaser – Duty of Due Diligence – Applicant failed to issue public notice or exercise caution despite knowing of mortgage and SARFAESI involvement – Court held such conduct unconvincing and indicative of collusion – Applicant’s claim of resale to third party at a lower price was also disbelieved – Not a bonafide purchaser [Paras 12, 28, 33, 35].

Final Decision – Application Dismissed – The sale deed dated 03.01.2018 between the applicant and the respondent company was held invalid under Sections 536(2) and 537(1)(b) – Applicant not entitled to relief as transaction was void and lacked bona fides – Miscellaneous applications also dismissed [Para 37].