Motor Accident Claim – Proof of Income – Summoning Income Tax Records – Petitioners (legal heirs of deceased) sought summoning of Clerk of Income Tax Department and employer’s salary records to prove deceased’s income – Tribunal rejected application – Held: Petitioners failed to produce even basic bank account statement of deceased – Claimed salary paid partly in cash but could not specify how much or when – Income tax documents of the firm alone cannot prove payment to a specific employee without direct correlation – Summary nature of MACT proceedings limits scope of wide-ranging fishing inquiries – No illegality in Tribunal’s refusal [Paras 5–7]

Civil Procedure – Relevancy of Evidence – Court's Discretion in Summoning Witnesses – Held: Mere existence of firm’s audit or tax records showing overall salary disbursement insufficient to prove individual’s income – Petitioners failed to establish how proposed evidence is material for adjudication – Dismissal of summoning application justified – No perversity or irregularity in impugned order [Paras 6–8]

Constitution of India – Article 227 – Supervisory Jurisdiction – Held: High Court will not interfere with interlocutory orders of subordinate courts or tribunals unless there is manifest perversity or jurisdictional error – Tribunal rightly exercised discretion based on lack of foundational material – Revision petition dismissed [Paras 3, 8]

Decision: Civil Revision Petition dismissed – No material irregularity in rejection of summoning request – No ground to interfere under Article 227

Transfer of Criminal Case – Allegation of Bias – Application for transfer based on dissatisfaction with trial court’s order rejecting recall of witness under Section 311 CrPC – Allegation of unjustified and discriminatory conduct – Held: Mere dissatisfaction with judicial order cannot be grounds for transfer – Apprehension of bias must be reasonable, not imaginary or presumed – Transfer denied [Paras 2-4, 23-24]

Judicial Orders – Not a Valid Basis for Transfer – Judicial orders passed by competent courts after hearing parties cannot be construed as indicators of bias – Transfer sought merely because court rejected application under Section 311 CrPC – Court reiterated that such orders form part of judicial process and cannot justify apprehension of injustice [Paras 3, 6]

Reasonable Apprehension – Meaning and Threshold – Reiterated legal position that for a case to be transferred, party must demonstrate reasonable and substantiated apprehension that justice will not be done – Mere suspicion or dissatisfaction insufficient – Reference to Gurcharan Das Chadha v. State of Rajasthan (1966) 2 SCR 686 [Paras 6, 10, 16, 22]

Protection of Judges – Courts Warn Against Forum Shopping – Strong judicial warning against attempts to malign presiding officers or seek ‘forum shopping’ – Cited precedents including Ajay Kumar Pandey (1998) 7 SCC 248 and R.K. Anand (2009) 8 SCC 106 – Held: No civilised system of justice permits forum shopping or judicial intimidation [Paras 8, 11-13, 19, 22]

Judicial Discipline – Expression of Opinion During Hearing – Judges not expected to be sphinx-like – Mere expression of views during proceedings not to be misconstrued as bias – Allegations must be substantiated by material facts – Court cautioned against frivolous and vexatious transfer pleas [Paras 7, 17, 21]

Exceptional Relief – Transfer to be Granted Sparingly – Court emphasized transfer is not to be granted routinely – Must be exercised cautiously and in rare cases where justice may be jeopardized – Cited multiple Apex Court decisions including Amarinder Singh v. Parkash Singh Badal and Afzal Ali Sha v. State of West Bengal [Paras 15, 16, 22]

Decision: Transfer application rejected – No case made out for reasonable apprehension of bias – Judicial order under challenge not a valid basis for transfer – No costs imposed.

Criminal Law – Murder – Poisoning in Jail – Acquittal – Accused prisoners allegedly served poison-laced Pepsi and bread to fellow inmates causing death of three prisoners – FIR filed after two days by Jail Superintendent without immediate explanation – Eye-witness (PW-3) claims witnessing incident but failed to inform authorities or explain jail protocol violations – Other prosecution witnesses turned hostile or resiled from earlier statements – Medical evidence did not conclusively establish poisoning – No forensic report confirming poison in recovered Pepsi bottle or bread – Held: Serious doubt cast on prosecution’s version due to delayed FIR, inconsistent witness testimonies, violation of jail protocols, and lack of corroborative evidence – Benefit of doubt extended – Conviction set aside – Accused acquitted [Paras 3, 12-18, 23-36]

Evidence – Witness Credibility – Sole eye-witness (PW-3) testimony found doubtful – Failed to report poisoning to jail officials despite witnessing the alleged murder – Stated accused spoke loudly about poisoning which was found unnatural – Other key witnesses (PW-4 and PW-5) turned hostile or gave contradictory versions – Court found witness testimonies unreliable and uncorroborated [Paras 12-13, 25, 33-34]

Criminal Procedure – Delay in FIR – FIR lodged 48 hours after the incident despite it involving custodial deaths – Delay found unexplained and in breach of Rules 608 and 894 of UP Jail Manual – Court referred to SC judgments emphasizing prompt FIR as a safeguard against fabrication – Held: Delay casts serious doubt on authenticity of prosecution’s story [Paras 27-31]

Forensic Evidence – Cause of Death – Post-mortem reports inconclusive – Cause of death stated as uncertain in absence of forensic confirmation of poisoning – Viscera preserved but no chemical analysis report proved – Recovery of Pepsi bottle disputed and not witnessed by Jail Superintendent – Court held absence of scientific proof of poisoning fatal to prosecution case [Paras 14-17, 32]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 302/34 and 328 IPC set aside – Appellants acquitted – Sureties and bail bonds discharged subject to Section 437-A CrPC compliance.

Domestic Violence – Shared Household – Right of Residence – Section 2(s) read with Section 17, PWDV Act – Wife began residing at property owned by her in-laws immediately after marriage – Held: Property qualifies as “shared household” irrespective of ownership – Right of residence under Section 17 not dependent on title – Once aggrieved person has lived there in a domestic relationship, protection from dispossession can be granted – Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja, (2021) 1 SCC 414, followed; S.R. Batra v. Taruna Batra, (2007) 3 SCC 169, overruled [Paras 11–14, 28].

Ownership of In-laws – Effect on Residence Right – Property purchased and registered in name of father-in-law held to be self-acquired – Still constitutes shared household for purpose of protection under DV Act – Ownership is immaterial for Section 17 protection so long as relationship and cohabitation exist – Civil decree on title (even if stayed) has no bearing on right of residence [Paras 13–14].

Domestic Relationship – Termination of Cohabitation – Whether destroys right to reside – Held: No – Section 2(f) includes relationships where parties “have at any point of time lived together” – Right of residence continues to protect woman even after separation, till eviction through due process of law [Para 14].

Residence Orders – Power of Magistrate – Sections 17 & 19 PWDV Act – Magistrate empowered to restrain dispossession and alienation – Directions do not confer ownership but preserve possession until due process is followed – Restraint on alienation falls within Section 19(1)(d) – Challenge to such restraint unsustainable [Paras 15, 28].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Limited Scope – Sections 397/401 CrPC – High Court cannot reappreciate evidence or admit fresh evidence – Findings of Mahila Court and Appellate Court upheld as reasoned and based on record – Electricity bills produced for first time in revision rejected as extraneous [Paras 8, 19–20].

Physical Residence – Electricity Consumption as Proof – Low electricity usage not conclusive proof of non-occupation – Findings of actual residence by lower courts based on evidence cannot be disturbed – Weak inference cannot rebut statutory protection [Paras 17–20].

Balance of Interests – Coexistence – Both parties occupying separate floors (Respondent on ground floor, Petitioner on first floor) – Arrangement ensures protection to daughter-in-law and peaceful residence to senior citizen – Equilibrium achieved consistent with Section 19 PWDV Act and proportionality principle [Paras 23–25].

Alternate Relief – Section 19(1)(f) – Though Court could have directed alternate accommodation, choice to preserve possession till due process not perverse – Judicial discretion properly exercised; no interference warranted [Paras 26–27].

Civil Proceedings – Pendency before Civil Court and Supreme Court – Does not oust jurisdiction under DV Act – Sections 17, 19, and 26 allow parallel protective remedies – Residence order independent of proprietary adjudication [Para 27].

Decision: Revision petitions dismissed – Concurrent findings of Trial and Appellate Courts upheld – Property qualifies as shared household under Section 2(s) – Respondent’s right of residence under Sections 17 and 19 sustained – Restraint against dispossession and alienation confirmed – Observations confined to protection under DV Act; title and mesne profits left to be decided in civil proceedings – No order as to costs [Paras 28–30].

Criminal Law – Quashing - Bank Loan Fraud – Diversion of Loan Funds – Further Investigation – Accused company (HCCPL) and its directors alleged to have diverted Rs.15 crore project loan from erstwhile SBT (now SBI) by selling mortgaged properties without bank's consent – CBI initially excluded bank officials from prosecution citing lack of mens rea – Special Judge rejected CBI’s request to drop PC Act charges and directed further investigation – Held: Special Judge rightly found material suggesting complicity or willful neglect on part of bank officials – Further investigation justified [Paras 4–6, 13, 15]

Criminal Procedure – Role of Public Servants – CBI’s report described conduct of bank officials as negligent but lacking dishonest intention – However, Special Judge found unexplained silence and procedural violations by officials in allowing the borrower to operate outside mandated norms like escrow account requirement – Held: Dereliction of duty without criminal intent insufficient basis to shield officials from further scrutiny – Deeper inquiry mandated [Paras 12–14, 17]

Corporate Loan Disbursement – Escrow Account – Lax Monitoring – Loan extended to HCCPL without opening escrow account – Flats sold without bank consent and sale proceeds routed through third-party banks – CBI failed to investigate critical lapses – Trial court rightly observed that institutional failures merited reinvestigation – Escrow account norms were industry standard and failure to enforce indicated serious oversight [Para 16]

Maintainability – Accused Lacking Locus to Challenge Investigation Against Co-accused – Petition filed by Managing Director of HCCPL (A1) to quash order for further investigation against bank officials – Court held that A1 had no standing to contest reliefs denied to others – Filing of petition seen as attempt to shield co-accused – Revealed apparent collusion between borrower and bank staff – Petition not maintainable [Paras 23–24]

Decision:

Petition dismissed – Special Court’s direction for further investigation upheld – Interim stay vacated – CBI directed to complete further investigation and submit report within two months [Para 25]

Family Law – Partition Suit – Legal Heirship Disputed – Respondent-plaintiff claimed share in ancestral property as son of Godari Beeraiah through second wife Banamma – Trial court decreed the suit based on declarations and oral evidence – Appellate court found no conclusive proof of legal marriage between Beeraiah and Banamma – Plaintiff failed to produce birth certificate, school records or examine his mother who was alive – Held: Plaintiff failed to establish status as legal heir – Trial court’s decree set aside [Paras 7, 19–31]

Evidence Act – Section 50 and 60 – Relationship by Conduct – Court reiterated that opinion expressed by conduct must be proved by direct evidence under Section 60 – Conduct must relate to person having special means of knowledge – Held: Mere declarations or documents based on self-declaration (Exs.A7–A17) do not constitute conclusive proof – Referred Dolgobinda Paricha v. Nimai Charan Misra [AIR 1959 SC 914] [Paras 15, 26]

Limitation – Partition Suit Barred – Plaintiff filed suit 13 years after death of alleged father without reasonable explanation for delay – No prior assertion of rights or legal notice issued – Held: Suit barred by limitation and indicates lack of bona fides [Paras 3.1, 30]

Documentary Evidence – Public Documents and Presumptions – Certified copies of voter lists, gas records, and employment documents (Exs.A7–A17) relied on by plaintiff were based on self-declared data – Held: Not sufficient to displace legal burden to prove relationship – Absence of school records, birth certificate, and pedigree registers noted – [Paras 16, 26]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Trial court decree set aside – Respondent-plaintiff’s suit for partition dismissed – No costs – Interim orders vacated – Miscellaneous applications closed [Paras 31–32]

NDPS Act – Bail – Joint Bank Account with Accused – Allegation of Financing – Petitioner arrested based on deposits made by her father in joint account, without recovery of contraband or direct involvement in drug trafficking – Held: Mere receipt of proceeds, without evidence of intentional aid or operational financing of illicit drug activity, does not constitute offence under Section 27A NDPS Act – Bail granted [Paras 2, 10-11, 14-15]

NDPS Act – Section 29 – No Prima Facie Case of Abetment – Petitioner alleged to have received proceeds from drug trade – No overt act or instigation attributed – Court held that passive receipt of money without intentional facilitation does not amount to abetment – Application of Section 29 not attracted in absence of active complicity [Paras 12-13]

Criminal Procedure – Bail – Principles Reiterated – Court relied on guidelines laid down in Pinki v. State of U.P., (2025) 7 SCC 314 and other precedents – Factors including gravity of offence, prima facie evidence, and possibility of tampering with investigation considered – Held: Petitioner entitled to bail due to lack of direct nexus to drug trafficking [Paras 8-9]

Interpretation – ‘Financing’ under NDPS Act – Citing Rhea Chakraborty v. Union of India, 2021 CrLJ 248 – Court held that 'financing' must involve conscious and operational monetary support to sustain or promote the illicit drug trade – Mere monetary deposit by another in joint account insufficient to attract Section 27A [Paras 10-11]

Decision: Bail granted – Petitioner directed to furnish ₹1,00,000 bail bond with one surety – Subject to conditions including no tampering with evidence, attending trial regularly, and disclosing change of address or contact details – Petition disposed of.

Civil Law - Succession Law – Revocation of Probate – Section 263 – Illustrative Scope – Division Bench held that the five explanations under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act are illustrative and not exhaustive – Court emphasized that “just cause” is a flexible standard designed to empower courts to intervene in varied situations where revocation may be warranted in the interests of justice – Held: The term “just cause” allows for wider judicial discretion beyond the listed explanations [Paras 29–32, 36–38].

Interpretation – Explanation Clauses – Purpose and Effect – Explanation to Section 263 does not control or restrict the scope of the main provision – Cited authoritative principles of statutory interpretation to affirm that explanations elucidate rather than limit or expand the operative provision – Held: The deeming fiction in the Explanation identifies certain situations as “just cause” but does not preclude other factual scenarios from being so held [Paras 21–28, 30–31].

Statutory Construction – Purposive Interpretation – While interpreting Section 263, Court applied the doctrine of purposive construction – Held: Legislative change in phraseology from “just cause is” (in prior Acts) to “just cause shall be deemed to exist” (in 1925 Act) indicates intent to broaden judicial discretion – A restrictive reading would defeat the provision’s purpose of ensuring fair probate proceedings [Paras 17–20, 27–33].

Probate Law – Procedural Lapses and Revocation – Default in removal of office objections by caveator’s counsel led to dismissal of caveat – Petitioner filed for revocation citing suspicious circumstances of death and invalid execution of Will (attestation not in presence of testator) – Held: Even if caveat was dismissed, substantive objections that point to a defective grant can constitute “just cause” under Section 263 – Revocation may be justified if trial is required to examine such allegations [Paras 34–35].

Precedent Overruled – George Anthony Harris v. Millicent Spencer and Sharad Shankarrao Mane v. Ashabai Shripati Mane – Division Bench overruled the restrictive interpretation in these earlier judgments – Held: They do not lay down the correct law on the scope of Section 263 – View of Justice Manish Pitale that explanations are illustrative upheld [Paras 3, 36, 38(C)].

Decision: Reference answered – Explanations to Section 263 are illustrative – Circumstances beyond explanations (a) to (e) may form “just cause” – Earlier decisions taking contrary view overruled – Matter remitted to Single Judge for further proceedings.

Criminal Law – Corporal Punishment by Teacher – Quashing of Proceedings – No Mens Rea – Bona Fide Act to Enforce Discipline – Proceedings Quashed – Accused, a school teacher, allegedly caned students involved in a fight in the classroom – Victim, a minor, stated that teacher beat only those involved, and only on their legs – No medical treatment taken – Delay of four days in reporting incident – No injuries found – Held: Teacher acted in bona fide exercise of disciplinary authority, no intent to cause harm – Acts fall within protective scope of Sections 88 and 89 IPC – Prosecution under Section 324 IPC and Section 75 JJ Act not maintainable [Paras 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10].

Juvenile Justice Act – Section 75 – Application to Teachers – Intent and Severity Key – No Unlawful Conduct When Discipline Enforced Reasonably – Teacher’s action lacked cruelty or excessive force – Courts held implied authority exists where parents entrust child to teacher – Bona fide disciplinary action not covered under Section 75 JJ Act in absence of intent to harm or evidence of injury [Paras 7, 8].

Delay in Filing Complaint – No Justification Provided – Prosecution Viewed with Suspicion – Incident occurred on 16.09.2019 – Complaint lodged only on 20.09.2019 without explanation – No medical evidence – Delay reinforces defence version and supports quashing [Para 10].

Judicial Precedents – Corporal Punishment by Teachers – Qualified Protection Recognised – Relied on K.A. Abdul Vahid v. State of Kerala, 2005 (2) KLT 72; Rajan @ Raju v. Sub Inspector of Police, 2019 (1) KLT 119; and Jomi v. State of Kerala, 2024 (2) KLD 230 – Held: Disciplinary action taken without malice or disproportionate force is not criminal [Paras 5–7].

Decision: Criminal Miscellaneous Case allowed – Proceedings in S.C. No. 577 of 2023 before the Additional Sessions Judge-I (Special Court), Palakkad, arising from Crime No. 585/2019 of Vadakkancherry Police Station, quashed – Teacher held to have acted within lawful disciplinary authority [Final Para].