Matrimonial Law - Matrimonial Status - Family Courts Act 1984 - Section 7 - Declaration of Divorce - Appellant-husband sought formal declaration of marital status as divorced after pronouncing three notices of Talaq-e-hasan and paying Mehar - Respondent-wife filed written statement and affidavit admitting the divorce and consenting to the decree - Family Court dismissed the suit holding it barred by Section 34 Specific Relief Act and Section 20 CPC as the divorce was unchallenged and no specific necessity for declaration was shown - High Court set aside the order finding it perverse - Held - Family Court has jurisdiction under Section 7 to endorse extra-judicial divorce and declare marital status to maintain public record - detailed enquiry is not required in uncontested proceedings where the factum of Talaq is admitted - appeal allowed and suit decreed - [Paras 1-34].

Evidence Law - Judicial Admission - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 20 - Best Proof - Respondent-wife admitted receipt of three Talaq notices and payment of Mehar in her written statement and oral evidence as DW-1 - Family Court found factum of Talaq proved yet refused decree for lack of cause of action - Held - Admissions in pleadings or judicial admissions stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions - Court can pass judgment at any stage based on undisputed admissions - Family Court erred in refusing decree despite recording finding that divorce was proved and undisputed - [Paras 25-30].

Muslim Law - Extra-judicial Divorce - Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act 1937 - Section 2 - Talaq-e-hasan - Husband pronounced divorce via three notices at monthly intervals following failed conciliation through Darul Kaza - Darul Uloom Nadwatul Ulema certified the dissolution - Held - Extra-judicial divorce is a valid mode of dissolution of marriage under Muslim Personal Law - judicial endorsement of such status is not merely desirable but imperative for clear and definite marital status in a civilised society - [Paras 11-19, 31].

Family Courts - Jurisdiction - Family Courts Act 1984 - Section 7 - Scope of Enquiry - Lower court dismissed suit citing lack of challenge to the extra-judicial divorce - High Court followed guidelines from Kerala High Court regarding endorsement of extra-judicial divorce - Held - role of Family Court in such cases is limited to ascertaining valid pronouncement - no further enquiry as in adversarial litigation is contemplated if the Court is prima facie satisfied - proceedings for declaration of status are cognizable and well-founded in law - [Paras 20-21, 33-34].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and order dated 20.05.2025 passed by Additional Principal Judge Family Court Lucknow set-aside – Suit No. 3872 of 2024 decreed – Matrimonial status of parties declared as divorced.

Criminal Law – Quashing of Proceedings – Section 482 CrPC – Criminal complaint arising out of landlord–tenant/property dispute – Petitioners sought quashing of complaint case alleging offences under Sections 447/448/504/506/379/34 IPC – Civil suits between parties regarding declaration of tenancy, possession and injunction already pending – Held: Where allegations are omnibus, lack specific role attribution and arise from a longstanding civil dispute over possession of premises, continuation of criminal proceeding would amount to abuse of process of court – Proceedings liable to be quashed [Paras 12-15, 18-20].

Civil Dispute vs Criminal Liability – Property/Tenancy Dispute – Opposite party claimed tenancy in respect of a chamber allegedly inherited from his father while petitioners asserted that original tenancy was in favour of father for a shop room and that opposite party was a trespasser – Several civil suits including suits for declaration, injunction and defamation pending between parties – Held: Determination whether opposite party is tenant or trespasser is purely within domain of civil court and criminal process cannot be used to settle such civil disputes unless essential ingredients of offences are made out [Paras 12-14, 18].

Complaint Allegations – Omnibus Accusations – Lack of Specific Role – Complaint alleged that petitioners trespassed into chamber and threatened complainant – However complaint did not specify individual role of accused persons and contained general allegations against four persons including an aged woman – Investigation materials also did not disclose acts constituting alleged offences – Held: Absence of specific allegations and supporting materials indicates that ingredients of alleged offences are not prima facie made out [Para 15].

Magistrate’s Order Taking Cognizance – Application of Mind – Magistrate issued process after examining complainant under Section 200 CrPC without adequately scrutinizing whether allegations and supporting materials disclosed commission of offence – Complaint itself silent about certain allegations later stated in deposition – Held: Issuance of process is a serious matter and requires judicial application of mind; failure to do so vitiates the proceedings [Para 15].

Inherent Powers of High Court – Prevention of Abuse of Process – High Court empowered under Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings where criminal prosecution is used as instrument of harassment or private vendetta – When materials reveal purely civil dispute and criminal colour has been artificially given, continuation of proceedings is liable to be interdicted [Paras 14, 16, 19].

Decision: Criminal Revisional Application Allowed – Complaint Case No. 1892 of 2023 pending before the 9th Court Judicial Magistrate, Alipore under Sections 447/448/504/506/379/34 IPC quashed – Proceedings held to be abuse of process of court – No order as to costs.

Motor Vehicles Act – Compensation – Appeal by Insurance Company and Cross Objection by Claimant – Claimant suffered amputation of left leg after being hit by offending lorry while walking along tram track – Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 11,57,000/- with 8% interest – Insurance company challenged income assessment while claimant sought enhancement citing higher income, 86% disability and future medical expenses – Held: Compensation required enhancement considering evidence regarding occupation, future prospects and cost of artificial limb [Paras 3-6].

Assessment of Income – Determination in absence of documentary proof – Tribunal assessed monthly income at Rs. 12,000/- – Evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.3 indicated claimant worked as taxi driver and earned approximately Rs. 15,000/- per month – Court held that such income was reasonable considering nature of occupation – Monthly income reassessed at Rs. 15,000/- and future prospects added at 30% [Paras 7-8].

Disability Assessment – Medical Board Certificate – Certificate indicated 86% disability but members of Medical Board were not examined before Tribunal – Tribunal considered disability at 50% – Held: Tribunal did not commit error in treating functional disability at 50% in absence of examination of medical board members [Para 6].

Computation of Compensation – Future Prospects – Multiplier Method – With reassessed income of Rs. 15,000/- and addition of 30% future prospects, monthly income taken as Rs. 19,500/- – Annual income calculated at Rs. 2,34,000/- – Considering 50% disability and multiplier of 15 for age of 38 years, loss of earning capacity assessed at Rs. 17,55,000/- – Additional Rs. 2,00,000/- awarded towards pain and suffering, medical expenses including artificial limb and future treatment – Total compensation enhanced to Rs. 20,00,000/- as just and reasonable [Paras 8-9].

Motor Accident Compensation – Modification of Award – Tribunal’s award modified – Claimant held entitled to compensation of Rs. 20,00,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization – Insurance company directed to deposit amount before Registrar General of High Court within eight weeks – Claimant permitted to withdraw upon completion of formalities [Para 10].

Decision: Appeal and Cross Objection disposed of – Judgment and Award dated 24.11.2015 modified – Compensation enhanced from Rs. 11,57,000/- to Rs. 20,00,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from date of filing of claim petition – Insurance Company directed to deposit amount within eight weeks – Claimant permitted to withdraw upon compliance of formalities.

Bail – Economic Offences – AP Liquor Scam – Rs.3,500 Crore – Sections 409, 420, 120-B IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Accused Nos.8, 35 and 36 sought regular bail in connection with alleged large-scale irregularities in Andhra Pradesh excise policy and APSBCL functioning – Accused No.8 alleged to be an Operations Commander managing kickback collections, coercing distilleries, and facilitating laundering of funds abroad – Accused Nos.35 and 36 alleged to have organised and supervised logistics of cash transportation to influence the AP General Elections 2024 – Held: Gravity of offence alone cannot be the sole ground to deny bail where investigation is substantially complete and accused have been in prolonged custody – All three Petitioners entitled to bail subject to stringent conditions [Paras 3, 4, 5, 22, 26].

Bail – Principles Governing Grant – Economic Offences – Factors to be Considered – Court reiterated that considerations for grant of bail include: nature and severity of accusation; reasonable apprehension of witness tampering; likelihood of abscondence; character and standing of accused; and larger public interest – Economic offences constitute a class apart warranting cautious approach, particularly for alleged kingpins, given their impact on national financial health and societal fabric – However, even in grave economic offences, bail is not to be denied as an absolute rule; each case must be decided on its own facts [Paras 15, 16, 17].

Successive Bail Applications – Change in Circumstances – Prolonged Pre-Trial Custody – Article 21 – Charge sheet having been filed and investigation being substantially complete as against the Petitioners, continued pre-trial incarceration without commencement of trial was found to infringe the right to personal liberty under Article 21 – Filing of charge sheet, prolonged custody, and absence of material indicating risk of abscondence or interference with trial constitute sufficient changed circumstances to justify grant of bail in successive applications [Paras 19, 21, 24, 26].

Parity – Co-Accused – Bail Not an Absolute Claim – Principle of Parity – Accused No.38, alleged to be closely connected with Petitioners/Accused Nos.35 and 36, had already been granted bail – Other co-accused similarly placed in terms of allegations were also enlarged on bail – Held: Parity is not an absolute right and applies only where roles are similar; however, in the absence of material distinction justifying differential treatment, continued detention of the Petitioners was not warranted – Parity is focused on the role of the accused in the commission of the crime, not merely on the thread of the same offence [Paras 20, 25].

Bail Conditions – Stringent Safeguards – Upon grant of bail, the Petitioners directed to: execute personal bonds of Rs.1,00,000/- each with two sureties; surrender passports; not leave India without Court's permission; report to Investigating Officer every Saturday; not contact prosecution witnesses or co-accused; disclose all movable and immovable properties within two weeks; not alienate properties identified by prosecution; not publish or disseminate information about the crime till conclusion of trial; and furnish active mobile numbers to the Investigating Agency [Para 27].

Decision: Criminal Petition Nos. 13503 & 13504 of 2025 and 27 of 2026 allowed – Petitioners/Accused Nos. 8, 35 and 36 directed to be released on bail subject to stringent conditions – Observations in the order not to be construed as opinion on the merits of the crime.

Criminal Law – Quashing of Proceedings – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Obscene Posts on WhatsApp – Insult to Modesty of Woman – Sections 509 and 201 IPC, Section 67 IT Act, Section 120(o) Kerala Police Act – The petitioner/accused, a former hotel employee, posted sexually coloured obscene messages targeting CW1 (Human Resources Manager) in a WhatsApp group of present and past employees of the hotel, referring to her private parts and portraying her as a lady of loose morals – He thereafter deleted the posts from his mobile phone to destroy evidence – Held: Prima facie offences under Sections 509 and 201 IPC, Section 67 of the IT Act, and Section 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act are made out – Petition devoid of merit – Dismissed [Paras 2, 5, 6].

Section 509 IPC – Insult to Modesty – WhatsApp Group – Victim Not a Member – Irrelevance – The petitioner contended that Section 509 IPC is not attracted as CW1 was not a member of the WhatsApp group where the objectionable posts were made – Held: Since the posts were published in a group of present and past colleagues of CW1, it was obvious that the act was done with the intention to insult her modesty, as she would inevitably come to know of the posts – Mere non-membership of the victim in the WhatsApp group does not exclude applicability of Section 509 IPC [Para 5].

Destruction of Evidence – Section 201 IPC – Deletion of Posts from Mobile Phone – The petitioner deleted the objectionable posts from his mobile phone after publishing them, with the intention to cause disappearance of evidence – Held: Such deliberate deletion constitutes the offence under Section 201 IPC – Allegations in the final report and accompanying records prima facie establish the offence [Para 6].

Obscenity – Section 67 IT Act – Electronic Media – Trial Court's Role – The act of making obscene posts through electronic media with intent to insult CW1's modesty prima facie attracts Section 67 of the IT Act – Whether the comments constitute obscenity is a question of fact to be decided by the Trial Court after recording evidence – High Court cannot adjudicate the same in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. [Para 6].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Proceedings against the petitioner in C.C. No. 471/2018 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-VIII, Maradu, to continue.

Succession Law – Letters of Administration De-Bonis-Non – Sections 258 & 259 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 – Dispensation Upheld – When an application is made under Sections 258 and 259, a Probate already exists in respect of the Will, and all objections from next of kin would have been considered at the stage of the original grant – In such circumstances, fresh citation to next of kin can be dispensed with – Court held that Order dated 21.08.2009 dispensing with service of citation was correct and valid – Appellant Nandu had previously withdrawn his Caveat and signed a letter to the Prothonotary confirming the Will and consenting to Probate – Held: Service of citation in a Section 258-259 petition is not mandatory where next of kin had already consented or withdrawn their caveats at the original grant stage [Paras 36-39]

Rule 397, Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules – Applicability – Distinguished – Rule 397 mandates notice to all heirs and next of kin except those who have filed consent affidavits – However, this Rule in the context of Section 259 applies to the original grant and not to a subsequent petition for Letters of Administration De-Bonis-Non where Probate has already been granted after due consideration of objections – Reliance by Appellant on Pooja Deepak Patil vs. Savita Vasantrao Patil, (2018) SCC OnLine Bom 3879 held to be distinguishable as that case related to an original Probate grant, not a Section 258-259 application [Paras 33-34, 41-42]

Revocation of Probate – Delay – Miscellaneous Petition Dismissed – Appellant claimed knowledge of T&IJ Petition No.445 of 2008 and the Letters of Administration De-Bonis-Non grant only a few months before filing the Misc. Petition in 2017-18 – Court rejected this claim noting that public notices were issued in three newspapers in June 2010, five registered Deeds of Transfer were executed in June 2010, sons of Vijay had responded to the public notice in July 2010, and Pratap had adopted proceedings in Suit No.438 of 1951 setting out the grant – Alleged harassment by Pratap and sons being young held to be unsupported by evidence and not valid grounds for delay – Held: Miscellaneous Petition was correctly dismissed on the ground of delay [Paras 43-47]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Order dated 19.08.2019 (as corrected by Order dated 05.09.2019) dismissing Miscellaneous Petition No.18 of 2018 upheld – Order dated 21.08.2009 dispensing with service of citation in T&IJ Petition No.445 of 2008 upheld – No order as to costs

Criminal Law – Anticipatory Bail – Murder – Common Intention – Section 103(1) and 3(5) BNS – Petitioner along with co-accused Aman Tiwari and Akhilesh allegedly forcibly shaved half the head of the deceased Manjeet Kumar, wrote humiliating words on the shaved portion with a marker pen, and pushed him from the rooftop causing his death – Petitioner contended false implication, attributed only the role of borrowing the shaving machine, no motive attributed, and key prosecution witnesses PW1, PW2, PW3 having turned hostile – State opposed bail citing serious allegations, ongoing investigation, and risk of witness tampering – Held: Petitioner does not deserve the extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail – Petition dismissed [Paras 1-9].

Anticipatory Bail – Principles – Balancing Individual Rights vs. Societal Interest – Court must equilibrate between safeguarding individual rights and protecting societal interest – Relevant factors include magnitude and nature of offence, role attributed to accused, need for fair and free investigation, and broader impact on society – Where investigation is at a crucial stage and custodial interrogation is necessary to unravel truth and recover incriminating material, anticipatory bail ought not to be granted as it would impede effective investigation [Para 8].

Custodial Interrogation – Necessity – Serious Offences – Marker pen used for writing humiliating words yet to be recovered from petitioner – Statement of barber Ramkumar Thakur during investigation corroborated petitioner's active participation – CCTV footage showing deceased entering the house where accused were present obtained – Whether deceased was pushed or jumped under fear/instigation is a matter to be unearthed during investigation – Held: Custodial interrogation of petitioner is indispensable for effective investigation and to collect further incriminating evidence [Paras 6, 7, 9].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Anticipatory bail refused – Custodial interrogation of petitioner held necessary – Pending applications disposed of – Nothing in the order to be construed as expression of opinion on merits of case/investigation.

Succession Law – Proof of Will – Suspicious Circumstances – Wills Executed Abroad – Two Wills dated 05.04.1999 and 17.04.1999 executed by Dr. M. Leela Rama Krishna Prasad (testator), a doctor settled in the USA, in favour of a private charitable trust were challenged as unproved and surrounded by suspicious circumstances – Trial Court disbelieved the Wills and granted a half share to the testator's widow Smt. Padmaja – On appeal, Division Bench found that D.W.4 (attending physician and attestor), an independent and credible witness of impeccable standing, had proved the execution of the Will dated 17.04.1999, satisfying the requirements of Section 68 of the Evidence Act – Held: The Will of 17.04.1999 is proved and valid – Properties of Dr. Prasad in India to devolve in accordance with the said Will [Paras 23–66].

Proof of Will – Testamentary Capacity – Sound and Disposing Mind – Testator Hospitalised – The testator executed the Will of 05.04.1999 in the afternoon at D.W.4's residence, prior to his hospitalisation in the evening on account of chest pain – Medical records (Ex.A7) showed the testator was actively participating in decisions about his treatment and was improving; doctors had contemplated discharge on 18.04.1999 – Evidence of P.W.2 (forensic specialist) opining that heavy sedation impaired the testator's mental capacity was insufficient to rebut the medical records – Held: Testator was in a sound and disposing mind at the time of executing both Wills [Paras 37–39].

Proof of Will – Custody of Will – Attestation by Indian Consulate in San Francisco – Affidavit of Widow Acknowledging Will – Ambiguity in chain of custody and attestation by the Indian Consulate in San Francisco (instead of Atlanta) noted as suspicious circumstances – However, Smt. Padmaja's own affidavit dated 31.01.2000 (Ex.B6) acknowledged execution of the Will of 17.04.1999 and its attestation by the Consulate – Widow's legal notice of 11.01.2002 sought copies of Wills rather than denying their existence – Held: Taking an overall view, the Wills were executed by Dr. Prasad and reflect his wishes; suspicious circumstances do not warrant rejection [Paras 40–51, 66].

Proof of Will – Non-Examination of Second Attesting Witness – Section 68 Evidence Act – Will of 17.04.1999 attested by D.W.4 and Dr. Amaraneni Swarajya – Only D.W.4 examined – Held: Section 68 requirements are satisfied upon examination of at least one attesting witness alive, subject to process of Court, and capable of giving evidence – Non-examination of K.R.K. Murthy (who was an attesting witness to the Will of 05.04.1999) not fatal, as the Will of 05.04.1999 was superseded by the Will of 17.04.1999 [Paras 34–35].

Proof of Will – Foreign Will – Probate in Foreign Country – Section 213 and 228, Indian Succession Act – Contention that a Will executed in USA must first be probated in an American court before it can be produced in India – Held: Section 228 operates in a situation where a Will already probated abroad cannot be produced in original, and permits letters of administration on certified copy – It does not prohibit production of a Will executed outside India before an Indian court without foreign probate – Courts in Andhra Pradesh do not have jurisdiction to grant probate; hence, Wills executed by Hindus for properties in Andhra Pradesh can always be proved in civil proceedings without probate [Paras 55–59].

Proof of Will – Hague Convention – Conflict of Laws – Form of Testamentary Dispositions – Will executed in USA, relating to immoveable properties in India – Held: Under the Convention on the Conflict of Laws relating to the Form of Testamentary Dispositions (1961), a testamentary disposition is valid as to form if it complies with the law of the place where the immoveable properties are situated – Will of 17.04.1999 being in conformity with Indian law is valid; Convention does not bar its production before an Indian court [Paras 59–61].

Lok Adalat – Challenge by Writ Petition – Jurisdiction – Fraud – Awards obtained by Lok Adalat at Eluru in O.S.Nos.445 and 446 of 2019 directed Sri Hemanth Kumar to execute sale deeds in favour of third parties in respect of properties belonging to the estate of Dr. Prasad – Sri Hemanth Kumar had suppressed the pendency of the appeal, the preliminary decree in O.S.No.69 of 2002, and the fact that he had no individual title over the property – Settlement was entered into in individual capacity, not as power of attorney holder – Held: Such suppression of material facts and deliberate misleading of the Lok Adalat amounts to fraud vitiating the awards – Awards set aside [Paras 71–73, 101–103].

Lok Adalat – Jurisdiction of Court – Section 17 CPC – Cause of Action – Properties Situated in Different Districts – Suits filed in Eluru in relation to properties situated both in West Godavari District and Vijayawada Rural Mandal – Cause of action pleaded pertained only to interference over West Godavari property – No cause of action pleaded in relation to Vijayawada properties – Held: Court in Eluru had no jurisdiction over properties in Vijayawada Rural Mandal; Lok Adalat constituted for Eluru court consequently lacked jurisdiction to pass awards in relation to Vijayawada properties [Paras 94–99].

Public Charitable Trust – Existence – Registration – Endowments Act – Trust created by Will of 17.04.1999 for benefit of mother of testator and thereafter for education and health of deserving persons – Trust never registered with Endowments Department – Held: Under Section 1(3) of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987, all public charitable institutions whether registered or not fall within the Act – Absence of registration does not prevent trust from coming into existence – Trust is a Public Charitable Trust and has come into existence [Paras 76–83].

Public Trust – Joinder of Trustees – Juristic Entity – Section 14 and 29, Endowments Act – Whether all trustees must join in all proceedings – Held: Under Section 14 of the Endowments Act, trust property vests in the institution, conferring juristic personality – Under Section 29(3)(b)(iii), the Executive Officer shall sue or be sued in name of the institution – In absence of an Executive Officer, Trustee can file proceedings – Writ Petitions filed by Trustee on behalf of Trust held maintainable [Paras 84–88].

Sale Deeds – Writ Petition – Registration Act – Sections 81 and 82 – Scope of Enquiry – Enquiry initiated under Section 81 and 82 of the Registration Act into deeds of sale (Doc. Nos. 3567 and 3568 of 2023) executed after death of principal – Held: Sections 81 and 82 do not independently empower cancellation of registered documents – Enquiry may proceed to ascertain infractions and for punitive purposes – Declaration of nullity of a document is within exclusive domain of civil court – Petitioners relegated to O.S.No.1692 of 2023 already filed for cancellation of sale deeds [Paras 89–92, 105–107].

Remand – Implead Petitioners – Rights of Agreement Holders – Agreements of sale executed by power of attorney holder of Dr. Prasad in favour of third parties prior to testator's death – Question of whether power of attorney coupled with interest survived death of principal left open – Held: Rights of implead petitioners over lands under agreements of sale and their possession to be adjudicated afresh by trial court on remand – Scope of enquiry restricted to this aspect only; validity of Will not to be reopened [Paras 116–128].

Decision: AS Nos.645 of 2013 and 707 of 2014 – Will of 17.04.1999 held proved and valid – Properties of Dr. Prasad to devolve in accordance with said Will – Implead petitioners impleaded as respondents for limited purpose – Matters remanded to trial court for determining rights of implead petitioners over claimed lands – W.P. Nos. 3325 & 3807 of 2020 and 15383, 15403 of 2021 allowed; Lok Adalat Awards dated 21.01.2020 set aside – W.P. No. 13966 of 2023 dismissed; Trust at liberty to pursue O.S. No. 1692 of 2023 – W.P. No. 16510 of 2023 disposed of with direction that Section 81/82 enquiry may proceed within its limited scope – C.C. No. 5225 of 2023 closed.

Arms Act – Section 25(1-B)(a) – Possession in Violation of Section 3 – Licence Holders – FIR registered against petitioners who were licensed holders of revolvers on the allegation that their driver clicked photographs with the weapons and posted them on social media — No allegation anywhere in the prosecution case that petitioners acquired, possessed or carried any firearm in contravention of Section 3 of the Arms Act — Held: Offence under Section 25(1-B)(a) not made out against petitioners who are themselves the licence holders [Paras 13, 14].

Arms Act – Section 29(B) – Delivery of Arms to Unauthorised Person – Essential Ingredients – Mens Rea – Section 29 requires actual delivery of arms to a person without ascertaining his entitlement — Prosecution case itself rested on disclosure statement of co-accused that weapons were lying on the bed in petitioner's bedroom and photographs were clicked without physical delivery — No actual delivery of weapon to co-accused established — Moreover, no allegation or instance that weapons were handed over with intent to commit any illegal act — Held: Ingredient of delivery as well as mens rea both absent — Offence under Section 29(B) not made out [Paras 15, 20, 21, 22].

Discriminatory Prosecution – Political Vendetta – Owner of 12-bore gun whose weapon was also photographed by co-accused not prosecuted — No justification shown on record for differential treatment — Petitioner No. 1 is a prominent political figure and member of the opposition party — FIR registered a few months prior to general elections — Held: Discriminatory attitude of Investigating Agency apparent — Prosecution tainted with political vendetta — Case squarely covered by guidelines in Bhajan Lal [Paras 18, 25].

Quashing of FIR – Section 482 CrPC – Bhajan Lal Guidelines – Where allegations in FIR, even if accepted at face value, do not prima facie constitute any offence against the accused, or where criminal proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fides and instituted with an ulterior motive, the High Court may exercise inherent power to quash the FIR — Held: Present case falls within the said parameters — FIR quashed qua petitioners [Paras 23, 24, 25, 26].

Decision: Petition allowed — FIR No. 126 dated 20.04.2019, Police Station Sector-5, District Panchkula, quashed qua the petitioners.