Public Trusts – Suit for Possession – Consent of Charity Commissioner – Sections 50 and 51, Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 – Maintainability of Suit by Trustees – Trustees, as natural legal owners of trust property, are competent to sue for recovery of possession from trespassers without prior written consent of the Charity Commissioner – Section 50 is an enabling, not restrictive, provision conferring additional rights upon beneficiaries or the Charity Commissioner – Consent under Section 51 required only for “persons having interest in the trust,” not for trustees – Trustees’ common law right to protect trust property unaffected [Paras 25–29, 35].

Charity Commissioner – Jurisdiction – Section 80, Bombay Public Trusts Act – Scope – Charity Commissioner has no power to adjudicate on trespass or recovery of possession of trust property – Hence, civil court’s jurisdiction not barred – Suit for possession maintainable [Paras 36–39].

Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Rejection of Plaint – Non-joinder of Necessary Party – Housing Society not necessary party in a suit for possession against trespassers or co-owners – Non-joinder not a ground for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC [Para 40].

Interpretation – Distinction between Maharashtra and Gujarat Public Trusts Acts – Though Section 50 of BPT Act (Gujarat) refers to “any person including one holding adversely to the public trust,” it remains an enabling provision – Does not curtail trustees’ inherent power to sue trespassers – Consent requirement applies only to non-trustees or persons interested [Paras 19–21, 27–29].

Precedents – Reliance on Binding Authority – Division Bench ruling in Amirchand Tulsiram Gupta v. Vasant Dhanaji Patil (1992 SCC OnLine Bom 4) and Gujarat High Court decision in Nadiad Nagarpalika v. Vithalbhai Zaverbhai Patel (AIR 1980 Guj 161) followed – Trustees can maintain suit without Charity Commissioner’s consent – Earlier judgment in Shri Hari Ashram v. Khushalbhai Bhawan Kawa reaffirmed [Paras 22–26].

Decision: Application for rejection of plaint dismissed – Held that trustees can sue for recovery of possession of trust property without consent of Charity Commissioner – No bar under Section 80 of BPT Act – Non-joinder of Housing Society not fatal – Application misconceived and rejected [Paras 35, 39–42].

Senior Citizens Act, 2007 – Section 23(1) – Void Transfer – Gift Deed executed by senior citizen in favour of son and grandson declared void – Tribunal found that donees failed to maintain and provide necessities to the transferor – Held, express recital in gift deed that transferee shall maintain transferor not necessary – Such expectation is implicit when transfer made out of love and affection in evening of life – Non-maintenance attracts deeming fiction of fraud, coercion or undue influence – Gift rightly declared void [Paras 18–25, 33–36].

Maintenance of Senior Citizens – Condition Precedent under Section 23 – Two conditions must co-exist: (i) transfer of property by way of gift or otherwise subject to condition of maintenance, and (ii) refusal or failure to provide maintenance – Such condition can be implied from nature of relationship and surrounding circumstances – Execution of gift during senior citizen’s hospitalization for cancer showed vulnerability and coercion – Neglect thereafter established from record – Deeming fiction validly invoked [Paras 22–28, 33–35].

Interpretation – Beneficial Legislation – Senior Citizens Act to be liberally construed to protect aged persons from neglect and deprivation – Courts must adopt purposive construction advancing legislative intent of securing welfare and dignity of elders – Technical arguments regarding absence of recital or strict proof cannot defeat object of statute [Paras 24–25].

Procedural Fairness – Opportunity of Hearing – Petitioners’ claim that no sufficient opportunity was given before Tribunal rejected – Petitioners failed to produce material in initial proceedings and cannot later claim violation of natural justice – Summary procedure under Section 8 intended to ensure expeditious relief to senior citizens [Paras 29–31].

Execution of Order – Eviction of Transferees – Petitioners evicted from subject flat pursuant to Tribunal’s order – Petitioners allowed three weeks to remove their belongings – Tribunal’s execution order not arbitrary or excessive given proven neglect of senior citizen [Paras 35, 38].

Case Law Explained – Sudesh Chhikara v. Ramti Devi, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1684 – Conditions for invoking Section 23(1) restated – Urmila Dixit v. Sunil Sharan Dixit, applied – beneficial construction emphasised – Varinder Kaur v. Kaljit Kaur, Delhi High Court, followed – human conduct and implied obligation of care form foundation for invoking Section 23(1) [Paras 23–25, 32].

Decision:

Writ Petition dismissed – Orders of Maintenance Tribunal (06.05.2025) and Appellate Authority (14.08.2025) upheld – Gift Deed dated 24.08.2022 declared void – Senior citizen entitled to retain possession of flat – Petitioners granted three weeks to remove belongings – Rule discharged.

Criminal Law – Abetment of Suicide – Prima Facie Evidence – Summoning Upheld – Petitioner was summoned as additional accused under Section 319 CrPC in FIR registered under Section 306 IPC for abetting suicide of complainant’s brother – Suicide note and PW-1 testimony alleged continuous harassment and beatings by petitioner due to alleged illicit relationship with deceased’s wife – Held: Material on record, including suicide note and corroborative testimony, sufficient to meet prima facie threshold under Section 319 CrPC – Power rightly exercised – Petition dismissed [Paras 1–14].

Criminal Procedure – Section 319 CrPC – Scope and Threshold – Strong Prima Facie Evidence Required – Reaffirmed that the power under Section 319 CrPC is extraordinary and to be used sparingly – Must be exercised only when strong and cogent evidence appears against a person not already an accused – Evidence must be such that, if unrebutted, it may lead to conviction – Reference made to Hardeep Singh and Sukhpal Singh Khaira decisions on proper procedure and satisfaction standard under Section 319 [Paras 6–8].

Criminal Law – Section 306 IPC – Instigation and Proximate Causation – Ingredients Satisfied – Allegations against petitioner not limited to extra-marital affair but extended to active physical and mental harassment of deceased – Suicide note mentioned repeated beatings and humiliation – Held: These acts created a proximate link to suicide and satisfied ingredients of Section 306 read with Section 107 IPC [Paras 9–11].

Distinguishing Precedents – Petitioner’s Case Found Factually Different – Petitioner’s reliance on Mahendra Aware, Prakash, and Jayedeepsinh rejected – Held: Those cases lacked specific allegations or direct causal connection unlike present case where suicide note and testimony directly implicated petitioner in active harassment [Para 12].

Revisional Jurisdiction – No Interference Without Perversity or Illegality – Citing Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, reiterated that revisional powers must be exercised sparingly and only where there is manifest illegality or perversity – Found none in impugned order summoning petitioner [Para 13].

Decision: Criminal revision petition dismissed – Order dated 05.05.2025 passed by Additional Sessions Judge summoning petitioner under Section 319 CrPC upheld – No infirmity or illegality found – Petitioner to face trial along with co-accused.

Family Law – Divorce – Ex Parte Decree – Special Marriage Act – Decree set aside – Marriage dissolved by Family Court based on unchallenged testimony of husband after wife failed to file written statement and remained absent – Held: Even in absence of contesting party, Family Court must assess evidence on merits and provide reasoned findings – Mere non-appearance or failure to file written statement not sufficient to decree divorce – Trial Court’s reliance solely on absence of wife without independent assessment of cruelty allegations rendered judgment perverse – Judgment set aside and matter remanded for fresh trial [Paras 10-16].

Civil Procedure – Duty of Court in Ex Parte Proceedings – Trial Court must scrutinize pleadings and evidence even when defendant is ex parte – Decree cannot be automatic – Reiterated that evidence must be evaluated independently and findings must be recorded with reasons – Failure to do so amounts to miscarriage of justice [Paras 11-12, 15].

Appellate Intervention – Remand Ordered – Matter restored to original file to allow appellant-wife to file written statement – Both parties granted opportunity to lead and test evidence afresh – Trial Court directed to complete proceedings within nine months [Paras 16-17].

Subsequent Remarriage – No Bar to Appellate Relief – Fact that respondent-husband remarried during pendency of appeal does not prevent appellate court from setting aside a perverse and unreasoned decree – Rule of law must prevail over subsequent developments [Para 18].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Decree of divorce set aside – Matter remanded to Family Court from the stage of written statement – Trial to proceed afresh – No costs [Paras 19-20].

Motor Accident Claim – Compensation – Quantum – Pain and Suffering – Modification of Award – Tribunal awarded ₹7,60,000 with 7% interest – Appellant (Insurance Co.) challenged the award as excessive and based on planted vehicle – Claimant filed cross-objection for enhancement – High Court held: ₹5,00,000 awarded for pain and suffering justified in light of 55% disability (pelvic fracture and urethral injury), but ₹2,00,000 awarded for loss of amenities reduced to ₹1,50,000 – Total compensation revised to ₹7,10,000 with 7% interest from date of filing [Paras 10–12].

Motor Accident – Delay in FIR – Not Fatal – Medical Emergency Justified Delay – FIR was lodged with delay showing involvement of unknown vehicle – Insurance Company alleged false implication – Court held that delay due to medical emergency and hospitalisation is not fatal – Tribunal rightly rejected allegation of planting of vehicle – Charge-sheet and testimony of injured supported claim [Paras 7–9].

Motor Accident – Permanent Disability – Functional Disability Rejected – No Loss of Income Granted – Claimant suffered 55% physical disability (spine and hip) but failed to prove functional disability or reduced earning capacity – Tribunal rightly declined compensation for loss of income or promotion denial – High Court upheld [Paras 6, 8A].

Cross-Objection – Enhancement Claim – Rejected for Lack of Evidence – Claimant alleged loss of salary due to reversion from medical category B-1 to C-1 – Tribunal found no evidence of functional impairment or reduced pay – High Court declined to enhance compensation [Para 8A].

Decision:

Appeal partly allowed – Tribunal's award modified – Total compensation reduced from ₹7,60,000 to ₹7,10,000 with interest @7% p.a. from 25.03.2015 till realization – If not paid within 8 weeks, penal interest @9% shall apply – Cross-objection dismissed – No costs.

Service Law – Public Employment – Merit-Based Selection – Appointment Denied Arbitrarily – Writ Allowed – Petitioner participated in counselling for post of Constable (General Duty) – Though he ranked higher in merit (sl.no. 1570), he was denied appointment on grounds of exhausting district-wise vacancies – Candidate ranked lower (sl.no. 1592) given appointment in different district – Held: Once State allowed higher-ranked candidates to choose among available districts, it could not deny that option to similarly placed petitioner – Discrimination and arbitrariness in State action – Petition allowed with directions to appoint petitioner [Paras 4–7].

Constitution of India – Articles 14 and 16 – Equality in Public Employment – Violation Established – State failed to maintain fairness by not following uniform criteria for counselling and allocation – Higher merit candidate deprived of opportunity given to lower merit candidate – Held: Action violative of Articles 14 and 16 – Constitutional guarantee of equal treatment breached [Paras 6–7].

Administrative Law – Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation – State Bound by Own Procedure – Once counselling mode was adopted and followed for prior candidates, petitioner acquired legitimate expectation to be treated similarly – State cannot arbitrarily alter stand mid-process without justification – Breach of procedural fairness [Para 6].

Constitutional Remedies – Writ of Mandamus – Issued to Secure Appointment – High Court issued mandamus directing respondents to offer appointment to petitioner in light of his merit and past conduct of State – Delay caused not attributable to petitioner – Directions issued for compliance within two months [Para 8].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Respondents directed to offer appointment to petitioner as Constable (General Duty) within two months – Appointment to be treated as fresh for all purposes – No back wages – Petitioner entitled to continuity for pensionary benefits if otherwise eligible – Pending applications disposed of.

Criminal Law – Murder – Circumstantial Evidence – Conviction Confirmed – Appellant convicted for the murder of his wife by inflicting a fatal head injury with a hammer – Sole eyewitness (daughter) turned hostile – Statement under Section 164 CrPC not relied upon as substantive evidence – Chain of circumstantial evidence complete and consistent with guilt – Blood-stained hammer and marble cutter recovered from spot – Forensic evidence corroborated injuries – Appellant's presence with deceased in room not disputed – Failure to offer plausible explanation under Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act constituted an additional incriminating circumstance – Held: Conviction under Section 302 IPC proper [Paras 12–33].

Evidence Law – Section 164 CrPC – Hostile Witness – Statement not substantive evidence – PW-5 (daughter) turned hostile and retracted from her statement under Section 164 CrPC – Trial court did not rely on the 164 CrPC statement as substantive evidence – Only used for limited corroboration – Conviction not based on such statement [Paras 12–13].

Criminal Law – Section 309 IPC – Attempt to Commit Suicide – Valid Conviction – Medical evidence confirmed simple incised wound on neck of appellant – Injury consistent with self-infliction – Possibility of use of marble cutter ruled in – Conviction under Section 309 IPC upheld – Section 309 continues to be valid despite prior repeal attempt [Paras 31–32].

Criminal Law – Burden of Proof – Section 106 Evidence Act – Failure to Explain Circumstances – Adverse Inference Drawn – Deceased found dead within four walls of matrimonial home – Appellant failed to offer any acceptable version of events – Defence theory of third-party intrusion found to be improbable – Held: Failure to explain incriminating circumstances warranted conviction [Paras 25–30].

Motive – Suspicion on Wife's Chastity – Frequent Domestic Quarrels – Evidence from family members showed appellant habitually suspected wife’s character – Such motive supported the prosecution’s case and explained intent – Held: Proof of motive reinforced the circumstantial evidence [Paras 20–21, 30].

Decision:

Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 302 and 309 IPC confirmed – No interference warranted by appellate court.

Criminal Law – Abetment of Suicide – Section 306 IPC – Husband convicted for abetting wife’s suicide and mother-in-law convicted under Section 498A IPC – Wife consumed poison at her parental home – Allegation only that husband told wife not to put sindoor of his name on her head – No other evidence of cruelty or instigation – Held: Mere utterance without intention to provoke suicide does not constitute instigation under Section 107 IPC – Active or direct act of abetment required – Conviction unsustainable [Paras 10–12].

Criminal Law – Cruelty – Section 498A IPC – No evidence of sustained mental or physical cruelty or harassment to drive deceased to suicide – Witness contradictions and absence of corroborative material noted – Prosecution failed to prove ingredients of Section 498A IPC beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction set aside [Paras 13].

Criminal Procedure – Revisional Jurisdiction – Sections 397 and 401 CrPC – High Court can interfere where concurrent findings are perverse or contrary to evidence – Revisional Court not bound to re-appreciate evidence as second appeal but can quash convictions if legal ingredients of offence not proved [Paras 8–9].

Decision: Revision application allowed – Judgment of conviction dated 04.11.2004 in Sessions Case No.92 of 2002 and judgment dated 19.11.2005 in Criminal Appeal No.33 of 2004 quashed and set aside – Applicants acquitted of all charges under Sections 306 and 498A IPC – Rule made absolute [Para 13].

Criminal Law – Economic Offences – Anticipatory Bail – Alleged Ponzi Scheme – Sections 406, 409, 420 IPC and MPID Act – Applicant accused of being part of financial fraud involving over ₹1.13 crore collected through investment scheme – Co-accused (husband and wife, main operators of company) already granted anticipatory bail – Entire amount deposited before Sessions Court for refund to investors – Held: Allegations against applicant limited to disseminating information via laptop – Custodial interrogation not required – Bail granted subject to conditions [Paras 2–8].

Criminal Procedure – Anticipatory Bail – Section 438 CrPC – Scope – Prior anticipatory bail application withdrawn to rectify omission of antecedents – Court found no significant role attributed to applicant and noted that financial loss to investors had been mitigated – Balance of convenience favoured grant of anticipatory bail [Paras 3, 6–8].

Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors Act – Compliance and Refund – Full amount involved in fraudulent investment scheme already deposited in court – No objection from main accused to refund – Investor interest protected – Held: Relevant factor for grant of bail [Paras 5, 8].

Decision: Anticipatory bail granted – Applicant to be released on bail in the event of arrest on furnishing PR bond of ₹1,00,000 with one or two sureties – Conditions imposed including cooperation with investigation, no tampering with evidence or contact with witnesses, and no travel abroad without permission – Application disposed [Para 8–9].