Criminal Law – Criminal Revision Against Framing of Charge - Criminal Conspiracy – Registrar of Cooperative Societies alleged to have approved fraudulent freeze list of members and expulsion of 48 original members of Naval Technical Officers CGHS – File notings showed serious discrepancies, absence of required affidavits, and false audit reports – Held: Material on record establishes grave suspicion of conspiracy and misuse of official position by petitioner – Framing of charge justified [Paras 54-80]

Forgery and Cheating – Petitioner approved freeze list despite internal file notings indicating incomplete and manipulated documents – Membership strength altered from 73 to 277 without supporting documents – Affidavits missing and audit reports based on falsified bank details – Held: Prima facie case made out for forgery, using forged documents, and cheating – Trial required to ascertain extent of complicity [Paras 66-74]

Registrar's Responsibility – Though approval followed hierarchical notings by subordinate officers, petitioner as Registrar was expected to independently verify authenticity of documents and red-flag irregularities – Argument of mechanical signing rejected – Held: Final approval in face of known irregularities demonstrates culpable neglect and active facilitation [Paras 75-81]

Bar of Sanction – Petitioner claimed protection under Section 197 Cr.P.C. and Section 95 of the DCS Act for acts done in official capacity – Held: No sanction required under PC Act as petitioner had retired at the time of cognizance – Protection under Section 95 DCS Act available only for acts done in good faith – Whether petitioner acted in good faith is matter for trial – No bar to prosecution at stage of framing charge [Paras 91-98]

Criminal Conspiracy – Proof – Meeting of minds – No direct evidence of conspiracy alleged – Held: Criminal conspiracy rarely established through direct evidence – Circumstantial evidence showing concerted acts between petitioner and co-accused in approving manipulated list sufficient to infer prima facie conspiracy [Paras 86-88]

Decision: Revision Petition dismissed – Framing of charge under IPC and PC Act upheld – Petitioner's plea of lack of sanction and immunity rejected – Trial to proceed on merits – Observations not binding at final stage [Paras 99-101]

Criminal Law – Murder – Common Intention – Appellants convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC for killing the victim after being confronted for stealing mangoes – Eyewitnesses PW 2 (wife) and PW 3 (sister) consistently deposed to the assault using sharp weapons – Medical evidence corroborated homicidal nature of death – Held: Appellants shared common intention and acted jointly with deadly force – Conviction upheld [Paras 2-6, 13-15, 34-36, 56-57]

Evidence Act – FIR – Omissions and Additions – Written complaint by PW 1 did not name all assailants or specify weapons used – Court held FIR is not an encyclopaedia and minor omissions do not discredit subsequent testimony if corroborated – No contradiction found under Section 11 of Evidence Act – Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra and Goverdhan v. State of Chhattisgarh relied on [Paras 26-33]

Eyewitness Testimony – PW 2 (wife) and PW 3 (sister) were natural witnesses present or nearby during the incident – Court rejected defense arguments of improbability – Held: Their presence was natural and testimony credible despite minor inconsistencies – Their depositions withstood cross-examination [Paras 34-37]

Motive – Prior Enmity – Defense claim of false implication due to enmity rejected – Held: Prior hostility could equally motivate the crime – Prosecution not required to conclusively prove motive where direct evidence exists – Court found motive to be established by circumstances [Paras 38-40, 53]

Circumstantial Evidence – Recovery of Weapons – Spade and shabol recovered near appellants’ houses based on their statements – Though formal Section 27 memorandum missing, recovery supported by independent witnesses and considered valid – Section 8 Evidence Act applied to infer guilty conduct – Recovery held reliable and admissible [Paras 42-50]

Medical Evidence – Cause of Death – PM report revealed eight grievous injuries on head and neck – Doctor ruled out death due to falling trees – Defense theory of accidental death during Cyclone Aila held baseless – Injuries consistent with homicidal assault using sharp weapons [Paras 7, 51-52]

Investigation – Alleged Defects – Failure to send bloodstained clothes or weapons to FSL not fatal – Court held defective investigation does not warrant acquittal where direct and credible evidence exists – State of U.P. v. Wasif Haider distinguished [Paras 54-55]

Burden of Proof – Section 106 Evidence Act – Appellants seen at place of occurrence with weapons immediately after crime – Burden shifted to accused to explain presence and conduct – No explanation offered – Held: Prosecution’s circumstantial case complete – Conviction justified [Paras 44-45]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction under Section 302/34 IPC affirmed – Trial Court judgment upheld – No benefit of doubt to appellants [Para 57]

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Alleged Inflammatory Social Media Message – Communal Harmony – FIR registered under Sections 299 and 353(3) BNS alleging that petitioner circulated an inflammatory WhatsApp message after arrest of his brother under the Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 – Petitioner contended that the message merely expressed resentment over brother’s arrest and faith in judiciary – No inflammatory content per se – Held: Though the message did not explicitly refer to religion, its underlying tone conveyed that the petitioner’s brother was targeted for belonging to a particular religious community – Such message, by its implication, prima facie capable of promoting feelings of enmity and hatred between communities – May not attract Section 353(3) BNS but falls within scope of Section 353(2) BNS – Investigation cannot be interdicted at threshold [Paras 7–9].

Criminal Procedure – Scope of Judicial Interference under Article 226 – FIR discloses prima facie commission of cognizable offence – Quashing at incipient stage would foreclose legitimate investigation – No grounds made out for exercising extraordinary writ jurisdiction [Paras 8–9].

Decision: Petition dismissed – No interference warranted with investigation in Case Crime No. 421 of 2025 – Matter to proceed in accordance with law.

Criminal Law – Regular Bail – Drug Overdose Death – Section 304 IPC – Petitioner accused of causing death of friend by administering excessive intoxicants – Investigation revealed death due to overdose, but unclear whether consumption was voluntary or forced – No criminal antecedents – Petitioner in custody for over two years and five months – Held: Pre-trial incarceration cannot become punishment – Prolonged custody coupled with uncertain trial timeline justifies release on bail [Paras 7–12].

Bail – Article 21 – Right to Personal Liberty – Delay in Trial – Court emphasized that detention of undertrial prisoners for indefinite periods violates Article 21 – Refusal of bail despite long custody risks irreparable loss of liberty – Bail is the rule, jail the exception – Reiterated principles from Hussainara Khatoon and Gudikanti Narasimhulu line of cases [Para 11].

Bail Conditions – Reformative and Proportionate Approach – Bail granted subject to strict conditions: furnishing personal and surety bonds or fixed deposit of ₹10,000; surrender of firearms; no contact with victim’s family or witnesses until completion of evidence; compliance with all statutory obligations – Violation to entail cancellation of bail – Court relied on Mohammed Zubair v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2022 INSC 735, emphasizing proportionality and purpose-driven bail conditions [Paras 14–24].

Investigation – Nature of Allegations – FIR disclosed that deceased died of drug overdose after consuming intoxicant with petitioner and friends in hotel – Prima facie evidence of association but no clarity on compulsion or intent – Pre-trial custody already substantial – Continued incarceration unjustified [Paras 3–9].

Decision: Bail granted – Petitioner to be released on regular bail on furnishing bonds or fixed deposit of ₹10,000 to satisfaction of the concerned court – Subject to compliance with conditions including non-tampering of evidence, non-contact with witnesses, and surrender of firearms – State or victim entitled to seek cancellation upon breach or repetition of offence – Petition allowed [Paras 13–27].

Criminal Law – Gangsters Act – Proceedings Based on Acquitted Base Case – Applicant sought quashing of proceedings under Section 3(1) of the Gangsters Act based on a solitary FIR in which he was later acquitted – Held: Once the accused is acquitted in the base case forming the foundation of gang chart, continuation of prosecution under the Gangsters Act becomes unsustainable – Gangster proceedings quashed as per ratio in Farhana v. State of U.P., 2024 INSC 118 and other High Court precedents [Paras 3, 5-6].

Judicial Precedent – Applicability of Supreme Court Ruling – Court relied on binding precedent of Farhana (Supreme Court) to hold that exoneration in the primary case bars continued prosecution under the Gangsters Act – Also followed prior rulings of Allahabad High Court in Salim @ Piyaoo, Jai Prakash, and Sartaj cases [Para 5].

Criminal Procedure – Quashing of Proceedings – Court quashed the charge sheet, cognizance/summoning order, and entire trial proceedings in Gangsters Act case – Clarified that authorities remain free to initiate fresh proceedings based on any other future or independent cases [Paras 6-8].

Decision: Application allowed – Charge-sheet dated 10.03.2023, cognizance order dated 05.04.2023, and entire proceedings in Session Case No. 249 of 2023 under Gangsters Act quashed as against applicant – Liberty reserved for authorities to initiate action in future based on other grounds or cases [Paras 6-8].

NDPS Act – Bail – Commercial Quantity – Section 37 NDPS Bar Applies – Huge quantity of methamphetamine (8 kg), a 9 mm Sig Sauer pistol with magazines and ammunition recovered from vehicle driven by accused – Confession, videography of recovery, and corroborated documentation including arrest and seizure memo – Held: Prima facie case exists – No reasonable grounds to believe accused is not guilty – Bail barred under Section 37 of NDPS Act [Paras 3, 21–22].

Arrest – Compliance with BNSS Sections 47 and 48 – Constitutional Safeguards under Article 22(1) – Accused claimed arrest memo not under Section 47 BNSS and no family intimation – Court found detailed arrest memo under Section 36 BNSS, grounds of arrest in writing, and communication made to accused’s wife via phone and official intimation to SP Manipur – Admission by accused before Magistrate that family was aware of arrest – Held: Substantial compliance with both Sections 47 and 48 BNSS – No violation of constitutional rights [Paras 4–6, 10–20].

Precedents – Application of Test of Prejudice – Court considered Prabir Purkayastha (2024) and Vihaan Kumar (2025) – Followed later and binding view that written communication of arrest grounds is mandatory – Distinguished State of Karnataka v. Darshan (2025), which applied prejudice test – Held: Arrest legal as grounds communicated and family informed – No procedural lapse causing prejudice [Paras 11–14, 17–19].

Decision: Bail application dismissed – Section 37 NDPS Act bar applies – No procedural illegality or constitutional violation found – Case diary to be returned.

Civil Procedure – Delay in Filing Written Statement – Striking Off Defence – Recall Allowed – Petitioner’s defence struck off under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC for failure to file written statement – Delay attributed to counsel’s engagement in municipal election work – Held: In non-commercial disputes, timeline under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC is directory and not mandatory – Petitioner not to suffer for counsel’s lapse – One last opportunity granted to file written statement with costs of ₹5,000 [Paras 2–3, 7–13].

Court’s Discretion – Non-Commercial Suit – Timeline under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC – Reiterated that in non-commercial cases, courts retain discretion to condone delay – Supreme Court in Desh Raj v. Balkishan, (2020) 2 SCC 708 and Rafiq v. Munshilal, (1981) 2 SCC 788 applied – Held: Procedural laws must be applied to advance justice, not defeat it [Paras 3, 8, 11–13].

Wrong by Counsel – No Prejudice to Litigant – Litigant Should Not Suffer – Court emphasized settled principle that party should not be penalized for counsel’s mistake – Reliance placed on Ram Kumar Gupta v. Har Prasad, (2010) 1 SCC 391 and Ashok Kumar v. New India Assurance Co., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 587 [Paras 8–9].

Distinction from Commercial Disputes – Ratio of J.J. Merchant v. Shrinath Chaturvedi distinguished as inapplicable – Held: That judgment pertained to Consumer Protection Act where statutory timelines are mandatory – Not applicable to civil suits governed by unamended CPC [Para 10].

Decision: Revision petition allowed – Order striking off defence set aside – Petitioner permitted one last opportunity to file written statement on 03.10.2025 upon payment of ₹5,000 to High Court Employees Welfare Association – If hearing does not take place on 03.10.2025, one effective opportunity to be granted on adjourned date [Paras 13–16].

Family Law - Senior Citizens Act – Gift Deed – Cancellation – Section 23(1) – Deemed Condition of Maintenance – Gift deed executed by 88-year-old mother-in-law in favour of daughter-in-law – Tribunal refused to cancel the deed as there was no express condition of maintenance in the document – District Magistrate reversed the decision and directed cancellation – Held: Execution of gift by a senior citizen to a close relative implies expectation of care and maintenance – Failure to provide such care attracts the deeming clause under Section 23 – No requirement of express stipulation in the deed – Tribunal and appellate authority justified in declaring the transfer void [Paras 30–36].

Pleadings – Implied Condition of Maintenance – Gift deed need not contain explicit clause – Condition of care can be inferred from facts, relationship, and contemporaneous conduct – Evidence including letters from the transferor highlighting neglect and abuse sufficient to establish breach of implied condition – Tribunal should consider entire material, not just bare pleadings [Paras 24–29, 31–35].

Interpretation of Beneficial Legislation – Purposeful Construction – Strict literal interpretation of Section 23(1) rejected – Court followed purposive approach to uphold statutory objective of protecting elderly citizens from being deprived of property and dignity – Reference to judgments in Urmila Dixit, Nitin Rajendra Gupta, and Mohamed Dayan affirming broader interpretation favouring senior citizens [Paras 23–29].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment of Single Judge upheld – District Magistrate’s order restoring senior citizen’s property affirmed – Tribunal empowered to declare transfer void even without express condition in the deed – Costs not imposed.

Criminal Law – Quashing - Drugs and Cosmetics Act – Sale of Drugs Without Valid License – Petitioner (Accused No.2), a licensed drug distributor, alleged to have supplied allopathic drugs to Accused No.1, a non-registered practitioner running a clinic without drug license – Proceedings initiated under Sections 18(a)(vi) and 27(d) of the Act of 1940 – Court held that such supply violated the license conditions of the petitioner – Held: Offences prima facie made out – Petition dismissed [Paras 3, 7].

Limitation – Section 468 CrPC – Complaint alleged to be barred as maximum punishment for Accused No.2 is two years – Court held that offences against co-accused (Accused No.1) are punishable up to five years – As per Section 468(3) CrPC, limitation is computed with reference to most severe offence in joint trial – Petition not barred by limitation [Paras 4, 8].

Authority of Complainant – Drug Inspector’s Locus Standi – Petitioner contended that complainant was not notified as Inspector for Gadag Circle under Section 21(1) of the Act – Court held: Once duly notified as Inspector for Shivamogga Circle, subsequent transfer covered under Section 21(2) – No fresh Gazette Notification required for each transfer – Narrow interpretation rejected as impractical and contrary to object of Act – Held: Inspector was competent to file complaint [Paras 9-16].

Cognizance and Trial – Role of Magistrate – Petitioner argued Magistrate lacked jurisdiction to entertain complaint under Section 32 – Court held: Sessions Court alone competent to try offences under Chapter IV of the Act – However, cognizance must be taken by Magistrate and committed under Section 193 CrPC – Held: Complaint properly committed to Sessions Court under Section 209 – No illegality [Paras 17-20].

Special Laws and Cognizance – Comparison with SC/ST Act and PC Act – Court contrasted express cognizance provisions under other special statutes – Noted absence of similar provision in Drugs and Cosmetics Act – Reinforced need for committal procedure via Magistrate – Petitioner's argument rejected [Paras 11-15].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Proceedings against petitioner under Sections 18(a)(vi) and 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 upheld – Complaint held valid in law – Committal to Sessions Court proper – No ground for quashing.