Civil Law - Specific Relief – Readiness and Willingness – Specific Performance – Sale of Immovable Property – Agreement of Sale – Time not Essence – Plaintiff demonstrated continuous readiness and willingness by making multiple payments, issuing legal notices, and attending Sub-Registrar’s office – Defendants received consideration even after agreed deadline of 02.04.2009 – Execution of two registered sale deeds by Defendant No.1 after deadline showed parties mutually extended time – Held: Time not essence of contract – Plaintiff was always ready and willing – Trial Court rightly decreed specific performance [Paras 39–51, 52–66]

Contract Law – Binding Effect of Agreement – Defendant No.1 did not sign original agreement (Ex.A.1) but later accepted sale consideration and executed two registered sale deeds in plaintiff’s favour – Conduct estopped him from denying knowledge or liability under agreement – Held: Defendant No.1 bound by conduct and cannot approbate and reprobate – Specific performance rightly ordered against him [Paras 67–70]

Civil Procedure – Maintainability – Cancellation of Agreement – Defendants' plea that plaintiff’s suit was not maintainable without seeking declaration to set aside cancellation of agreement made in reply notice (Ex.B.4) – Held: Plea not raised in pleadings or trial – No forfeiture clause in agreement – Unilateral cancellation invalid in absence of contractual provision – Such plea cannot be entertained for first time in appeal – Trial Court’s decree upheld [Paras 71–80]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree dated 26.11.2013 in O.S. No. 46 of 2010 confirmed – Plaintiff given one month to pay remaining balance sale consideration of ₹12,76,000 – Defendants directed to execute registered sale deed within two months thereafter – No costs [Para 81].

NDPS Act – Conviction under Sections 17(c)/21(c) – Appeal Partly Allowed – Appellants convicted for possession of commercial quantity of Morphine and Opium – Trial Court imposed 20 years Rigorous Imprisonment and Rs. 2 lakhs fine – High Court finds total compliance of Sections 42(1), 42(2), 50, and 52A NDPS Act – No evidence of manipulation or procedural illegality – However, no specific evidence of aggravating factors under Section 32B – High Court modifies sentence to 12 years imprisonment while maintaining fine [Paras 74–103]

Search and Seizure – Compliance with Section 42 NDPS Act – Information received by PW-3 reduced to writing and forwarded to PW-2 (Superintendent) – PW-2 forwarded it to Zonal Director (PW-6) – Office order issued constituting team for seizure – Held: Provisions of Section 42(1) and 42(2) duly complied with – Defence failed to rebut prosecution evidence on this aspect [Paras 74–76]

Independent Witnesses – Search and Seizure in presence of independent witnesses – Two locals joined during operation, but not examined at trial due to non-traceability – High Court holds compliance with Section 100 CrPC established – Non-examination of independent witnesses not fatal where prosecution evidence is otherwise credible [Para 77]

Body Search – Compliance with Section 50 NDPS Act – Notice served to all four accused before search – Written consent obtained – Accused declined to be searched before Magistrate or Gazetted Officer – Recovery made from bags held by accused, not from their person – Held: Full compliance with Section 50 established – Even otherwise, not mandatory when recovery not from body [Paras 78–81]

Recovery and Evidence Handling – Contraband weighed and sampled on spot – Samples sealed with NCB seal – Deposited in godown and produced in Court – Godown receipts issued and compliance reports filed – FSL report confirms Opium and Morphine with high morphine content – Defence claim of discrepancy in description (powder vs pasty) held immaterial – No tampering or substitution possible as packets opened in Court were sealed [Paras 82–84, 88–89]

Compliance with Section 52A NDPS Act – Panchnama/inventory prepared but not certified by Magistrate – Held: Certification under Section 52A(2) not mandatory unless disposal is sought – Contraband produced in Court during trial in sealed condition – Substantial compliance with Section 52A established – No prejudice to defence [Para 85]

Alteration of Charges – Trial initially proceeded under Section 21(c)/29 NDPS Act – Charge under Section 17(c) added at judgment stage – Court finds accused were aware of both Opium and Morphine recovery – Cross-examined prosecution witnesses accordingly – No prejudice caused – Addition of charge valid under Section 216 CrPC [Para 90]

Recording under Section 313 CrPC – Initial answers to some questions not recorded – Court re-recorded statements with same questions and answers – Accused availed right to adduce defence evidence (DW-1 and DW-2) – Held: No prejudice caused by re-recording [Para 91]

Defence Witnesses – DW-1 and DW-2 examined to disprove arrest of Sohrab Khan from the scene – Court finds contradictions in timing of hotel checkout – DW-1 failed to corroborate presence credibly – DW-2’s hotel documents found incomplete and unconvincing – Defence evidence rejected [Para 92–93]

Sentencing – Maximum punishment of 20 years imposed by Trial Court – Appellants had no prior convictions – No factors under Section 32B NDPS Act present – High Court reduces sentence to 12 years RI while retaining fine – Held: Courts may consider “such factors as it may deem fit” including quantity recovered, but lack of aggravating factors justifies reduction [Paras 94–103]

Decision: Conviction under Sections 17(c)/21(c) NDPS Act upheld – Sentence reduced from 20 years to 12 years Rigorous Imprisonment – Fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- maintained – Default sentence of 1 year RI affirmed – Appeals disposed of accordingly [Para 104]

Consolidation Proceedings – Concurrent Findings – Interference by High Court – Limited Scope – Petitioners challenged orders of Consolidation Officer, Settlement Officer of Consolidation, and Deputy Director of Consolidation denying their claim based on a Will – All authorities recorded concurrent findings that Will was suspicious, not proved, and executed under questionable circumstances – Held: High Court cannot reappreciate evidence under Article 226 unless findings are perverse or without jurisdiction [Paras 2, 8-13].

Will – Suspicious Circumstances – Burden of Proof – Unnatural Exclusion of Heirs – Petitioners claimed ownership under a Will by Kadedeen excluding his minor grandson Kamla Kant – Authorities below found that testator had cordial relations with his family and no reason was shown to exclude grandson – Will was neither proved nor supported by village witnesses – Held: Will rightly disbelieved due to suspicious circumstances and lack of legal proof [Paras 3-4, 10-12].

Procedural Fairness – Framing of Issues – No Prejudice Shown – No Objection at Trial Stage – Petitioners argued no issue framed on validity of Will – However, no objection was raised before Consolidation Officer nor evidence led on Will – Authorities below dealt with the Will despite lack of formal framing – Held: No procedural error justifying remand or interference [Paras 5, 9].

Delay – Laches – Consolidation Proceedings Filed in 1977 – Writ Filed in 1980 – No Attempt to Assert Will-based Rights for Over 20 Years – Petitioners failed to take timely steps to record their names based on Will – Held: Inordinate delay supports presumption against genuineness of Will [Paras 4, 13].

Decision: Writ Petition Dismissed – No case for interference in concurrent findings of fact – No perversity or jurisdictional error found [Para 15].

Criminal Law  – Quashing of FIR and Charge Sheet – Section 195 Cr.P.C. – Proceedings Without Court’s Concurrence Illegal – FIR registered by CBI against petitioner A.G. Ponmanickavel, a former IGP of Idol Wing and Court-appointed Special Officer, based on complaints by R2 (Kader Batcha), who himself was accused in prior idol theft cases – Allegations pertain to fabrication of evidence, intimidation of witnesses, and creation of false records in judicial proceedings – Held: Offences alleged fall under Sections 193, 195A, 196, 211 IPC (now corresponding BNS provisions), which are covered under the bar of Section 195 Cr.P.C. – No complaint from competent court nor prior sanction obtained – Prosecution is without jurisdiction – FIR and charge sheet quashed as they violate mandatory statutory procedure [Paras 28, 31–38, 52, 70, 73, 79, 93, 112–114].

CBI Investigation – Legality of Action Contrary to High Court Orders – Idol Wing Investigation – High Court in W.P. Nos. 20392 & 20963 of 2018 had appointed the petitioner as Special Officer post-superannuation, affirming his service until conclusion of idol theft cases – Specific direction issued that no action or enquiry against petitioner or his team shall be taken without prior concurrence of the Court – CBI proceeded to register FIR, conduct preliminary enquiry, and file charge sheet without seeking court’s approval – Held: Investigation conducted in violation of binding judicial order – Entire process including FIR and charge sheet is in contravention of court-monitored framework and liable to be quashed [Paras 17, 55, 58, 105].

FIR and Charge Sheet – Abuse of Process – False Allegations by Interested Party – Complaint initiated by R2, who was earlier implicated by the petitioner during his tenure as Idol Wing head – Allegations emerged after lapse of several years and during pendency of related proceedings in which R2 sought to reverse the course of prosecution – Held: The timing and nature of allegations raise serious suspicion – Prima facie appears as a counterblast to prior official actions taken by petitioner – FIR and charge sheet amount to malicious prosecution and abuse of legal process – Process of law cannot be used as tool of harassment [Paras 19, 76, 94–96, 98, 106–108].

Natural Justice – Right to Fair Trial – Preliminary Enquiry Report Withheld – Petitioner denied access to preliminary enquiry report filed by CBI before Magistrate – Magistrate rejected request citing pendency of investigation – No privilege or confidentiality claimed – Held: Refusal violates right to fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution – In special circumstances where FIR stems from prior court-directed proceedings, preliminary materials forming basis of FIR cannot be withheld – High Court erred in refusing to furnish the report – Accused must be provided meaningful opportunity to defend [Paras 60–63, 66].

Criminal Procedure – Section 340 Cr.P.C. – Court’s Exclusive Domain – Fabrication of Evidence – Alleged fabrication and falsification of evidence pertain to judicial proceedings – As per Section 195 r/w 340 Cr.P.C., court whose proceedings were allegedly misused must first form an opinion and file a complaint – Police or CBI cannot suo motu register FIR or investigate such offences – Held: Cognizance of alleged offences without prior action from the competent court is barred – Charge sheet filed in contravention of statutory safeguard and non-est in law [Paras 31–38, 52, 70, 73, 79].

Distinct and Integral Offences – Bar under Section 195 Cr.P.C. – CBI invoked Sections 167, 218, 506 IPC to argue these are separable from core offences attracting bar – Held: All allegations form part of same transaction involving alleged misuse of judicial process – Charges not distinct or severable – Bar under Section 195 Cr.P.C. applies in toto – Prosecution cannot split charges to circumvent statutory restriction [Paras 73, 79, 93, 106].

Judicial Precedents – Reiterated – Bar under Section 195 Cr.P.C. is jurisdictional and not merely procedural – Supreme Court has consistently held that where offences relate to fabricating evidence in judicial proceedings, FIR is incompetent without complaint by the court – Applied: Iqbal Singh Marwah, Sachida Nand Singh, Devendra Kumar, State of Punjab v. Raj Singh, Bhajan Lal, S.P. Velumani – Held: Present case falls squarely within protected domain of Section 195 – FIR and charge sheet quashed in entirety [Paras 44–48, 72, 106–107].

Prosecution Launched Without Fresh Material – Mala Fide Intent – No new independent material surfaced after 2018 Division Bench judgment affirming petitioner’s integrity – Petitioner's performance as Special Officer was court-monitored, and he had recovered over 1125 idols, including from foreign jurisdictions – Court held that any new allegation would be presumed to be motivated unless vetted by the court – CBI produced no such vetted material – Held: No prima facie case disclosed – Investigation appears driven by collateral motives [Paras 13–14, 34, 76, 107].

Decision: Crl.O.P. No. 4583 of 2025 allowed – FIR No. RC0502024S0013 dated 08.08.2024 and all proceedings pursuant thereto including charge sheet quashed – Held to be in violation of Section 195 Cr.P.C., judicial orders, and principles of natural justice – Crl.O.P. No. 2263 of 2025 rendered infructuous and closed [Para 115].

Civil Procedure – Condonation of Delay – COVID-19 Extension – Ex Parte Decree – Period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 excluded for limitation by Supreme Court’s Suo Motu orders – In case of expiry during that period, 90 days available from 01.03.2022 – Held: Application filed on 13.09.2022 was within the extended limitation – Finding of 341 days’ delay by Trial Court erroneous – Appellate Court rightly condoned the delay [Paras 15–22]

Service of Summons – Substituted Service – Not Deemed Due Service – Summons served by newspaper publication under Order 5 Rule 20 CPC – Explanation to Article 123 of Limitation Act clarifies such substituted service is not deemed valid for limitation purposes – Held: Appellate Court rightly held service not due and limitation began from knowledge of decree [Paras 23–27]

Evidence – Setting Aside Ex Parte Decree – Proof of Grounds under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC – No evidence adduced in Misc. Case to support plea of non-service – Appellate Court erred in setting aside ex parte decree without evidence – Held: After condonation of delay, Appellate Court should have remanded Misc. Case for adjudication on merits – Ex parte decree reinstated; Misc. Case remanded [Paras 34–36, 44]

Civil Procedure – Article 227 Jurisdiction – Revisional Interference – High Court exercised limited interference – Upheld condonation of delay but set aside improper setting aside of decree – Ordered remand for due adjudication of Misc. Case under Order 9 Rule 13 [Paras 43–44]

Decision: C.O. 924 of 2024 allowed in part – Order dated 19.02.2024 set aside only to the extent it set aside the ex parte decree – Delay condonation upheld – Misc. Case No. 126 of 2022 restored and remanded to Trial Court for adjudication on merits – No costs [Paras 44–45].

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].

UAPA – Bail – Prima Facie Accusation Not Made Out – Section 43-D(5) – Appellant arrested for alleged links with banned terrorist organizations and accused of maintaining accounts for drug and arms smuggling operations – Prosecution relied only on co-accused’s disclosure and vague secret information – No recovery made from appellant – No material corroborating disclosure – Held: Accusation not prima facie true – Bail cannot be denied solely based on vague, uncorroborated claims [Paras 14-15].

Right to Speedy Trial – Long Incarceration – Delay in Trial – Appellant in custody for nearly 3 years – Only 3 out of 39 witnesses examined – Trial unlikely to conclude soon – Held: Long pre-trial custody and delay in proceedings violate Article 21 – Bail granted to prevent continued deprivation of liberty [Paras 16-17].

Constitutional Courts – Power to Grant Bail Despite Statutory Bar – UAPA – Supreme Court jurisprudence in K.A. Najeeb, Vernon, Shoma Kanti Sen and others reiterated – Held: Constitutional Courts can override statutory restrictions under Section 43-D(5) if trial is unduly delayed or rights under Article 21 are violated – Seriousness of allegations alone not sufficient to deny bail [Paras 15, 17-21].

Parity – Bail to Similarly Placed Co-Accused – Appellant’s co-accused Lovepreet Singh and Sukhjinder Singh granted regular bail in similar circumstances – Held: Parity a relevant factor in bail decisions – No justification to deny bail to appellant when similarly situated co-accused are on bail [Para 22].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned bail rejection order set aside – Appellant ordered to be released on regular bail with stringent conditions – Clarification that observations are limited to bail and not on merits [Paras 23-27].

Criminal Law – Cognizance – Omnibus Allegations – Appellants Nos.2 to 6 (family members of husband) challenged cognizance order passed by the SC/ST Special Court for offences under IPC, Dowry Prohibition Act and SC/ST Act – No specific allegations made against them except general claims of instigation and caste-based remarks – Held: Continuation of proceedings against them would be abuse of legal process – Cognizance quashed [Paras 10-12]

Domestic Violence – Matrimonial Dispute – Allegations of harassment and caste-based abuse by husband (Accused No.1) and in-laws – FIR and 161 CrPC statements revealed no particular incidents or evidence against in-laws – Court found accusations exaggerated and unsubstantiated against Accused Nos.2 to 6 – Held: Allegations against in-laws not sufficient to proceed to trial [Paras 11-12]

Section 3(2)(va), SC/ST Act – Scheduled Offences – Court held that offences alleged against Accused Nos.2 to 6 did not qualify as scheduled offences under the SC/ST Act – Cognizance taken without reasoning by trial judge – Proceedings quashed for these accused [Para 12]

Appeal Outcome – Criminal Appeal Nos.758, 757 and 759 allowed – Cognizance against Accused Nos.3 to 6 quashed – Appeal by Accused No.2 abated due to death – Appeal by Accused No.1 (Peeta Raman) dismissed as prima facie material existed for full trial [Paras 12-13]

Decision: Criminal Appeals allowed in part – Cognizance order dated 10.04.2024 quashed against Accused Nos.3 to 6 – Proceedings against Accused No.2 abated – Appeal of Accused No.1 dismissed – Trial to continue against him.

Civil Law - Next Friend – Representation of Deity – Application under Section 151 CPC by Plaintiff Nos. 2 to 5 seeking removal of next friend of Plaintiff No. 1, a deity (Shri Krishna Lala Virajman) – Allegations of misconduct, conflicting interests, parallel suits and misuse of position by current next friend – Held: Under Order 32 Rule 9 CPC, removal of next friend can be permitted only if adverse interest or failure of duty is established – Filing of separate suits or impleadment applications, even if undesirable, does not by itself prove adverse interest or misconduct – Application for deletion rejected as no sufficient cause made out [Paras 17–18].

Civil Procedure – Next Friend – Legal Framework – Order 32 of CPC governs representation of minors and deities through next friends – Deity being perpetual minor must be represented consistently – Substitution of next friend is a drastic action and permissible only on limited grounds – Plaintiffs failed to prove that existing next friend’s acts were against the deity’s interest or connected to adverse party [Paras 15–17].

Religious Endowments – Multiple Suits – Filing of parallel suits concerning same religious property – Not per se illegal, but judicial discipline discourages multiplicity – Existence of parallel proceedings not adequate ground to disturb validly instituted representation of a deity – Continuity of representation necessary to protect proprietary and spiritual interests of juristic deity [Paras 17–18].

Misconduct – False Statements – Allegations against next friend of misrepresentation, false affidavits, and manipulation of proceedings – Court finds such allegations insufficient and unsupported by conclusive evidence – Judicial caution exercised in interfering with existing representation of deity [Paras 6–7, 18].

Decision:

Application under Section 151 CPC dismissed – No sufficient cause made out for removal of current next friend – Suit to proceed with current array of parties.