Civil Procedure – Rejection of Plaint – Order 7 Rule 11 CPC – Maintainability – Plaintiff sought declaration of ownership of two properties in different districts, including one in Noida and one in Auraiya – Trial court rejected suit citing lack of jurisdiction over Auraiya property and failure to challenge lease deed – Held: Under Section 17 CPC, suit maintainable where part of property is within court's jurisdiction and cause of action is common – Rejection of plaint unsustainable [Paras 21–24, 40]

Benami Transactions – Rebuttable Presumption – Property Registered in Wife’s Name – Plaintiff claimed properties were purchased by him from his own funds but registered in wife’s name under emotional pressure – Held: Burden lies on person alleging benami – Whether property falls under fiduciary or spouse exception is triable issue – Cannot be decided at Order 7 Rule 11 CPC stage – Rejection of plaint not permissible [Paras 30–39]

Cause of Action – Common Transactions – Single Cause of Action – Plaintiff’s claim of emotional coercion, marital relationship, and fiduciary capacity formed common basis for claims over both properties – Trial court erred in treating them as separate causes – Suit held maintainable for both properties under single cause of action [Paras 24–26]

Relief of Cancellation – Necessity – Plaintiff did not seek cancellation of lease deed or sale deeds but only declaratory relief – Trial court held this omission fatal – Held: Whether cancellation required depends on outcome of trial and plaintiff’s success in proving ownership – Not a ground for rejection of plaint at threshold [Paras 28–29, 39]

Fiduciary Relationship – Exception to Benami Bar – Plaintiff produced power-of-attorney mentioning him as husband of defendant – Claimed continued possession and expenditure on properties – Held: Nature of relationship and intention behind transactions requires full trial – Exception under Section 4(3)(b) of Benami Act plausible – Suit not barred at this stage [Paras 25–27, 34–38]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Trial court's order dated 04.05.2022 rejecting plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC set aside – Suit restored to original number – Trial court directed to dispose of the suit within six months.

Criminal Law – Bail – Section 152 BNS – Social Media Post – Allegation of 'Pakistan Zindabad' post by applicant under a foreign national’s post – No material to show active promotion of secession or armed rebellion – Held: Section 152 BNS requires intentional incitement of secession or subversive activity – Mere expression of sentiment, even if offensive, does not fulfill statutory requirements – Bail justified in absence of prima facie intent to endanger sovereignty or unity [Paras 5-8].

Constitutional Law – Freedom of Speech – Standards of Reasonable Interpretation – Apex Court in Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat held that speech must be judged on reasonable person standard – Court emphasizes liberty under Article 19(1)(a) and cautions against overbroad criminalization of speech on social media – Police must act within constitutional limits [Para 9].

Criminal Procedure – Bail Principles – No Criminal History – Long Trial Delay – Applicant in custody since May 2025 with no prior convictions – Court applies principle of presumption of innocence and right to speedy trial under Article 21 – Cites Supreme Court’s decision in Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement and highlights prison overcrowding – Bail granted with stringent conditions [Para 10].

Decision: Bail granted – Applicant to be released on personal bond and two sureties – Conditions imposed to ensure trial participation – Breach of conditions to lead to cancellation of bail [Paras 10-12].

Criminal Law – Rape – POCSO – Acquittal – Accused stepfather convicted under Section 376(2)(f) IPC and Section 6 POCSO for alleged repeated rape of 17-year-old stepdaughter over 4 years – FIR lodged by son of accused – Defence argued marriage with victim’s mother took place only in 2021, making 4-year timeframe implausible – Defence evidence and explanation under Section 313 CrPC not considered by Trial Court – Held: Failure to consider defence explanation and testimonies amounts to violation of fair trial – Conviction vitiated [Paras 6–8, 39–41, 51].

Sterling Witness – Test of Reliability – Contradictions – Victim claimed abuse over 4 years and marriage 8 years ago – Official records proved marriage occurred in 2021 – Statements under Section 164 CrPC materially inconsistent with trial testimony – Medical evidence only showed old hymenal tears – Held: Victim’s testimony lacked consistency and credibility – Not a “sterling witness” within meaning of Rai Sandeep – Conviction unsustainable without corroboration [Paras 19–23, 48–50].

Criminal Trial – Delay in FIR – Omission and Improvement – Delay of 4 years in reporting incidents – Serious omissions in Section 161 CrPC statements – Several facts surfaced only at trial – Held: Delay unexplained, coupled with improvements in evidence, rendered prosecution case doubtful – Reasonable doubt exists [Paras 11, 27, 48].

Defence Evidence – Equal Weightage – Section 313 CrPC – Explanation by accused that false case filed by son over property dispute supported by defence witnesses – Trial Court failed to evaluate this defence – Held: Non-consideration of material defence violates principles laid down in Reena Hazarika and Munshi Prasad – Conviction cannot stand [Paras 29–32, 39–45].

Prosecution Lapses – No Action Against Alleged Abettor – Victim alleged her mother abetted rape – No proceedings initiated against mother – Held: Selective prosecution and omission weakens prosecution case and raises credibility concerns [Paras 35–36, 44, 46].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 376(2)(f) IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act set aside – Appellant acquitted of all charges – Trial Court judgment dated 22.11.2023 in Sessions Special Case No. 46 of 2022 quashed – Trial Court record to be returned [Paras 51–52].

Criminal Law – Murder – Dying Declaration – Victim named appellants Dilip Dey and Manoj Singh as shooters in statement recorded by police officer in presence of doctor and relatives – Statement corroborated by brothers of deceased (PWs 5 and 7) – Medical officer (PW9) confirmed victim was conscious – Objection to lack of medical certificate of mental fitness rejected – Court held dying declaration reliable and consistent with medical evidence [Paras 3, 6, 42–45, 49–53]

Criminal Law – Firearm Recovery – Weapon recovered on basis of disclosure by Manoj Singh under Section 27 Evidence Act – Seizure corroborated by police witnesses (PWs 20, 25) – Forensic expert (PW22) confirmed bullet retrieved from victim matched the recovered firearm – Held: Recovery legal and directly links appellant to the crime [Paras 34–36, 57–58]

Evidence – Hostile Witness – PW16 (friend of deceased) turned hostile but admitted being present, taking victim to hospital, and confirming victim’s consciousness – Statement of hostile witness corroborated by medical and family witnesses – Held: Partial reliability sufficient for corroboration of prosecution version [Paras 16, 28–30, 47–48]

Criminal Procedure – FIR based on Dying Declaration – Statement of victim formed basis of FIR – Recorded by police in presence of attending doctor and family members – FIR and injuries consistent with post-mortem report – Held: FIR valid, dying declaration admissible under Section 32 Evidence Act [Paras 49–51]

Forensic Evidence – Ballistics – Recovered firearm found to be in working condition – Expert confirmed bullet removed from body fired through same weapon – Court accepted ballistic report as conclusive link to accused [Paras 36, 57–58]

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Section 302/34 IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act affirmed – Sentence to run concurrently – Detention already undergone to be set off under Section 428 CrPC [Paras 59–61]

Criminal Procedure – Pre-Arrest Bail – Maintainability – Petition under Section 482 BNSS filed directly before High Court without first approaching Sessions Court – Petitioner sought anticipatory bail in a case involving alleged fraud and cheque dishonour related to ₹16.46 lakhs in unpaid dues for maize – Held: Though High Court has concurrent jurisdiction under Section 482 BNSS, direct approach to High Court without special or extraordinary circumstances is impermissible – Petition dismissed on maintainability ground with liberty to approach Sessions Court within two weeks – Interim protection from coercive steps granted [Paras 5, 9–11].

Anticipatory Bail – Requirement to Approach Sessions Court First – Apex Court in Mohammed Rasal.C v. State of Kerala reiterated structured process for pre-arrest bail to begin at Sessions Court to avoid High Court being flooded with first-instance applications – High Court emphasized importance of filtration mechanism and local prosecutorial assistance at district level – Petition rejected for bypassing Sessions Court without justification [Paras 5, 9–10].

Discretion under Section 482 BNSS – No Special Circumstances Shown – Petitioner failed to establish any special or extraordinary reason for invoking High Court’s inherent powers directly – Held: Mere apprehension of arrest or claim of being falsely implicated does not constitute special ground – Judicial discretion must be exercised cautiously [Para 10].

Interim Protection – Liberty Reserved – Despite dismissal, High Court protected petitioner from coercive action for two weeks to enable him to approach Sessions Court – Directed Sessions Judge to decide bail application on merits without being influenced by High Court’s present order [Para 11].

Decision: Criminal Petition dismissed as not maintainable – Petitioner granted liberty to file pre-arrest bail before Sessions Judge within two weeks – No coercive steps to be taken in interim – Sessions Court to consider afresh on merits.

Banking Law - SARFAESI – Possession of Secured Asset – Tahsildar’s Competence – ARC filed writ petition challenging Ext. P10 order passed by the Tahsildar on the complaint that property unconnected with loan transaction was taken possession of under SARFAESI proceedings – Held: Tahsildar has no authority to interfere in matters already adjudicated by the Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 14 SARFAESI – Such action amounts to overstepping jurisdiction [Paras 15–16]

SARFAESI – Review and Non-Impleadment – Ext. P10 order passed based on earlier writ direction where ARC was not impleaded – That writ judgment was reviewed and recalled (RP 1196/2019), and writ dismissed for suppression of material facts – Held: Ext. P10 is rendered non-operational to the extent it conflicts with judicial orders under SARFAESI and cannot survive post recall [Paras 8–10, 16]

Property Identification Dispute – Civil Suit Pending – Dispute between parties as to whether correct property was taken into possession under mortgage enforcement – Held: Dispute of identification is a civil matter pending before Civil Court in O.S. No. 1090/2019 – Trial court to independently adjudicate the dispute without being influenced by findings under SARFAESI [Paras 17–18]

Limited Quashment – Only that portion of Tahsildar’s order (Ext. P10) dealing with SARFAESI delivery proceedings set aside – Held: Tahsildar still empowered to act on allegations against Village Officer’s conduct under appropriate administrative powers, with notice to parties [Para 18]

Decision: Writ Petition Partly Allowed – Ext. P10 quashed only to the extent it interferes with orders of the Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 14 SARFAESI – Remaining issues left open for civil and administrative proceedings

Land Acquisition – Due Process – Sections 3A, 3D & 3G(3) of National Highways Act – Gazette Notification issued in 2022 under Section 3A did not include all petitioners’ properties – Declaration under Section 3D dated 03.07.2024 and subsequent compensation proceedings initiated – Petitioners allege interference with possession without due acquisition – Held: Respondents directed to follow due process before acquisition – Acquisition without compliance violates Article 300-A [Paras 2–2.2, 9]

Constitutional Law – Article 300-A – Right to Property – Seven essential rights recognised by Supreme Court in Kolkata Municipal Corporation v. Bimal Kumar Shah (2024) 10 SCC 533 form core of Article 300-A – Includes rights to notice, hearing, reasoned decision, fair compensation, expeditious process, public purpose and conclusion – Held: Absence of these renders law vulnerable to challenge – These principles now part of administrative law jurisprudence [Paras 5–7]

Property Law – Completion of Acquisition – Mere compensation not sufficient – Possession of property is essential for valid acquisition – Court reiterates that unless physical possession is taken, acquisition remains incomplete [Para 8]

Decision: Writ Petitions disposed of with direction to follow due process of law – No order as to costs – Miscellaneous petitions closed.

Tenancy Law - Civil Procedure – Partnership Dispute – Order 30 Rule 8 CPC – Eviction Petition – Respondents filed eviction petition against M/s Indian Furniture Store through alleged partner Satish Grover – Petitioner filed application under Order 30 Rule 8 CPC read with Section 151 CPC, contending that his appearance be treated as under protest and Court must first determine whether he was a partner – Rent Controller, instead of deciding the application, directed petitioner to disclose partnership details on affidavit – Held: Impermissible – Rule 8 CPC envisages preliminary adjudication – Person disputing partnership cannot be compelled to furnish details before Court determines his status as partner – Impugned order set aside [Paras 5-7].

Civil Revision – Rent Controller’s Jurisdiction – Rent Controller must first adjudicate application under Order 30 Rule 8 CPC before proceeding with eviction petition – Only upon deciding petitioner’s status as partner can he be compelled to disclose partnership particulars – Impugned order contrary to the scheme of the Code – Civil revision allowed – Rent Controller directed to decide application under Order 30 Rule 8 CPC in accordance with law [Paras 8-9].

Decision: Civil Revision allowed – Impugned order dated 22.08.2025 set aside – Rent Controller directed to first decide application under Order 30 Rule 8 CPC and then proceed with eviction petition [Paras 8-10].

Motor Vehicles Act – Claim under Section 163-A – Borrower of Vehicle – Tortfeasor – Not Third Party – Claim Not Maintainable – Deceased, who died in a self-accident, had borrowed the vehicle from his brother and was driving it in a rash and negligent manner – Held: Once the deceased stepped into the shoes of the owner, he ceased to be a third party – Claim under Section 163-A is not maintainable against insurer by borrower/tortfeasor – Tribunal erred in awarding ₹3,93,500 as compensation – Award set aside [Paras 13–19].

Insurance Law – Liability of Insurer – Borrower Driving Vehicle – No Coverage – Deceased was neither a paid driver nor a third party – Policy did not cover owner’s relatives or gratuitous users – Supreme Court in Ramkhiladi v. United India Insurance Co. [(2020) 2 SCC 550] relied upon – Held: No liability on insurer for self-inflicted accident by borrower of vehicle – Deceased, being tortfeasor, not entitled to compensation [Paras 15–16].

Motor Accident Claim – Tribunal's Failure to Determine Negligence – Perverse Award – Tribunal failed to determine culpability despite clear evidence (FIR and claimant’s admission) that deceased was driving negligently – Award granted without proper reasoning or findings on responsibility – Held: Award unsustainable in law and liable to be set aside [Paras 17–19].

Appellate Review – Error in Applying Multiplier – Irrelevant in Present Case – Though appellant argued Tribunal applied incorrect multiplier (16 instead of 15), Court found issue moot since claim itself was not maintainable [Para 10].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Award of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in MCOP No.696 of 2012 dated 03/12/2012 set aside – Claim petition dismissed – Appellant insurer entitled to recover any amount deposited before Tribunal by filing appropriate application – No costs – Connected miscellaneous petition closed [Paras 19–20].