Anticipatory Bail – Sexual Relationship on False Promise of Marriage – Refusal – Petitioner sought anticipatory bail in crime alleging cheating, criminal intimidation and promise to marry – Allegations disclosed sustained sexual relationship induced by promise of marriage – Mediation failed and petitioner refused to file affidavit agreeing to marry – Held: Considering gravity of allegations and necessity of custodial interrogation, anticipatory bail declined [Paras 7–8, 22–23].

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Section 69 – Sexual Intercourse by Deceitful Means – Scope – Section 69 criminalises sexual intercourse induced by deceitful means or false promise of marriage without intention to fulfil – Distinguished from offence of rape under IPC – Held: Provision squarely attracted where promise to marry is made fraudulently to obtain sexual consent [Paras 10–11, 21].

Direction to Add Penal Provision – Duty of Investigating Agency – FIR registered under IPC and BNS provisions excluding Section 69 BNS – Court directed inclusion of Section 69 BNS in light of factual allegations disclosing offence of sexual intercourse by deceitful promise of marriage [Para 12].

Live-in Relationships – Vulnerability of Adult Women – Judicial Concern – Court observed absence of adequate legal protection for women in live-in relationships compared to minors under POCSO or married women under matrimonial laws – Highlighted socio-cultural stigma and mental trauma faced by women abandoned after sexual exploitation [Paras 14–17].

Concept of Gandharva Marriage – Judicial Observation – Court noted that consensual love relationships akin to live-in arrangements may resemble Gandharva marriage recognised in ancient Indian law – Observed need to accord protective legal status to women in such relationships to prevent exploitation [Paras 18–19].

False Promise to Marry – Legal Consequences – Held: Where accused refuses marriage after sexual relationship induced by promise, prosecution under Section 69 BNS is warranted – Men must face statutory consequences if marriage is refused after exploiting promise to marry [Paras 20–21].

Decision: Criminal Original Petition dismissed – Anticipatory bail refused – Investigating agency directed to invoke Section 69, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Custodial interrogation held necessary.

Criminal Law – Quashing of Process – Extortion and Obscenity – Petitioners challenged the issuance of process under Sections 384 and 294 IPC – Magistrate had issued process after ordering a police inquiry under Section 202 CrPC – Revisional Court upheld the order – High Court held that the complaint did not establish essential ingredients of extortion such as intentional inducement to deliver property and actual delivery – Further held that mere abusive language without proof of obscenity or public annoyance does not attract Section 294 IPC – Orders issuing process under Sections 384 and 294 IPC quashed [Paras 8–11]

Criminal Law – Prima Facie Case – Sections 323 and 448 IPC – Allegations of physical assault and unlawful entry into complainant’s house during confrontation held sufficient to make out a prima facie case – Process upheld under Sections 323 and 448 IPC [Para 12]

Magistrate’s Duty – Issuance of Process – Court reiterated that before issuing process, the Magistrate must evaluate whether the complaint discloses the basic ingredients of alleged offences – Merely summarising allegations without judicial scrutiny amounts to non-application of mind – Revisional Court also failed to correct the error [Para 11]

Decision: Petition partly allowed – Orders issuing process under Sections 384 and 294 IPC quashed – Process upheld under Sections 323 and 448 IPC – Rule made absolute accordingly.

Criminal Law – Rash and Negligent Driving – Death in Motor Accident – Res Ipsa Loquitur – Truck fell 200–250 feet into a gorge resulting in death of conductor – Accused admitted driving – Mechanical inspection showed no defect – Accident of such nature, absent any other explanation, attracts the principle of res ipsa loquitur – Held: burden shifts to accused to explain accident; defence version (deceased putting stone under wheel) inherently improbable, does not explain fall of truck – Negligence proved [Paras 25–31].

Criminal Law – Section 304-AA IPC – Intoxication – Requirement of Blood Alcohol Level – As per Lyon’s Medical Jurisprudence, intoxication begins at 150 mg% – Report showed only 21.68 mg% alcohol – Below even the statutory limit under Section 185 MV Act (30 mg%) – Held: accused cannot be held “intoxicated” for the purposes of Section 304-AA IPC – Conviction under Section 304-AA IPC unsustainable [Paras 14–16].

Criminal Law – Conversion to Lesser Offence – Section 304A IPC – When ingredients of aggravated offence (Section 304-AA IPC) not proved but negligence causing death established – Court may convict for lesser offence despite charge for higher one – Held: conviction altered from Section 304-AA to 304A IPC [Para 32].

Evidence – Statement under Section 313 CrPC – Admissibility – Accused admitted driving – Supreme Court jurisprudence (Sukhdev Singh, Mohan Singh, Ramnaresh) permits use of inculpatory statements under Section 313 CrPC where consistent with prosecution evidence – Held: admission corroborates PW15 (vehicle owner); fact of accused driving treated as proved [Paras 17–24].

Motor Vehicles – Intoxication Standard – Harmonious Construction – Legislature cannot intend that a person under 30 mg% alcohol is punishable under IPC but not under MV Act – Held: interpreting Section 304-AA IPC to punish persons below statutory MV Act limit would be absurd and contrary to legislative intent [Para 16].

Sentencing – Substantial Reduction – Trial Court awarded seven years under Section 304-AA IPC – After alteration to Section 304A IPC (maximum 2 years), High Court imposed 18 months imprisonment with fine of ₹10,000; in default, four months SI – Set-off under Section 428 CrPC allowed [Para 33].

Decision: Conviction under Section 304-AA IPC set aside – Conviction modified to Section 304A IPC – Sentence reduced to 18 months imprisonment with ₹10,000 fine (4 months SI in default) – Conviction under Section 279 IPC affirmed – Appeal disposed of accordingly.

Criminal Law – Discharge of Accused – Sections 227 and 228 CrPC – Trial court discharged public officials and contractors accused of conspiracy, corruption, and loss to exchequer in road projects executed during 2007–2009 – High Court upheld discharge, holding that the record failed to establish prima facie misuse of official position, fraudulent conspiracy, or wrongful loss to the state – Investigation lacked credible evidence, delayed FIR, and suffered from natural deterioration of work sites due to lapse of time – No interference warranted [Paras 6–14].

Corruption – Loss to Exchequer – Enquiry reports indicated minor or no loss in most of the 19 components – Work components 8 and 19 initially shown as loss-making were justified by subsequent departmental enquiry reports, which found the rates reasonable and execution within sanctioned powers – Allegations of inflated rates or unauthorized approvals unsubstantiated [Paras 6–7].

Criminal Conspiracy – Section 120-B RPC – No material establishing agreement between officers and contractors to commit illegal acts – Mere administrative lapses or procedural deviations insufficient to attract criminal conspiracy without evidence of shared criminal intent – FIR and charge sheet lacked necessary foundational facts to support conspiracy charge [Para 9].

Evidence – Standard at Framing of Charge – Court reiterated principles from M.E. Shivalingamurthy and Kewal Krishan – At the stage of framing charge, court must assess if prosecution case discloses grave suspicion; mere suspicion or improbability does not suffice – Trial court’s order reasoned, based on applicable legal standards, and not perverse [Paras 5, 11].

Criminal Revision – Scope of Interference – High Court held revisional jurisdiction is discretionary, not to be exercised for reappreciation of evidence or to substitute trial court’s plausible conclusions – Interference justified only if trial court’s order is manifestly perverse or unsupported by record – No such case made out [Para 12].

Civil Law – Rejection of Plaint – Territorial Jurisdiction – Petitioners/Defendants sought rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC claiming no part of cause of action arose in Delhi – Trial Court rejected application, finding that goods were dispatched from Delhi, payments made to plaintiff’s Delhi bank account, and issue on territorial jurisdiction had already been framed – Held: Where disputed facts regarding jurisdiction exist and trial is at an advanced stage, plaint cannot be rejected but can only be returned if jurisdiction is ultimately not proved – Rejection not permissible at this stage [Paras 5, 7–9, 10.2–10.3].

Civil Procedure – Filing of Additional Documents – Bank Certificate – Plaintiff relied on post-suit bank certificate showing payments received in Delhi – Objection raised that document was filed without leave under Order XI Rule 1(5) CPC – Held: Trial Court justified in accepting the document as it did not exist at the time of suit filing and leave may be oral – No formal application needed if reasonable cause explained and accepted by Court [Paras 6–6.3].

Delay Tactics – Abuse of Process – Defendants filed counterclaim, delayed court fee, and repeatedly sought adjournments – Application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC filed late in trial, after issues were framed and evidence concluded – Held: Application a strategy to delay and frustrate plaintiff – Rejected with costs [Paras 10.3, 11].

Procedural Law – Supreme Court Precedent – Applied M/s Bhagya Estate Benchers Pvt. Ltd. v. Narne Estates Pvt. Ltd. (2023) – Held: Order VII Rule 11 CPC is meant for threshold scrutiny and cannot be invoked at advanced stages of trial where merits are already under consideration – Delay defeats the object of Rule 11 and wastes court resources [Para 10.2].

Decision:

Petition dismissed – No merit found in plea of lack of jurisdiction – No perversity in trial court order – Costs of Rs. 25,000 imposed on petitioners to be paid within one week [Para 11].

Succession – Challenge to Will – Thumb Impression Found Forged – Plaintiff (natural heir) challenged a Will dated 08.08.1985 allegedly executed by deceased mother Smt. Shanti Devi in favour of three sons – First appellate court allowed production of handwriting expert's report under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC – Expert opined that thumb impression on Will did not match authenticated standard impressions – Defendants led no rebuttal evidence – Held: Will not duly executed – Mutation based on Will is void – Property to devolve equally among all eight children [Paras 7, 8.1, 11–14, 16–17]

Will – Suspicious Circumstances – Non-Registration – False Recitals – Scribe Lacked Experience – Will written by an unknown scribe who had never authored a document before – False recitals about earlier allotment of property to other heirs – Will was not registered despite testator living two months after execution – Held: Surrounding circumstances not satisfactorily explained – Will rightly disbelieved by first appellate court [Paras 8.2, 13–14]

Evidence Law – Opinion of Handwriting Expert – Thumb Impressions from Judicial File – Standard thumb impressions taken from earlier civil suit file authenticated by court – Expert’s unrebutted testimony held reliable – Held: When no rebuttal is offered and document’s foundation is falsified, Will cannot be upheld [Paras 7, 12]

Relinquishment – No Registered Instrument – Deemed Relinquishment Unsustainable – First appellate court erroneously held that respondents 5 to 7, by supporting Will, relinquished their share – Held: Relinquishment of share in immovable property must be through registered instrument or valid family settlement – No such evidence presented – All heirs entitled to equal share under succession law [Paras 15–17]

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Will dated 08.08.1985 and Mutation No.1648 dated 23.07.1986 declared invalid – Finding of deemed relinquishment by defendants 5 to 7 set aside – All eight children of deceased to inherit suit property equally (1/8th share each) – First appellate court’s decree modified accordingly – No costs [Paras 16–18]

Criminal Law – Murder – Acquittal – Appellants convicted under Sections 302/34 IPC and 25/27 Arms Act for alleged brutal killing of a woman – Trial court sentenced them to life imprisonment – High Court found serious discrepancies in prosecution evidence – FIR silent on gunshot injuries – Medical report shows death by gunshot, but no bullet was recovered and ballistic report was not sought – Contradictions between statements under Sections 161, 164 Cr.P.C and deposition in court by PW2 and PW3 (minor children of deceased) – Inconsistent ocular and medical evidence – Trial court failed to appreciate lack of corroboration and major procedural lapses – Held: Conviction unsustainable, prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Benefit of doubt extended to accused [Paras 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35].

Evidence – Child Witness – Reliability – PW2 and PW3, son and daughter of the deceased, were key eye-witnesses – Their deposition before the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C and before the trial court materially contradictory – PW2 claimed shooting as cause of death under Section 164 Cr.P.C., later stated sharp cutting weapons used – PW3 did not state gunshot injury in initial statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C – Medical evidence showed only gunshot wound, no sharp weapon injuries – Evidence of child witnesses not found wholly reliable – No corroboration from other local witnesses – Held: In absence of corroboration, contradictory statements from child witnesses weaken prosecution case [Paras 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 32].

Criminal Procedure – FIR – Delay – FIR lodged by deceased’s sister only after verifying facts and visiting hospital – Delay in lodging FIR held explained – However, three-day delay in forwarding FIR to Magistrate remained unexplained – Held: Delay in forwarding FIR to court assumes significance in view of discrepancies in eyewitness accounts and possibility of embellishment – FIR appears to be post-deliberation document [Paras 3, 31, 32].

Criminal Procedure – Investigation Lapses – Arms recovered not connected to incident – Recovered in another case and improperly tagged with the present case – No forensic examination to link bullet injury with seized arms – No ballistic expert report obtained – Held: Failure to obtain ballistic opinion and improper arms recovery fatally affect prosecution’s credibility – No clear evidence on who fired fatal shot – Trial court failed to evaluate lapses [Paras 3, 9, 10, 11, 12, 32, 33].

Medical Jurisprudence – Ocular vs Medical Evidence – Medical report confirmed death by gunshot, but no exit wound or bullet recovered – FIR did not mention gunshot injury – Eye-witnesses’ version included sharp cutting weapons, which was medically ruled out – Contradictions between medical and ocular evidence not resolved – Held: Medical evidence contradicted eye-witnesses’ version, further undermining prosecution case [Paras 6, 7, 9, 32, 33].

Judicial Precedents – Application – High Court relied upon multiple Supreme Court rulings – Jagdish v. State of Haryana, Ram Singh v. State of U.P., Siba Nial v. State of Odisha, Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab, K. Venkateshwarlu v. State of A.P., among others – Held: Where child witnesses are unreliable, ballistic reports are missing, and ocular evidence inconsistent, conviction cannot be sustained – Prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Trial court misapplied principles and ignored crucial discrepancies [Paras 10–30].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 302/34 IPC and 25/27 Arms Act set aside – All nine appellants acquitted – Ordered to be released immediately if not wanted in any other case [Paras 34, 35, 36, 37].

Arbitration – Applicability of 1996 Act – Arbitral proceedings initiated by Government of India on 4 April 1996 after the commencement of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Arbitral tribunal wrongly proceeded under the 1940 Act – Held: 1996 Act clearly applies as per Section 21 and Section 85(2)(a) – Liberty Order allowing filing under Section 34 attained finality – District Court’s refusal to entertain Section 34 application on limitation grounds unsustainable [Paras 13–17].

Arbitration – Section 34 Challenge – Liberty Order permitted refiling of challenge under 1996 Act within 30 days – Petition was filed within time – Trial court erroneously ignored binding Liberty Order and proceeded on incorrect premise that 1940 Act applied – Appellate court held that the challenge under Section 34 was maintainable and not barred by limitation [Paras 13–17].

Arbitration – Violation of Natural Justice – Arbitral tribunal denied claimant (Iqbal) access to crucial documents such as supply records, market price data, and procurement vouchers – Tribunal summarily awarded entire claim amount to Government without analysis or reasoning – Breach of audi alteram partem and denial of opportunity to present case – Held: Award vitiated under Section 34(2)(a)(iii) and contrary to public policy [Paras 22–28].

Arbitration – Reasoned Award – Clause 21(g) of contract required reasoned award where amount exceeded Rs. 30,000 – Arbitrator awarded entire damages claimed by Government without discussing market conditions, mitigation, or quantum – Award failed to comply with contractual requirement of a reasoned decision – Held: Award liable to be set aside for failure to adopt judicial approach and provide reasons [Paras 24–30].

Public Policy – Arbitral Award made in summary fashion without examining key evidence or providing adequate reasons – Denial of inspection and discovery rendered award contrary to fundamental policy of Indian law – Held: Arbitral Award is in conflict with public policy and liable to be set aside [Paras 31–34].

Decision:

Appeal allowed – Impugned Order dated 21 October 2011 and Arbitral Award dated 16 January 1998 set aside – No order as to costs [Paras 35–36].

Civil Law - Specific Performance – Agreement to Sell – Admission of Signatures and Receipt of Consideration – Defendant admitted encashment of ₹16 lakh via cheques forming part of earnest money – Agreement bore his signatures on all pages including reverse of stamp papers – Held: Once execution and consideration admitted, burden shifted to defendant to prove fraud or incapacity – No cogent evidence led to discharge burden – Defence of intoxication and fraud rightly rejected by both courts below [Paras 2–4, 8]

Contract Law – Fraud and Incapacity – Mere Plea Without Evidence – Defendant claimed agreement obtained under intoxication and fraud – No medical or documentary proof filed – Testimony of wife (DW2) and own cross-examination failed to support plea – Held: Defence was a mere afterthought and lacked credibility – Concurrent findings based on record require no interference [Paras 4, 8]

Procedural Law – Second Appeal – Concurrent Findings of Fact – Both trial and appellate courts held that plaintiffs were ready and willing to perform their part and that defendant defaulted without justification – Held: No substantial question of law arises – Second appeal lies only where there is perversity or misapplication of law, not mere reappreciation of facts [Paras 7, 12–13]

Equity – Hardship and Discretion – Defendant claimed hardship and offered to refund double earnest money – Held: No hardship proved – Defendant had history of selling land, was financially sound, and had no equitable claim – Offer to refund does not override valid contractual obligation – Plaintiffs entitled to specific performance based on established readiness and willingness [Paras 10–11]

Evidence – Non-Examination of Scribe – One Attesting Witness Related to Plaintiff – Held: Mere relationship or non-examination of scribe does not vitiate execution once document is proved by party admission and testimony of other attesting witnesses – No inconsistency or contradiction shown – Place of execution and rate variation irrelevant [Paras 5, 9]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – No substantial question of law arises – Judgments and decrees of both lower courts affirmed – Pending applications disposed of [Para 13]