Criminal Law – Quashing of Complaint - Negotiable Instruments Act – Premature Complaint – Cognizance Not Permissible – Complaint Quashed – The complaint under Section 138 N.I. Act was filed before the expiry of 15 days from the date of service of legal notice – Held: As per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Yogendra Pratap Singh v. Savitri Pandey [(2015) AIR (SC) 157] and Gajanand Burange v. Laxmi Chand Goyal [2022 LiveLaw (SC) 682], a complaint filed before the expiry of the statutory 15-day period is not maintainable in the eye of law – The proceedings initiated on the basis of such a premature complaint are quashed [Paras 7-14, 17].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Liberty to File Fresh Complaint – Condonation of Delay – Permitted – The Court granted liberty to the complainant to file a fresh complaint within one month from the date of this order – Held: In view of the Supreme Court’s directions, delay in filing the fresh complaint shall be treated as condoned under the proviso to Section 142 of the N.I. Act – The trial court is directed to dispose of the complaint expeditiously, preferably within six months from its filing [Paras 18-19].

Criminal Procedure – Deposit Amount – Directions for Preservation – The amount deposited by the petitioner-accused shall be kept in fixed deposit in Karnataka Bank, CMM Court Branch, in the name of the Deputy Registrar with auto renewal – The successful party shall be entitled to the said amount post final adjudication [Para 23].

Decision – Revision Allowed – The judgments of conviction passed by the XIX ACMM, Bengaluru, dated 03/04/2017 in C.C. No. 8433/2016, and affirmed by the LXVI Additional Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in Crl.A. No. 649/2017 dated 20/09/2017, are set aside – Liberty granted to the complainant to file a fresh complaint – Trial court directed to return original documents after retaining certified copies and proceed in accordance with law [Paras 17-23].

Criminal Law  – Withdrawal of prosecution – Section 321 CrPC – Application moved in National Lok Adalat without hearing victim and without independent application of mind – Public Prosecutor acted mechanically on government order – Court consented without scrutiny – Orders illegal and irregular – Quashed – Trial restored [Paras 8–13, 28–35].

Lok Adalat – Jurisdictional limits – Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 – Lok Adalat is conciliatory, not adjudicatory – Can only dispose cases on compromise or settlement – Application under Section 321 CrPC filed unilaterally by prosecutor not referable to Lok Adalat – Orders passed therein held without jurisdiction – Reference beyond orbit of Lok Adalat deprecated [Paras 8–12].

Section 321 CrPC – Scope – Prosecutor’s independence – Initiative lies with Public Prosecutor, Court’s role supervisory – Consent not formality, requires satisfaction that withdrawal serves public justice – Prosecutor cannot act as post office of Government – Rajender Kumar Jain v. State, (1980) 3 SCC 435; Subhash Chander, AIR 1980 SC 423; Bairam Muralidhar, (2014) 10 SCC 380 applied – Held: APP filed application mechanically under State directive, without independent mind [Paras 16–25, 28].

Court’s duty – Judicial discretion – Court must scrutinize grounds, not accept ipse dixit of prosecutor – Abdul Karim v. State of Karnataka, (2000) 8 SCC 710 followed – Here, trial court gave consent without reasons, appellate court wrongly affirmed – Orders unsustainable [Paras 23–25, 28].

Victim’s right to be heard – Although CrPC silent, jurisprudence (Sheonandan Paswan, 1987; Abdul Wahab K., 2018; Purshottam ‘Vijay’, 1983 MPLJ 694) recognized locus of victim/complainant – BNSS 2023 now expressly mandates victim’s hearing before withdrawal – Trial court’s preponement of hearing date deprived victim of opportunity to oppose – Violation of principles of natural justice [Paras 29–33].

Procedural irregularity – Order dated 30.11.2013 captioned as passed in National Lok Adalat, but not in regular trial course – Preponement of case from 05.12.2013 to 30.11.2013 solely to permit withdrawal amounted to irregular proceeding – Vitiated by illegality [Paras 7, 10–13].

Legal principle – Withdrawal of prosecution permissible only when bona fide and in furtherance of public justice – Not to shield accused from trial – Society has right to demand punishment of offender – Abdul Wahab K. (2018) 18 SCC 448 reiterated [Para 26].

Disposition – Orders of JMFC (30.11.2013) and Appellate Court (27.08.2014) permitting withdrawal set aside – Criminal Case restored on original number – Trial to proceed from stage prior to withdrawal – Parties to appear before trial court on 26.09.2025 [Paras 34–36].

Criminal Law  – Grievous Hurt – Conviction under Section 326 IPC – Reduced to Section 324 IPC – Lack of Radiological Evidence - The prosecution failed to produce radiology reports or examine the radiologist to corroborate the claim of fracture injuries – Medical evidence was insufficient to sustain conviction under Section 326 IPC as per legal requirements – Held: Conviction modified to Section 324 IPC (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapon) [Paras 12-22].

Evidence Law – Medical Evidence – Requirement of X-ray and Radiologist Testimony – In absence of radiological evidence, mere wound certificate is insufficient to establish fracture injuries constituting grievous hurt under Section 320 IPC – Court relied upon precedents including Karnataka High Court in Sathya Deva v. State of Karnataka and Rajasthan High Court in Bholu v. State of Rajasthan – Conviction under Section 326 IPC unsustainable [Paras 13-15].

Criminal Procedure – Sentencing – Delay as Mitigating Factor – Right to Speedy Trial under Article 21 of the Constitution invoked – Considering the 11 years delay in trial and revision, and the fact that petitioner already served over four months in custody, sentence reduced to period already undergone with enhanced fine – Fine of ₹25,000 imposed to be paid to the victim under Section 357 CrPC [Paras 24-26].

Decision – Revision Allowed in Part – Conviction under Section 326 IPC set aside – Conviction altered to Section 324 IPC – Sentence reduced to the period already undergone – Petitioner directed to pay ₹25,000 as compensation to victim; in default, to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment [Para 25-27].

Criminal Law - Murder – Section 302, 304 Part II, 394, 452, 120B, 397 of the IPC - Conviction Altered – Presumption under Section 114(a) Evidence Act – Recovery of Stolen Gold Ornaments – Held: Circumstantial evidence proved that accused 1 robbed the deceased’s gold ornaments and caused her death while committing robbery – However, absence of intent to kill or cause such bodily injury as likely to cause death – Conviction under Section 302 IPC altered to Section 304 Part II IPC – Sentence of 10 years rigorous imprisonment with fine imposed [Paras 31-38].

Criminal Law – Murder or Culpable Homicide – Distinction – Death Caused During Robbery by Smothering – Held: No intention to cause death proved – Death resulted from knowledge that act of smothering is likely to cause death – Act does not fall under 'Fourthly' clause of Section 300 IPC – Hence culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II IPC [Paras 34-37].

Circumstantial Evidence – Recovery and Call Data Records – Approver’s Testimony – Validity – Held: Testimony of approver PW1 corroborated by recovery of stolen gold, identification by witnesses, and mobile call records – Compliance with Section 65B of Evidence Act regarding electronic records affirmed – Call data admissible [Paras 25-29].

Evidence Act – Section 65B Certificates – Validity – Challenge to the sufficiency of electronic evidence certificate rejected – Certificates specifying server and software met statutory requirements – Court relied on precedent in Lijo Joy v. State of Kerala [2020 SCC OnLine Ker 25201] to uphold admissibility [Para 26].

Approver Testimony – Legality of Tender of Pardon – Held: Procedure under Section 306 CrPC does not require confession under Section 164 CrPC – Once pardon is tendered, approver becomes a prosecution witness – Contention against admissibility of approver’s testimony rejected [Paras 27-28].

Acquittal of Co-Accused – Interference by Appellate Court – Principles Reiterated – Held: Acquittal of accused 3 by trial court based on lack of corroborative evidence upheld – Prosecution failed to establish complete chain of circumstantial evidence – Presumption of innocence strengthened post-acquittal – No interference warranted [Paras 39-45].

Decision – Crl.A No. 827/2023 partly allowed – Conviction under Section 302 IPC altered to Section 304 Part II IPC with rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine of ₹25,000 – Crl.A No. 943/2023 filed by State against acquittal of accused 3 dismissed [Final Para].

Civil Suit – Maintainability – Suit for Bare Injunction – Title in Dispute – Not Maintainable - The plaintiffs filed a suit for bare permanent injunction without seeking declaration of title, despite serious title disputes – The vendor's title was already negatived in previous proceedings under the Estates Abolition Act – Held: When title is under cloud, a suit for injunction simpliciter is not maintainable; declaratory relief is necessary [Paras 24-29, 45].

Civil Procedure – Substantial Question of Law – Interference in Second Appeal – Concurrent Findings Found Perverse - Both the Trial Court and First Appellate Court failed to consider crucial documentary evidence including Ryotwari patta and settlement proceedings – Findings are perverse, contrary to law, and liable to be interfered with under Section 100 CPC [Paras 26-29].

Estates Abolition – Binding Effect of Tribunal Orders – Civil Court Jurisdiction Barred – The grant of Ryotwari patta by the Assistant Settlement Officer and confirmation by the Estate Abolition Tribunal is binding on Civil Courts – Plaintiffs’ vendor’s claim having been rejected earlier, cannot be reopened in a civil suit [Paras 22-24, 29].

Additional Evidence – Order 41 Rule 27 CPC – Not Maintainable in Second Appeal – Documents relating to separate suits involving different parties and properties cannot be admitted as additional evidence at the second appellate stage – Application rejected [Paras 34-38].

Contempt – Alleged Violation of Status Quo Order – No Interim Injunction – Writ Petitions Filed by Both Parties – In absence of conclusive material and with the matter sub judice in writ proceedings, contempt application under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC dismissed [Paras 40-44].

Decision – Second Appeal Allowed – Judgments of Trial Court and First Appellate Court set aside – Suit dismissed – Each party directed to bear their own costs [Para 45].

Criminal Law - Cheating – Ingredients of Section 420 IPC – Conviction Unsustainable – Set Aside – Acquittal - The trial court convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 420 IPC based on the complainant’s allegation that the appellant, under the false promise of marriage, had sexual relations and took money from her and her family – Held: Mere allegation of taking money without documentary evidence or corroboration is insufficient to establish the offence under Section 420 IPC – Essential ingredients such as dishonest inducement and delivery of property with resultant wrongful loss were not established – Conviction set aside [Paras 10-23].

Cheating – Requirement of Dishonest Inducement – Mere Relationship Dispute Not Sufficient – The court reiterated that a deceitful act must be coupled with dishonest inducement leading to delivery of property or valuable security – The relationship and subsequent disputes cannot be stretched into an offence of cheating in absence of conclusive proof of inducement or fraudulent intention at inception [Paras 18-22].

Supreme Court Precedent – Applied – Mariam Fasihuddin & Anr. vs. State by Adugodi Police Station & Anr., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 53 – The Calcutta High Court relied upon the Supreme Court's observation that mere deceit or false promise without delivery of property does not satisfy the offence under Section 420 IPC [Para 20].

Decision – Conviction Set Aside – Appeal Allowed – The impugned judgment dated 22.09.2015 convicting the appellant under Section 420 IPC is quashed – The appellant is discharged from bail bonds and set at liberty if not required in any other case [Paras 23-26].

Motor Accident – Criminal Liability of Vehicle Owner – Registered Owner Held Liable – Petition for Quashing Rejected – The petitioner, arraigned as Accused No.2, sought quashing of proceedings on the ground that he had sold the scooter involved in the accident – Held: Despite the claim of sale, the Registration Certificate continued in the name of the petitioner – In law, the registered owner remains liable for responsibilities attached to ownership until formal transfer – Prima facie material exists against the petitioner – Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. rejected, leaving the petitioner free to raise his defence during trial [Paras 3-6].

Criminal Procedure – Quashing of Proceedings – Prima Facie Case Exists – Petition Dismissed – Allegations indicate that the deceased was permitted to drive the scooter without holding a valid driving license, attracting criminal negligence – Held: Whether the petitioner was no longer the owner or whether he permitted the deceased to drive without a license are matters of trial – The petition for quashing is premature and devoid of merit [Paras 4-6].

Decision – Petition Dismissed – The petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. / Section 528 BNSS seeking quashing of FIR No.19/2023 of Cubbon Park Traffic Police Station is rejected – Trial court directed to proceed in accordance with law – A copy of the order is directed to be sent to the trial court through email [Order].

Civil Law - Partition Suit – Hotchpotch Principle – All Joint Properties Must Be Included – Plaintiffs sought partition of certain plots jointly inherited from Sailabala Mitra—Trial court passed preliminary decree declaring 8 annas share each to plaintiffs and defendants—Held: Appellants’ claim that other joint properties of common ancestors were omitted from suit schedule warranted re-consideration—Remand ordered for fresh adjudication including newly disclosed properties [Paras 1–8, 15–18].

Amicable Partition Allegation – Title by Adverse Possession – Sale by Co-owner Beyond Share – Defendants claimed prior oral partition and adverse possession—Sold entire suit land to third parties—Held: Sale by co-owner beyond his share without formal partition does not confer absolute title—Purchasers acquire title only to extent of transferor’s share—Question of title and possession to be freshly considered [Paras 5, 9–13].

Procedural Law – Multiple Preliminary Decrees Permissible – Court invoked settled law that in partition suits, multiple preliminary decrees may be passed based on subsequent events—Held: Remand necessary to avoid future litigation and to resolve dispute comprehensively on updated pleadings and issues [Paras 16–18].

Remand – Additional Written Statement and Issues Permitted – Appellants allowed to file additional written statement disclosing omitted joint properties—Trial court directed to frame additional issues and pass fresh preliminary decree determining shares after considering evidence confined to new disclosures [Paras 18–19].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Judgment and preliminary decree dated 16.12.2016 set aside – Case remanded to trial court – Appellants permitted to amend pleadings and include omitted joint properties – Trial court to pass fresh preliminary and final decrees after due adjudication [Paras 18–20].

Matrimonial Law – Divorce  – Admissibility of Electronic Evidence – Section 14 of Family Courts Act – WhatsApp Chats Admissible – The petitioner/wife challenged the Family Court’s order permitting the husband to mark WhatsApp chats as evidence alleging violation of her right to privacy – Held: Under Section 14 of Family Courts Act, Family Courts are not bound by strict rules of evidence and may admit any material if it assists in resolving the dispute – The evidence, even if collected without consent, is admissible if relevant – However, admission does not amount to proof, and weightage is subject to judicial discretion [Paras 9-13, 35-36].

Right to Privacy vs. Right to Fair Trial – Not Absolute – Balance Required – While right to privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21, it is not absolute – In case of conflict, right to fair trial prevails over right to privacy in matrimonial disputes – Admission of relevant evidence does not absolve the procurer of liability for breach of privacy under criminal or civil law – Such evidence must be scrutinized with higher standards of authenticity [Paras 18-21, 38].

Illegally Obtained Evidence – Permissible in Family Court – Distinction Between Admissibility and Weightage – Even if evidence is procured illegally or unethically, Family Courts can admit it subject to relevance – The Court clarified that Section 122 of the Evidence Act allows disclosure of communications between spouses in matrimonial disputes – The objection regarding violation of IT Act or privacy cannot bar the admission of such evidence under Section 14 of the Family Courts Act [Paras 11-13, 18, 36, 38].

Doctrine of Sub Silentio and Per Incuriam – Earlier Contradictory Judgments Not Binding – The Court held that earlier judgments of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Anurima @ Abha Mehta v. Sunil Mehta, Ram Talreja v. Sapna Talreja, Smt. Saroj v. Ashish Yadav, and Abhishek Ranjan v. Hemlata Choubey were passed without considering Section 14 of the Family Courts Act and Section 122 of the Evidence Act – Such judgments are per incuriam and not binding precedents [Paras 34].

Safeguards While Admitting Sensitive Evidence – The Court laid down safeguards for Family Courts, including: conducting in-camera proceedings for sensitive materials, rigorous scrutiny of authenticity, and ensuring decency in proceedings – Admission of evidence does not absolve parties from potential liability for illegally procuring the same [Para 37].

Decision – Petition Dismissed – The Family Court’s order permitting the WhatsApp chats to be exhibited is upheld – The Court held that such evidence is admissible subject to proof, scrutiny, and judicial discretion at the adjudication stage [Para 39].