Criminal Law – Murder – Acquittal - Circumstantial Evidence – Standard of Proof – Held: In cases resting purely on circumstantial evidence, the chain of circumstances must be complete and point irresistibly to the guilt of the accused, excluding any other hypothesis. Where the prosecution failed to prove the accused and deceased were last seen together, and witnesses had only hearsay knowledge of their cohabitation, the chain is broken. [Paras 13, 56, 60-62].

Criminal Law – Motive – Significance in Circumstantial Evidence – Held: While absence of motive may not be fatal in cases of direct evidence, it is fatal in cases based on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution failed to allege or prove any motive for the appellant to murder the deceased, with whom he was allegedly in a live-in relationship. [Paras 45-47, 63].

Criminal Law – Recovery of Evidence – Section 27 of Evidence Act – Held: The recovery of the iron lever (MO-7) and wooden logs (MO-8) was not legally proved where the independent witness (PW18) did not support the recovery mahazar and stated he was standing on the road during the alleged seizure. [Paras 57-58].

Criminal Law – Benefit of Doubt – Two Views Theory – Held: Following the principle in Kali Ram v. State of H.P., if two views are possible on the evidence adduced—one pointing to guilt and the other to innocence—the view favourable to the accused must be adopted. The trial court erred in overlooking missing links regarding the accused's presence and the lack of flight after the incident. [Paras 59, 62].

Decision: Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted. [Para 63].

Criminal Law – Quashing - Municipal Law – Octroi Evasion – Vicarious Liability – Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Pune Municipal Corporation filed complaint alleging non-payment of octroi on import of gold bullions/coins by Bank – Summons issued against Bank and its senior officers including CEO, Deputy MD, Legal Officer and Branch Manager – Petitioners sought quashing on ground of absence of specific role attributed to individual officers – Held: Mere designation or official position insufficient to attract vicarious liability [Paras 1–6, 17].

Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 – Sections 398 and 401 – Ingredients of Offence – Section 398 requires import of goods liable to octroi, non-payment of octroi and intention to defraud Corporation – Section 401 creates vicarious liability only when specific role of director or officer is pleaded – In absence of averments demonstrating intention to defraud and active role of officers, prosecution against them unsustainable [Paras 9–11, 17].

Criminal Liability of Company Officials – Requirement of Specific Averments – Complaint contained only general and omnibus allegations against Petitioner Nos.2 to 5 – No pleading showing how or in what manner they were in charge of and responsible for conduct of business at relevant time – Held: Criminal prosecution against company officials cannot continue without specific and unambiguous allegations [Paras 6, 11, 17].

Interpretation of Vicarious Liability – Parity with Negotiable Instruments Act – Court held that principles governing vicarious liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are pari materia with Section 401 of the BPMC Act – Reliance placed on Supreme Court precedents holding that vicarious liability must be pleaded and proved and cannot be inferred merely from designation [Paras 12–16].

Criminal Process – Abuse of Process – Continuation of proceedings against officers without foundational pleadings amounts to abuse of process of law – Summons issued by JMFC based on conjectures and without prima facie material against officers – Liable to be quashed under writ jurisdiction [Paras 6, 17–19].

Partial Quashing – Distinction Between Company and Officers – Complaint and proceedings quashed only qua Petitioner Nos.2 to 5 – Proceedings against Petitioner No.1-Bank permitted to continue – All contentions left open before Trial Court insofar as Bank is concerned [Paras 19–21].

Decision: Criminal Writ Petition partly allowed – Complaint in Criminal Case No. 236 of 2009 and summons dated 20.11.2009 quashed and set aside against Petitioner Nos.2 to 5 – Complaint against Petitioner No.1-Bank to proceed – Rule made partially absolute [Paras 19–21].

Domestic Violence Law – Right of Residence vs. Senior Citizens’ Rights – Section 17 PWDV Act – Held: The right of residence under Section 17 is a protective right, not an indefeasible right of ownership or a license to indefinitely occupy premises owned by in-laws when such occupation causes demonstrable harm to senior citizens. Where cohabitation becomes unworkable and detrimental to the health of the parents-in-law (one suffering from Parkinson’s), the daughter-in-law can be directed to vacate subject to provision of alternate accommodation. [Paras 18.2-18.6, 21.1].

Civil Procedure – Interim Mandatory Injunction – Eviction at Interlocutory Stage – Held: An interim mandatory injunction for eviction can be granted in exceptional circumstances to prevent irreparable harm. The "toxic" atmosphere in the household, confirmed by counsellor reports, and the deteriorating health of the senior citizen owner constituted irreparable injury justifying the restoration of the parents' peaceful possession pending trial. [Paras 20.1-20.3].

Domestic Violence Law – Alternate Accommodation – Section 19(1)(f) PWDV Act – Held: The Appellant’s rights were sufficiently safeguarded by the direction to the Respondents to provide alternate accommodation at a rental cap of Rs. 2.50 Lakhs/month, plus ancillary charges and school fees. This arrangement strikes a balance between the daughter-in-law’s statutory protection and the senior citizens’ right to dignity. [Paras 19.1-19.4].

Family Law – Welfare of Minor Children – Held: The eviction order does not prejudice the minor children where the alternate accommodation is in the same vicinity (Gurugram), ensuring continuity of schooling at Pathways School, and where the environment in the suit property had become hostile and adverse to their well-being. [Paras 23.1-23.3].

Decision: Appeal dismissed. Interim arrangement for alternate accommodation and eviction upheld. Compliance period to count from 01.01.2026. [Paras 27-29].

Criminal Law – Murder of Police Officers – Extremist Ambush – Conviction – Appellants part of Maoist group that ambushed and killed six police personnel including SP, Pakur – Testimony of injured eye-witnesses PW-30 (bodyguard) and PW-31 (driver) found credible and corroborated by prompt FIR and medical evidence – Held: Injured eye-witnesses identified appellants in court and were present at scene – Conviction under Sections 302, 307, 333, 353, 396, 427 read with Section 149 IPC, Section 27 Arms Act and Section 17 CLA Act affirmed [Paras 36–64].

Criminal Law – Identification of Accused – No TIP Conducted – Validity – Court held that in-court identification by injured witnesses was trustworthy and credible despite no test identification parade – TIP is not substantive evidence, and identification in court supported by surrounding facts including contemporaneous FIR naming accused – Held: Dock identification reliable in present facts [Paras 58–60].

Criminal Law – Discrepancies in Witness Testimony – Appreciation – Minor contradictions in testimony of injured police witnesses regarding precise movement and positions during attack – Court held such inconsistencies are natural in high-stress ambush situation and do not undermine core prosecution case – Testimonies had “ring of truth” and supported by injuries and corroborative facts [Paras 47–50, 59].

Criminal Law – Section 120B and 109 IPC – Distinction – Court found no evidence of pre-conspiracy or instigation attributable to appellants – Held: Conviction under Section 120B and 109 IPC unsustainable where appellants actively participated in crime – Conviction altered accordingly [Para 62–63].

Sentencing – Death Penalty – Commutation – Appellants originally sentenced to death by trial court – One judge of Division Bench dissented and acquitted – Held: Due to split opinion and absence of rarest of rare circumstance threshold being met conclusively, death penalty commuted to life imprisonment – Death reference declined – Sentence under Sections 302 and 396 IPC modified accordingly [Paras 65–68].

Decision: Conviction of both appellants under Sections 302, 307, 333, 353, 427, 396 IPC, Section 27 Arms Act, and Section 17 CLA Act affirmed – Conviction under Sections 120B and 109 IPC set aside – Death sentence commuted to life imprisonment – All life sentences to run concurrently – Appeals dismissed with modification in sentence – Death Reference No. 04 of 2018 dismissed.

Criminal Law – Appreciation of Evidence – Injured Witnesses – Police party ambushed by extremists; SP Pakur and 5 others killed; 3 injured witnesses (PW-12, 30, 31) survived – Held: Testimony of injured witnesses is entitled to a higher degree of credence as their presence is guaranteed – Minor discrepancies regarding the exact location of taking cover (ditch vs. near vehicle) do not erode evidentiary value in a chaotic ambush scenario – Identification of appellants in court accepted as reliable – [Paras 47, 59, 60].

Evidence Law – Identification – Dock Identification without TIP – Appellants identified by injured witnesses in court; no Test Identification Parade (TIP) was conducted – Held: TIP is corroborative, not substantive – Where accused are named or known by aliases heard during the incident (extremists calling out names "Tala Da", "Pravir Da"), and witnesses identify them in court, the identification is valid – Failure to hold TIP is not fatal when accused are identified by injured witnesses who had opportunity to see them from close quarters during looting of arms – [Paras 59(VIII), 60].

Evidence Law – Res Gestae – Section 6 – Statements made by injured witnesses to police personnel arriving immediately after the ambush – Held: While technically the "transaction" of the attack ended, the statements made by injured victims groaning in pain to rescuers arriving shortly thereafter are relevant facts – However, conviction primarily based on direct testimony of injured witnesses – [Paras 33, 34, 61].

Criminal Law – Abetment vs. Presence – Section 109 vs. Section 114 IPC – Trial Court convicted appellants under Section 109 IPC – Held: Section 109 applies to abettors not present at the scene – Since appellants were present and participated, Section 114 applies – Conviction under Section 109 set aside; conviction under Section 302/149 affirmed – [Para 63].

Criminal Law – Sentencing – Death Sentence vs. Life Imprisonment – Split Verdict – Trial Court awarded death sentence; Division Bench delivered split verdict (one acquittal, one confirmation) – Matter referred to Third Judge – Held: The ambush was a "rarest of rare" crime involving the cold-blooded murder of high-ranking police officials – However, the existence of a difference of opinion in the Division Bench (one Judge acquitting) is a weighty factor for commutation – Death sentence commuted to rigorous imprisonment for life – [Paras 66, 67, 68].

Decision: Appeals dismissed with modification in sentence. Conviction affirmed. Death sentence commuted to Life Imprisonment.

Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - Competent Authority - Jurisdiction to Award Damages - Execution of Orders - Section 24(2) of the Rent Act - The Competent Authority under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, has jurisdiction not only to order eviction but also to determine and award damages at double the license fee against an overstaying licensee- Such orders are executable as if they were decrees of a Civil Court, and the transfer of such orders for execution to a Civil Court is permissible-

Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - Section 24(2) - Execution of Decree - Damages for Overstaying Licensee - The appellant challenged the execution of an order by the Competent Authority under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, which awarded damages at double the license fee against him for overstaying in licensed premises- The appellant contended that the Competent Authority lacked jurisdiction to award damages, that its order was not a "decree" under CPC, and that execution was barred by limitation- The High Court, affirming the Single Judge's decision, held: The Competent Authority has the power to determine and award damages under Section 24(2) of the Rent Act, which is incidental to its power to evict- Such orders are executable as if they were decrees of a Civil Court- The legislative intent behind Section 24(4) is to deter overstaying licensees and prevent delays- The appellant's arguments, including those on nullity and limitation, were rejected as dilatory tactics aimed at frustrating the decree holder- The appeal was dismissed with exemplary costs- Paras [2-45]

Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - Section 24(2) - Interpretation - Legislative Intent - Held: Section 24(2) of the Rent Act, providing for double damages against an overstaying licensee, is a deterrent provision- The legislative intent is to provide an expeditious remedy to licensors and prevent licensees from exploiting legal delays- An interpretation that would require separate civil suits for damages would undermine this objective- Paras [23, 24, 25, 26]

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Execution of Orders - Competent Authority - Held: Orders passed by the Competent Authority under the Rent Act, including those awarding damages, are executable as if they were decrees of a Civil Court- The transfer of such orders for execution to a Civil Court is permissible, and arguments against such transfer based on the inapplicability of CPC provisions are misconceived- Paras [33, 34]

Execution Proceedings - Delay - Abuse of Process - Held: Unreasonable delay in the execution of a decree frustrates the fruits of success for a litigant- Judgment debtors should not abuse the process of the Court to defraud creditors- Raising contradictory pleas and dilatory tactics to delay payment, especially for a modest sum, constitutes an abuse of process- Paras [6, 42, 43]

Limitation - Execution of Orders - Held: The argument that execution proceedings were barred by limitation was rejected, as the appellant appeared to be indulging in speculative litigation to create hurdles- The Court found no facts to support the application of a limitation bar in this case- Paras [40]

Decision: Appeal dismissed with costs of Rs. 50,000/- - Directions issued for compliance report and discharge of bank guarantees - Paras [45, 49, 51].

Contract Law – Specific Performance – Uncertainty of Terms – Section 29 Contract Act – Agreement to sell (Ex.P1) mentioned sale of 9.5 acres of land but failed to specify khasra numbers, khewat, khatauni, or boundaries – Plaintiff's claim in plaint referred to 59 Kanals 3 Marlas (approx 7.4 acres) – Held: An agreement lacking essential particulars concerning the identity of the property is uncertain and unenforceable – Courts cannot adduce oral evidence to create clarity where parties failed to do so – Specific performance denied due to incurable vagueness – [Paras 16, 17, 18].

Property Law – Bona Fide Purchaser – Section 41 TPA – Defendant No. 1 sold land to Defendant Nos. 2-4 via registered sale deed – Revenue records showed no encumbrance or prior agreement – Sale deed executed one year after agreement date – Held: Purchasers (D2-D4) acted with due diligence by verifying revenue records – No suspicious circumstances existed to put them on inquiry – They are entitled to protection as bona fide purchasers for value without notice – [Paras 13, 14, 15].

Civil Procedure – Adverse Inference – Defendant No. 1 (Vendor) did not file written statement or enter witness box – Held: Adverse inference under Section 114(g) Evidence Act justified regarding execution of agreement, but relief denied on other grounds (uncertainty and bona fide purchase) – [Para 10].

Decision: Appeal dismissed. Judgment of the First Appellate Court dismissing the suit is affirmed.

Civil Procedure – Rejection of Plaint – Scope of Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Held: The power to reject a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 is circumscribed by the averments in the plaint alone. The Court cannot embark upon a fact-finding exercise, look at the defense, or rely on external material at this stage. The Single Judge erred in recording a factual finding that the ancestor (Horam) never constituted a Joint Hindu Family (JHF) and that the property was self-acquired, which are matters for trial. [Paras 21-25].

Civil Procedure – Partial Rejection of Plaint – Held: A plaint cannot be rejected in part. Where the plaintiff asserted possession over a portion of the suit property and sought a permanent injunction, the rejection of the plaint without examining this prayer independently was contrary to settled legal principles. [Para 33].

Hindu Law – Coparcenary – Burden of Proof at Threshold Stage – Held: The Single Judge’s requirement for the plaintiff to produce documents showing contribution to reconstruction or to file affidavits regarding employment at the Order VII Rule 11 stage amounted to an impermissible appreciation of evidence. Issues regarding blending of property and existence of a JHF nucleus require trial. [Paras 26-27].

Decision: Appeal allowed. Impugned Judgment set aside. Suit restored to original number. [Para 34].

Prevention of Money Laundering Act – Cognizance of Offence – Supplementary Complaint – Validity – Petition challenged order taking cognizance of supplementary complaint arraigning additional accused after cognizance had already been taken in original complaint – Held: Cognizance is taken of the offence and not the offender – Concept of “second cognizance” unknown to criminal jurisprudence – Supplementary complaint under Section 44 Explanation (ii) PMLA valid and deemed part of original complaint [Paras 64–66, 81–88, 113–115].

Criminal Procedure – Applicability of BNSS, 2023 – Pending Proceedings – Section 531(2)(a) BNSS – Cognizance of original complaint taken on 14.08.2023, prior to enforcement of BNSS on 01.07.2024 – Held: Proceedings were “pending” and therefore governed by Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – BNSS provisions including Section 223(1) inapplicable [Paras 16–20, 30, 46].

Criminal Procedure – Section 223(1) BNSS – Hearing of Accused before Cognizance – Scope – Proviso requiring hearing of accused applies only to complaints instituted after commencement of BNSS – Held: No violation in issuing summons on supplementary complaint when proceedings already pending under CrPC regime [Paras 18–19, 31–46].

Cognizance – Requirement of Reasoned Order – Distinction between Private Complaint and Complaint after Investigation – Enforcement Directorate complaint under PMLA filed after statutory investigation – Held: Magistrate/Special Court not required to pass elaborate or detailed order – Sufficient if order reflects application of mind to materials – Cognizance order dated 14.08.2023 upheld [Paras 47–63].

Prevention of Money Laundering Act – Nature of Complaint – Status vis-à-vis Police Report – Complaint under Section 44 PMLA treated akin to report under Section 190(1)(b) CrPC – ED officers not police officers, yet investigation precedes complaint – Held: Higher threshold applicable to private complaints not attracted [Paras 65–66].

Sanction for Prosecution – Section 197 CrPC / Section 218 BNSS – Scope – Allegation of receiving and concealing proceeds of crime – Acts alleged wholly outside scope of official duty – Further held that employees of Government companies / PSUs not removable by Government are not entitled to protection under Section 197 CrPC – No sanction required [Paras 67–77].

PMLA – Independent and Stand-alone Offence – Relationship with Predicate Offence – Sanction under Prevention of Corruption Act irrelevant to prosecution under PMLA – Once proceeds of crime traced, ED competent to prosecute – Restrictions under PC Act not imported into PMLA [Paras 78–80].

Further Investigation – Section 44 PMLA – Scope – Explanation (ii) to Section 44(1)(d) permits filing of subsequent complaint against additional accused, whether named earlier or not – Fresh materials or continued investigation sufficient – Non obstante clause gives overriding effect over CrPC provisions [Paras 102–115].

Judicial Review – Interference with Cognizance – Principles – Court reiterated limited scope of interference – No illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error found in order issuing summons on supplementary complaint [Paras 48–50, 118].

Decision: Criminal Original Petition dismissed – Order dated 17.03.2025 taking supplementary complaint on file and issuing summons upheld – Proceedings in C.C. No. 9 of 2023 to continue – Connected miscellaneous petition closed – No costs.