Murder of SI during patrol – Common intention – Section 34 IPC not attracted as appellant apprehended before firing – No recovery/no overt act – SC/ST Act s.3(2)(v) and Arms Act s.27 not made out – Entire conviction set aside – Appellant acquitted and released [Paras 39–42].

Criminal Law – Common intention – Section 34 IPC – Appellant apprehended before firing – Common intention not attracted – Evidence showed appellant was caught by police before co-accused opened fire – Use of weapons by others occurred after appellant had been separated upon arrest – Held: Section 34 IPC not attracted against appellant [Paras 39–41].

SC/ST Act – Section 3(2)(v) – Abuse by caste name not attributable to appellant – No ingredients made out – Where abusive words and firing were by others after appellant’s apprehension and no overt act by appellant is established, offence under Section 3(2)(v) not made out – Held accordingly [Para 40].

Arms Act – Section 27 – Non-recovery of weapon from appellant – No evidence of use/possession – Ingredients not satisfied – Conviction under Section 27 unsustainable [Para 40].

Assault on public servant – IPC Sections 353/334/332 – No overt act by appellant – Appellant in custody at time of firing – Ingredients not met – Prosecution failed to prove charges beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 40–41].

Evidence – FIR vis-à-vis deposition – Sections 145 & 157, Evidence Act – Prior statements can be used for contradiction/corroboration where attention drawn in cross-examination – Court rejected contention that there was no confrontation with FIR statements, finding compliance with Sections 145/157 on facts [Paras 36–38, 32].

Medical Evidence – Post-mortem – Firearm injury to nose/cranial cavity – Cause of death: haemorrhagic shock – Medical opinion consistent with ocular account of shooting by others – Does not connect appellant absent common intention/overt act [Paras 15–16].

Disposition – Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellant acquitted of all charges and to be released forthwith if not required in any other case [Paras 41–42].

Divorce – Cruelty – Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act – Wife alleged persistent dowry demands, misappropriation of jewellery, repeated assaults including a violent incident on 08.03.2013, and continuous humiliation – Evidence of wife and her father supported allegations – Respondent did not produce any witness or document – Held: Conduct caused grave mental agony and fear of harm, satisfying test of cruelty – Marriage became unworkable – Decree of divorce justified [Paras 3–8, 13–18].

Cruelty – Judicial Principles – Supreme Court in Narayan Ganesh Dastane v. Sucheta Narain Dastane, AIR 1975 SC 1534, held cruelty must be judged by effect on aggrieved spouse and not by reasonable man standard – Applied herein to hold appellant’s consistent testimony established cruelty – Cited Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh (2007) 4 SCC 511, which provided illustrative instances of mental cruelty like long separation, humiliation, sustained neglect – Court found appellant’s situation fell within these parameters [Paras 14–16].

Divorce – Desertion – Section 13(1)(ib), Hindu Marriage Act – Wife living apart since 10.03.2013 after being assaulted and thrown out – Respondent made no genuine effort to resume cohabitation – Belated restitution petition filed after two years but dismissed for non-prosecution – Continuous separation beyond two years proved intention to end matrimonial relationship – Ground of desertion established [Paras 19–22].

Mental Cruelty – Long Separation – Court observed couple lived apart for nearly 12 years; bond irretrievably broken; marriage had become a legal fiction – Insistence on continuation would cause greater misery – Thus, long separation itself constituted mental cruelty as per Samar Ghosh principles [Paras 17, 22].

Procedural Aspect – Respondent though served notice in High Court proceedings chose not to appear despite repeated opportunities – No cross-examination of appellant’s witnesses or contrary evidence – Unrebutted testimony of appellant-wife accepted as truthful – Family Court’s dismissal set aside [Paras 10–11, 20–21].

Relief – Divorce granted solely on grounds of cruelty and desertion – Appellant-wife limited prayer to dissolution of marriage – Liberty reserved to seek permanent alimony separately before appropriate forum [Paras 23–24].

Disposition – Appeal allowed – Judgment and decree of Family Court dated 11.09.2018 set aside – Marriage between parties dissolved by decree of divorce – Registry directed to prepare decree accordingly [Paras 23–26].

Agreement to sell (27.09.2005) – ₹15 lakh earnest – suit for double earnest – Money claim enforceable in personam; Clause 10 confers exclusive Amritsar jurisdiction – Panchkula court lacked jurisdiction – S.16(c) Specific Relief Act: purchaser failed to prove continuous readiness/financial capacity; NOC sought for nominees; no extension sought – Regular Second Appeal allowed; suit dismissed with costs.

Agreement to Sell – Refund of Earnest Money – Section 16(c) SRA – Plaintiff Failed to Prove Readiness/Willingness – Decree Reversed – Purchaser paid ₹15 lakh earnest but never demonstrated financial capacity to pay balance ₹1.09 crore; no steps taken for nearly 3 years; application for NOC filed in names of third parties; no request for extension under Clause 6 – Held: statutory burden under Section 16(c) not met; conduct belied readiness; refund decree unsustainable [Paras 20-27, 33].

Civil Procedure – Territorial Jurisdiction – Sections 16 & 20 CPC – Exclusive Amritsar Court Clause – Suit Not Maintainable at Panchkula – Relief sought was refund of money, enforceable by personal obedience; agreement executed at Amritsar; defendant resided at Amritsar; Clause 10 conferred jurisdiction on Amritsar Courts – Held: Panchkula Court lacked jurisdiction; concurrent findings set aside [Paras 12-19].

Contract Law – Default Clauses – Clause 9 of Agreement – Consequences of Purchaser’s Breach – Agreement stipulated forfeiture of earnest if purchaser defaulted; double refund if seller defaulted – Purchaser’s delay, absence of readiness, and misuse of signed blank forms for NOC in others’ names amounted to backing out; hence, earnest money liable to forfeiture [Paras 23-25, 31].

Evidence – Financial Capacity – Proof Required – Bank and income-tax records established plaintiff’s limited income (~₹1.3 lakh annually); lacked means to pay balance consideration – Mere presence before Sub-Registrar insufficient – Findings of courts below contrary to settled law in Umabai v. Nilkanth Dhondiba Chavan (SC) and Man Kaur v. Hartar Singh Sangha (SC) – burden wrongly shifted to defendant [Paras 27-29].

Decision – Regular Second Appeal Allowed – Judgments of courts below set aside – Plaintiff’s suit dismissed with costs throughout [Paras 34].

Criminal Proceedings Against Doctors – Summoning Order for Medical Negligence Quashed – Magistrate failed to conduct mandatory enquiry or obtain expert opinion before issuing process under Section 304A IPC [Paras 15, 21–23, 29–30].

Medical Negligence – Section 304A IPC – Preliminary Enquiry Mandatory – Summoning Order Set Aside – Magistrate issued process against doctors without conducting enquiry under Section 202 CrPC despite petitioners residing outside jurisdiction – Held: Magistrate failed to examine supporting documents, did not apply mind or follow procedural safeguards before summoning – Order cryptic and non-speaking – Matter remitted for fresh consideration [Paras 15, 21–23, 29–30].

Medical Professional – Jacob Mathew Guidelines – No Prior Medical Board Opinion – Proceedings Vitiated – Complaint lacked credible medical board report from Government hospital applying Bolam test – Held: For prosecuting a doctor under Section 304A IPC, court must seek independent expert opinion before issuing process – Magistrate erred in ignoring this requirement under Jacob Mathew precedent [Paras 6, 19–20, 29–30].

Territorial Jurisdiction – Accused Residing Beyond Local Area – Section 202 CrPC Inquiry Mandatory – Summoning Invalid – Petitioners Nos. 2 & 3 not residing within jurisdiction of Magistrate – Held: Inquiry under Section 202 CrPC was mandatory before issuance of process – Magistrate's failure to comply renders process illegal [Paras 22–23, 29].

Summoning Process – Application of Mind – Requirement of Reasoned Satisfaction – Summoning Order Invalid – Held: Even if a detailed speaking order is not required, the order must reflect judicial satisfaction that complaint discloses prima facie offence – Absence of reasons or reference to documents renders order mechanical and unsustainable [Paras 21, 23–24].

Role of Magistrate – Not a Post Office – Active Scrutiny Required – Held: Duty of Magistrate to examine complaint intelligently, filter frivolous claims, and elicit supporting material – Complaint citing complex medical negligence required deeper scrutiny before setting criminal law into motion [Paras 23–27].

Remand – Direction for Medical Board – Fresh Order to be Passed – Held: Magistrate to constitute Medical Board of at least 3 Government Doctors including one Orthopaedician to opine on medical negligence – Opposite party to furnish documents within 8 weeks – Magistrate to proceed afresh thereafter [Paras 30–31].

Decision – Summoning Order Dated 04.03.2017 and Subsequent Orders Set Aside – Matter Remitted – Magistrate directed to seek medical board opinion and reconsider issuance of process in accordance with law [Para 30].

Anticipatory Bail – Cheating/Criminal Breach – Intraday trading with assured 10–15% monthly returns – Civil dispute plea rejected – Multiple victims and electronic admissions considered – Professional misconduct (liaisoning) noticed – Custodial interrogation necessary – Anticipatory bail and continuation of interim relief refused [Paras 8–16, 19–27, 29–30].

Criminal Law – Anticipatory Bail – Rejection – Applicants apprehending arrest under Sections 318(4) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 for alleged inducement to invest in intraday share trading with false assurance of 10%-15% monthly profit – FIR alleged Rs.30 lakh was collected from complainant under false pretext – Applicants later failed to repay the amount – Additional victims reported similar fraud – Held: Prima facie dishonest intention existed from inception – Civil dispute plea not sustainable – Application for anticipatory bail rejected [Paras 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 25, 27, 28, 29]

Cheating – False Assurances of High Profit – Applicants lured complainant into investing in share trading with unrealistic returns – Promise of 10%-15% profit per month considered inherently false and impossible to fulfil – Inducement coupled with such assurance held sufficient to attract offence of cheating – Defence that the transaction was civil in nature rejected [Paras 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 18]

Evidence – WhatsApp Messages and Transcripts – Applicants’ admissions regarding receipt of money and promises made reflected in WhatsApp chats and draft MoU – Transcripts certified under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act – These documents prima facie supported prosecution version and were inconsistent with defence of civil liability [Paras 12, 16, 17]

Professional Misconduct – Advocates Engaged in Liaisoning Work – Applicant No.2, a practicing advocate, admitted to paying Rs.26.32 lakhs for ‘liaisoning’ with revenue officials – Court observed such activity as unethical and prima facie misconduct under Section 35 of the Advocates Act – Strengthened inference of criminal conduct beyond civil dispute [Paras 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24]

Pattern of Offence – Multiple Complaints – Investigation revealed four other victims with similar complaints of inducement and financial loss – Court held this pattern indicated a larger fraudulent scheme and not isolated incident – Rejected argument that complainant knowingly invested despite risks [Paras 8, 25, 26]

Decision: Anticipatory bail application rejected – Interim protection also refused – Custodial interrogation held necessary for effective investigation [Paras 27, 28, 29, 30]

Specific Performance – Readiness and Willingness – Section 16(c), Specific Relief Act – Specific Performance Denied – Plaintiff failed to demonstrate financial capacity or readiness to perform obligations under agreement – Held: Plaintiff did not have funds or financing to pay remaining ₹1.75 Cr – Failure to establish readiness and willingness bars specific performance [Paras 22–25].

Proof of Payment – Receipt Dated 23.06.2016 (Ex.A3) Disbelieved – Specific Performance Denied – Plaintiff claimed additional payment of ₹2 lakhs to defendant after contract deadline to argue waiver of time clause – Court found contradictions in witness depositions and date on receipt was self-inserted – Held: Payment of ₹2 lakhs on 23.06.2016 not proved – No implied waiver of time clause [Paras 13, 17–21, 27].

Time as Essence – Clause in Sale Agreement Mandated Strict Compliance – Agreement Stands Cancelled – Ex.A1 stated forfeiture of advance and termination if balance was unpaid by due date – Held: Plaintiff failed to comply; time was indeed the essence – Non-performance warranted dismissal [Paras 16, 27].

Unregistered Partnership – Alleged Agreement (Ex.A2) Found Fabricated – Partnership Argument Rejected – Plaintiff claimed purchase was on behalf of 6 persons, formalised in Ex.A2 – Court disbelieved execution of Ex.A2 and found inconsistencies in testimonies of P.W.1 and P.W.3 – Held: Alleged agreement fabricated to bolster financial capacity argument [Paras 26–27].

Refund of Advance – Forfeiture Unjustified – Refund of ₹30 Lakhs Ordered with 12% Interest – Court noted no loss pleaded by defendant and land value had increased – Additional ₹2 lakhs disbelieved – Held: Plaintiff entitled to refund of ₹30 lakhs advanced under contract with interest @12% p.a. from 29.01.2025 [Paras 30–32].

Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – Decree for specific performance upheld – Plaintiff entitled only to refund of ₹30 lakhs advanced with 12% p.a. interest from 29.01.2025 – No costs awarded [Para 33].

Arbitration Law - Foreign Award – GAFTA Appeal Award 4618A (London) – Enforcement in India under Part II – Public Policy Objection – Enforcement Allowed – The petitioner, an Austrian company, sought enforcement of a GAFTA Appeal Award dated 28.09.2021 directing payment by the respondent, an Indian importer – The respondent resisted on grounds that the award violated Indian public policy and contained errors in interpretation of contract – Held: Section 48 does not permit a review on merits – Enforcement court cannot sit in appeal over contractual interpretation or factual findings – GAFTA Appeal Board’s award declared enforceable as decree under Section 49 – Execution permitted [Paras 23-29].

Public Policy – Narrow scope under Section 48 – No review on merits – The Court reiterated that post-2015 amendment, “public policy” in Section 48 is restricted to (i) fraud or corruption in making of award, (ii) contravention of fundamental policy of Indian law, or (iii) conflict with most basic notions of morality or justice – Mere misapplication of law or erroneous finding is not a ground – Respondent’s attempt to reopen the merits of GAFTA Appeal decision rejected [Paras 23-26].

Foreign Seat/Curial Law – English Arbitration Act remedies not availed – Estoppel at enforcement stage – Arbitration seated in London with English law as curial law – Under ss. 67–73 of English Arbitration Act, challenges to jurisdiction, serious irregularity, or errors of law must be made within 28 days – Respondent failed to take timely recourse – Citing POL India Projects, Court held that enforcement objections cannot substitute for missed challenge before seat court – Respondent estopped from raising new objections in India [Paras 11-14].

Scope under Part II – No “second look” at award – Enforcement court cannot revisit factual or legal merits of foreign award – Supreme Court in Shri Lal Mahal overruled Phulchand Exports, holding that Section 48 does not permit expanded “public policy” review – Court applied Renusagar test: only if contrary to (i) fundamental policy of Indian law, (ii) interests of India, or (iii) justice or morality, enforcement can be refused – Here none attracted [Paras 10, 15-16].

Seat/Law and Challenge Forum – London seat with English law as governing arbitration law – Following Eitzen Bulk, once parties choose foreign seat, Part I of Indian Arbitration Act is excluded – Any objections to fairness, procedure, or findings had to be raised before English courts under curial law – Respondent’s reliance on Indian domestic arbitration standards (Saw Pipes) misplaced [Paras 12-13].

NY Convention – Public Policy Defence – Application of Article V(2) – Enforcement to be refused only if contrary to fundamental policy of Indian law or most basic notions of morality and justice – Court cited Avitel and Vedanta to emphasise India’s pro-enforcement bias – Narrow defence cannot be stretched to cover mere contractual disagreement – Allegations of unjust enrichment or commercial unfairness do not amount to public policy violation [Paras 16-18].

Execution Proceedings – Section 46–49 of Arbitration Act – Section 46 makes foreign award binding; Section 48 sets limited defences; Section 49 provides that once enforceable, foreign award is deemed to be decree of Indian court – Court clarified that after recognition, petitioner may pursue attachment and sale of respondent’s assets, interest, and costs under CPC like any decree-holder [Paras 27-29].

Decision – Objections rejected; GAFTA Appeal Award No. 4618A (28.09.2021) treated as decree under Section 49; binding under Section 46; enforceable under Section 48 – Respondent’s resistance on public policy and merits grounds rejected – Petitioner entitled to execute award in India with all consequential reliefs – Application allowed [Paras 27-29].

Tenancy Law - Landlord-Tenant – Subletting – Eviction – Tenant settled abroad and premises found in exclusive possession of sub-tenant – Sub-tenant failed to prove direct tenancy with previous or current landlord – Rent Controller and Appellate Authority held subletting proved – High Court found no perversity or illegality in findings – Held: Concurrent findings of subletting justified – Eviction order affirmed [Paras 1-5, 13-14, 32]

Sub-tenant – Right to File Revision – Maintainability – Objection raised that sub-tenant, not being tenant, cannot file revision under Section 24(5) of the Act – Rejected – Held: Since sub-tenant was impleaded by landlord and decree was joint, sub-tenant had right to challenge it independently – Reliance placed on Supreme Court ruling in Karam Singh Sobti v. Pratap Chand, AIR 1964 SC 1305 – [Paras 16-19]

Civil Procedure – Revisional Jurisdiction – Scope – Revisional court not to re-appreciate evidence unless findings are perverse or illegal – Where concurrent findings of fact are possible and supported by evidence, revisional interference unwarranted – [Paras 20-22, 32]

Evidence – Proof of Subletting – Alleged rent receipts produced by sub-tenant disbelieved due to absence of originals, suspicious similarity in dates, and lack of proof of contents – Held: Findings of Rent Controller and Appellate Authority not perverse – [Para 23]

Pleadings – Sufficiency in Eviction Petitions – Objection raised that landlord failed to plead subletting occurred after commencement of Act and without written consent – Held: Though pleadings were not in precise statutory language, subletting was clearly averred and contested – No prejudice caused – Insufficiency of pleadings not fatal – Reliance on Virendra Kashinath Ravat v. Vinayak Joshi, AIR 1999 SC 162 – [Paras 24-29, 31]

Sub-tenant – Claim of Independent Tenancy – Sub-tenant claimed to be inducted by previous landlord – Found unproved by both courts below – Held: Sub-tenant failed to establish independent right – Eviction order binding on him as well – [Paras 12-14, 30]

Decision: Revision petition dismissed – Eviction order based on subletting affirmed – No costs – [Para 32]

Criminal Law – Bail - Sections 108, 69, 49, 56, 127(2), 115(2)  BNS - Abetment of Suicide – Requirement of Proximate Cause – Bail Granted – Petitioners accused of harassing deceased woman to convert religion for marriage – Suicide note cited as basis of charge – Court held that even repeated harassment must have a proximate connection to suicide – No such proximate act identified – Petitioners in custody since 18.08.2025 – Held: Further detention not warranted, bail granted with conditions [Paras 3–9]

BNS Interpretation – Section 108 (Abetment) – Suicide Note Not Sufficient – Court applies principle from Abhinav Mohan Delkar v. State of Maharashtra (2025) and Radhika Kapahtia v. State of Kerala (2024) – Held: Suicide note must reflect accused’s intention to drive deceased to suicide, not merely deceased’s perception – Accused’s intention is crucial for Section 108 BNS [Paras 7–8].

Decision – Bail Granted – Petitioners released on bail with conditions including bond of ₹50,000, appearance before IO, non-tampering of evidence, no travel abroad without permission – Jurisdictional court empowered to modify conditions [Paras 9].