Criminal Law – Murder and Attempt to Murder – Appeal against Conviction – Abatement of Appeal on Death of Co-Accused – Appeal surviving only for one accused – Sections 302/34 and 307/34 IPC – Common Intention – Proof – Appeal partly abated due to death of accused-appellant Nos. 1 and 2 – Appeal considered only qua surviving appellant – Conviction challenged on ground of absence of common intention and overt act – Prosecution case based on prompt FIR, consistent eyewitness testimony and corroborative medical and forensic evidence – Accused arrived together armed with country-made pistols and bombs and jointly attacked victims – Pre-planned and premeditated assault established – Held: Ingredients of Section 34 IPC fully proved and conviction justified [Paras 1, 10, 21, 29, 33].

Common Intention – Section 34 IPC – Scope and Application – Contention that surviving appellant did not fire at deceased and therefore could not be convicted with aid of Section 34 IPC – Rejected – Common intention can be inferred from conduct, circumstances and participation in joint criminal act – Active presence, being armed, and participation in attack sufficient – Supreme Court precedents relied upon – Held: Section 34 IPC rightly invoked [Paras 11–13, 26–29].

Evidence Appreciation – Eyewitness Testimony – Credibility – Informant (PW-1) natural and reliable witness – Presence at place of occurrence established – Testimony consistent with FIR and corroborated by PW-2 – No material contradictions or embellishments – Evidence inspires confidence – Held: Conviction can safely be based on such testimony [Paras 16–20].

Medical and Forensic Evidence – Corroboration of Ocular Version – Multiple firearm and blast injuries found on deceased and injured witnesses – Medical opinion consistent with use of firearms and bombs – Recovery of empty cartridges, pellets, tiklis and bomb remnants from scene – Oral evidence fully supported by medical and scientific evidence – Held: Prosecution version proved beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 21–25].

Sentence – Life Imprisonment – No Interference Warranted – Trial Court’s judgment based on proper appreciation of evidence – No perversity or illegality found – Appeal dismissed – Surviving appellant directed to surrender to undergo remaining sentence – Bail cancelled [Paras 30–36].

Decision: Criminal Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 302/34 and 307/34 IPC affirmed – Direction issued for surrender of surviving appellant and compliance by Chief Judicial Magistrate.

Writ Jurisdiction – Article 226/227 – Disputed Questions of Fact – Insurance Coverage Dispute – Where adjudication requires examination of terms of master insurance policy and factual issues of deficiency in service – High Court ought not to exercise writ jurisdiction – Remedy lies before Consumer Forum [Paras 5, 7].

Home Loan – Loan Linked Insurance – Expiry of Policy – Borrower’s Death After Expiry – Insurance cover limited to 15 years – Death occurred after expiry of policy period – Prima facie insurer not liable, subject to adjudication by competent consumer forum [Paras 2, 4–5].

SARFAESI Act – Sections 13(2) and 13(4) – Enforcement Proceedings – Interim Protection – Possession notice challenged on ground of pending insurance claim – Court granted interim protection but declined to adjudicate insurance liability in writ proceedings [Paras 2, 3, 6–8].

Consumer Law – Deficiency in Service – Appropriate Forum – Claim alleging wrongful denial of insurance benefit to be adjudicated by District/State Consumer Forum – Writ Court declined to record findings on merits [Paras 7–8].

Equitable Relief – Liberty with Protection – Interim Order Continued – Petitioner permitted to approach Consumer Forum within 60 days – Interim protection against dispossession to continue till disposal of consumer complaint – Failure to approach forum within stipulated period would entitle Bank to proceed under SARFAESI Act [Paras 8–8.2].

Decision: Writ Petition Disposed of – High Court declined to adjudicate disputed insurance claim under writ jurisdiction – Liberty granted to petitioner to approach jurisdictional District/State Consumer Forum within 60 days – Interim order staying dispossession to continue subject to filing of consumer complaint – No findings rendered on merits of insurance claim.

Criminal Law - Quashing - Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Dishonour of Cheque – Not Negotiable Endorsement – Applicability – Petitioner sought quashing of complaint under Section 138 NI Act on ground that cheque bore "Not Negotiable" marking – Held: Endorsement “Not Negotiable” merely restricts transferee from acquiring better title under Section 130 NI Act – It does not nullify drawer’s liability or exclude application of Section 138 – Drawer remains liable if cheque issued in discharge of debt and dishonoured due to insufficient funds – Complaint maintainable – No ground to quash proceedings at preliminary stage [Paras 6–7]

Criminal Procedure – Section 482 CrPC – Inherent Powers – Scope – Petitioner challenged concurrent orders of trial and revisional court rejecting application to drop proceedings under NI Act – Held: Courts below rightly held that legality of cheque and existence of enforceable debt are triable issues requiring evidence – No jurisdictional error or abuse of process shown – Petition under Section 482 CrPC dismissed [Paras 6–7]

Interpretation of NI Act – “Not Negotiable” Endorsement – Legal Effect – Cited case Durga Shah Mohal Lal Bankers v. Governor General in Council, AIR 1952 All 590 explained – Endorsement does not destroy negotiability or legality of cheque – Trial to proceed to determine liability [Para 6]

Decision: Petition dismissed – Courts below rightly held that issue of whether cheque was issued in discharge of legally enforceable debt and applicability of Section 138 are matters of trial – “Not Negotiable” endorsement does not render Section 138 inapplicable – No interference warranted under Section 482 CrPC.

Civil Suit – Rejection of Plaint – Order 7 Rule 11 CPC – Application seeking rejection of plaint on ground that suit for administration of estate is barred in law as plaintiff had propounded a Will and probate proceedings were pending – Held: Plaint cannot be rejected where it discloses a cause of action and is not barred by law – Order VII Rule 11 invoked erroneously [Paras 57–58, 70–71, 76].

Administration of Estate – Civil Court Jurisdiction – Distinction from Probate Proceedings – Plaintiff propounded Will of 1994 and filed probate petition as executor – Defendant contended civil court lacked jurisdiction till probate decided – Held: Probate court has exclusive jurisdiction only to decide genuineness and execution of Will – Administration of estate and protective reliefs fall within civil court’s jurisdiction – Remedies are distinct and can proceed concurrently [Paras 59–62, 73, 77].

Pending Probate – Maintainability of Administration Suit – Mere pendency of testamentary proceedings does not bar institution or continuation of suit for administration of estate – Grant of probate may follow suit but must precede final decree – Section 213 of Succession Act not a bar to institution of civil action [Paras 63–64].

Executor – Section 211 Succession Act – Legal Representative – Executor becomes legal representative of deceased upon death – Vesting of estate enables prosecution of civil proceedings without waiting for probate – Rights subject to outcome of probate proceedings [Paras 63, 45].

Two Competing Wills – Civil Court’s Limited Role – Plaintiff acknowledged later Will of 2012 propounded by defendant – Held: Civil court need not and cannot decide which Will is genuine – Testamentary court alone to adjudicate validity – Civil court confined to administration and protection of estate [Paras 62, 73–74].

Alternative Pleas – Will and Intestacy – Permissibility – Plaintiff sought administration as per Will and alternatively on intestacy – Objection that pleas were mutually destructive rejected – Held: Alternative pleas permissible where factual foundation not inconsistent – Alternate relief would arise only if both Wills held invalid [Paras 65–67].

Contradictory vs Alternative Pleas – Test Applied – Pleas not self-destructive as they operate on different eventualities – Reliance on Praful Manohar Rele and Sarva Shramik Sangh affirmed – No bar to claiming alternate reliefs on same factual matrix [Paras 65–67].

Rejection of Plaint in Parts – Impermissible – Defendant sought rejection of prayers (a) to (c) alone – Held: Plaint must be read as whole – Partial rejection not permissible under Order VII Rule 11 CPC [Paras 70].

Concurrent Proceedings – Civil and Testamentary Courts – Suit for administration and probate proceedings may proceed simultaneously – Final decree in administration suit to await outcome of probate proceedings [Paras 77].

Decision – Notice of Motion seeking rejection of plaint dismissed – Suit held maintainable – Four weeks’ stay granted on operation of order [Paras 78–80].

Civil Law – Appointment of Local Commissioner – Order 26 Rule 9 CPC – Refusal to Appoint Commissioner – Revisability – Petition filed under Article 227 challenging order of Civil Judge (Junior Division) dismissing application for appointment of Local Commissioner – Held: Order refusing appointment of Local Commissioner neither decides any issue nor adjudicates rights of parties and therefore is not revisable – Appointment of Local Commissioner is purely discretionary and no vested right accrues to any party [Paras 1–3].

Supervisory Jurisdiction – Article 227 of Constitution – Limited Scope – High Court reiterated that supervisory jurisdiction is not meant to circumvent settled law on maintainability of revisions – Reliance placed on binding Division Bench judgment holding such orders as non-revisable – No illegality or perversity found in impugned order [Paras 2–3].

Withdrawal of Revision Petition – Liberty to Lead Evidence – Petitioner sought permission to withdraw revision in view of settled legal position and availability of opportunity to lead evidence at appropriate stage – Revision dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to petitioner to adduce relevant evidence during trial [Paras 4–5].

Decision: Civil Revision dismissed as withdrawn – Liberty granted to petitioner to lead relevant evidence before Trial Court.

NDPS Act – Bail – Commercial Quantity – Rigours of Section 37 – Applicants sought bail under Section 483 BNSS in FIR registered under Sections 21 and 29 NDPS Act – Recovery of 468.380 grams of Chitta (Heroin) effected from co-accused – Quantity admittedly commercial – Held: Once offence involves commercial quantity, mandatory twin conditions under Section 37 NDPS Act must be satisfied – Bail is exception and refusal is rule [Paras 14–17].

Bail – Reasonable Grounds – Standard of Satisfaction – Court must record satisfaction that accused is not guilty and unlikely to commit offence while on bail – “Reasonable grounds” means something more than prima facie case – Applicants failed to demonstrate substantial probable cause to believe they were not guilty – Held: Statutory threshold under Section 37 not met [Paras 18–19].

Criminal Conspiracy – Section 29 NDPS Act – Financial Transactions as Linking Evidence – Prosecution relied upon disclosure statements, bank account transactions running into lakhs and crores, CDRs, mobile phone data and WhatsApp chats – Applicants alleged to be part of organised interstate drug syndicate – Held: Financial trail and electronic evidence prima facie establish nexus attracting Section 29 NDPS Act [Paras 11.12–11.46].

Parity – Bail Granted to Co-Accused – No Automatic Right – Applicants sought parity with co-accused earlier enlarged on bail by Special Judge – Held: Bail orders passed without recording mandatory findings under Section 37 NDPS Act are per incuriam – Parity cannot be claimed on basis of illegal or flawed bail orders [Paras 20–23].

Judicial Discipline – Binding Nature of Supreme Court Precedent – Special Judge granted bail to co-accused without considering Section 37 NDPS Act – High Court deprecated approach as contrary to binding law laid down in Mohit Aggarwal and Kashif – Held: Courts are duty bound to strictly comply with Section 37 before granting bail [Paras 21–23].

Investigation Completed – Filing of Charge-Sheet – No Ground for Bail – Though charge-sheet filed, seriousness of offence, societal impact and statutory bar under Section 37 override usual considerations for bail – Held: Completion of investigation does not dilute rigours of Section 37 NDPS Act [Paras 11.47–11.48, 24].

Societal Impact – Drug Menace – Youth at Risk – Alleged drug racket capable of affecting thousands of persons – Organised trade exceeding ₹5 crores alleged – Held: Gravity of offence and societal repercussions are relevant considerations against grant of bail [Paras 11.45–11.46].

Decision: Bail applications dismissed – No case made out for grant of bail under Section 483 BNSS – Observations confined to bail stage and not to affect merits of trial.

Civil Law – Framing of Issues – Will Propounded by Defendant – Mandatory Duty of Court – Plaintiff filed suit claiming ownership by natural inheritance – Defendants pleaded Will dated 16.08.1978 to defeat plaintiff’s claim – Trial Court framed general issue on entitlement to declaration but failed to frame specific issue on validity and effect of Will – Application by plaintiff for framing additional issue dismissed on ground that only defendants could seek such issue – Held: Plea of Will constitutes a distinct and material proposition of fact and law and Court is statutorily bound to frame a specific issue thereon [Paras 2, 5].

Order XIV Rules 1 and 5 CPC – Scope and Application – Issues are to be framed by Court on basis of pleadings and not at discretion of parties – Any party affected by a plea raised is entitled to seek framing of an issue – Court empowered to frame or amend issues at any stage before passing of decree if necessary for determining real controversy – Stage of rebuttal evidence no bar to framing additional issue [Paras 7].

Will – Proof – Burden of Proof – Procedural Safeguards – Proof of Will governed by special statutory requirements under Indian Succession Act and Evidence Act – Burden lies on propounder of Will – Absence of specific issue on Will renders trial procedurally deficient and final adjudication vulnerable to challenge – General issue cannot substitute a specific issue on Will [Paras 6].

Supervisory Jurisdiction – Article 227 – Failure to Exercise Jurisdiction – Trial Court declined to frame necessary issue on erroneous understanding of law – Such refusal amounts to material error of jurisdiction – Interference by High Court warranted to ensure proper adjudication of lis [Paras 8].

Decision: Civil Revision allowed – Impugned order dated 26.11.2025 set aside – Trial Court directed to frame additional issue regarding validity, execution and binding effect of Will dated 16.08.1978 and proceed with suit in accordance with law [Paras 9–10].

Divorce – Appeal against Dismissal of Suit – Special Marriage Act, 1954 – Appellate Court’s Duty – Trial Court failed to appreciate pleadings and evidence on record – Findings based on conjectures and improper appreciation of evidence – Judgment and decree set aside [Paras 10, 37–38, 95–96].

Cruelty – Mental Cruelty – Abuse at Workplace – False Allegations on Chastity – Threats and Public Humiliation – Serious allegations pleaded and supported by evidence-in-chief – Evasive denials in written statement – Doctrine of Non-Traverse attracted – Allegations deemed admitted – Cruelty established on preponderance of probabilities [Paras 34–36, 44, 53, 56].

Cruelty – Procedural Fairness – Denial of Opportunity to Adduce Evidence – Refusal to allow video-conferencing of witnesses on ground of lack of infrastructure – Trial Court itself prevented production of best evidence – Adverse inference against wife impermissible – Refusal held unsustainable [Paras 14, 36–38, 52–53].

Desertion – Living Separately since 2015 – Stray Visits not Amounting to Cohabitation – Husband failed to prove alleged reunion or conjugal life post-2015 – Absence of corroborative documentary or oral evidence – Desertion proved on preponderance of probabilities [Paras 39–44, 56].

Standard of Proof – Matrimonial Proceedings – Preponderance of Probabilities – Not proof beyond reasonable doubt – Civil standard applicable – Trial Court erred in applying stricter standard [Para 44].

Pleadings and Evidence – Credibility of Husband – Contradictory Stand on Employment and Income – Claim of Business Unsubstantiated – Admission of Working as Day Labour – False explanations undermine credibility – Court entitled to disbelieve version [Paras 46–51].

Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage – Long Separation – Loss of Emotional Bond – Marriage reduced to legal fiction – Continuation would cause mental cruelty to both parties – Marriage held to be beyond repair [Paras 68–73].

Irretrievable Breakdown as Cruelty – Special Marriage Act, 1954 – Section 27(1)(d) – Cruelty to be interpreted broadly – Supreme Court in Rakesh Raman v. Kavita held irretrievable breakdown to be an integral component of cruelty – Ratio applicable equally to Special Marriage Act due to pari materia provisions [Paras 59–61, 75–83, 93–94].

Precedent – Article 141 – Binding Nature – Rakesh Raman v. Kavita distinguished from Rinku Baheti v. Sandesh Sharda – Latter not overruling former – Rakesh Raman declared law on cruelty, not confined to Article 142 – High Court bound to apply same [Paras 83–92].

Decision – Divorce Granted – Grounds of Cruelty and Desertion Established – Marriage Dissolved – Visitation Rights to Father safeguarded in interest of minor child – No order as to costs [Paras 95–100].

NDPS Act – Quashing of Proceedings – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Accused implicated only on basis of voluntary/confessional statements recorded under Section 67 NDPS Act – No independent corroborative material linking petitioner to offence – Continuation of prosecution held to be abuse of process of law [Paras 8, 11].

Section 67 NDPS Act – Evidentiary Value – Confessional statements recorded by NCB officers inadmissible – Officers under Section 53 NDPS Act deemed “police officers” – Bar under Section 25 Evidence Act attracted – Reliance placed on Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu and followed consistently – Confession of accused or co-accused cannot form sole basis for prosecution [Paras 9–11].

Co-accused Confession – Limited Evidentiary Worth – Confession of co-accused cannot, by itself, justify prosecution or framing of charge – Strong suspicion must be founded on admissible material capable of being translated into evidence at trial – Mere statements under Section 67 insufficient [Paras 9–11].

Controlled Delivery – Section 50A NDPS Act – Mandatory Compliance – Controlled delivery undertaken without authorisation by Director General or authorised officer – Non-compliance vitiates identification of accused through controlled delivery – Proceedings against similarly placed co-accused already quashed – Parity applicable [Paras 7–8].

Parity – Earlier Quashing of Proceedings – Proceedings against Accused No.2 quashed on identical facts in Abhay Kumar v. Union of India – Petitioner stands on equal or better footing – No distinguishing incriminating material against petitioner [Paras 4, 7–8].

NDPS Prosecution – Foundational Facts – Prosecution failed to establish conscious possession, knowledge, or role of petitioner – No recovery from petitioner – Burden under Sections 35 and 54 NDPS Act never shifted to accused [Paras 8–11].

Decision – Criminal Petition Allowed – Proceedings in Special C.C. No.2932/2023 quashed qua petitioner – Clarification that observations confined to petitioner and shall not affect trial of other accused [Paras 11–12].