Specific Performance – Agreement of Sale – Allegation of Loan Transaction – Dismissal of Second Appeal – Defendant contended that agreement of sale dated 13.08.2004 was fabricated and intended only as security for loan – No contemporaneous complaint or reply to legal notice disputing execution – Silence of defendant for years held fatal – Held: Findings of trial court and first appellate court based on proper appreciation of evidence – No perversity warranting interference [Paras 4–14].

Civil Procedure – Second Appeal – Substantial Question of Law – Scope – Questions raised relating to alleged loan transaction, family property and sister’s share – Concurrent findings of fact against defendant – No substantial question of law arising – Second appeal dismissed [Paras 9–14].

Specific Performance – Family Property – Agreement Executed by One Co-sharer – Defendant failed to establish that suit property could not be subject matter of agreement of sale – Mere plea of sister’s share without supporting evidence insufficient – Agreement extent consistent with pleadings and evidence [Paras 5–7, 10].

Evidence – Conduct of Party – Silence After Legal Notice – Defendant failed to reply to notice seeking execution of sale deed and did not initiate criminal proceedings alleging fabrication – Conduct weighed against defendant – Adverse inference drawn [Paras 10–13].

Execution Proceedings – Challenge under Article 227 – Consequence of Dismissal of Second Appeal – Sale deed executed and possession delivered pursuant to decree – Civil Revision Petitions challenging execution and delivery warrant rendered infructuous – No ground for interference once decree upheld [Paras 15–16].

Civil Revision – Article 227 – Limited Supervisory Jurisdiction – Executing court acted in accordance with decree – No jurisdictional error or material irregularity shown – Revisions dismissed [Paras 15–16].

Decision – Second Appeal and Civil Revision Petitions Dismissed – Decree for specific performance confirmed – No costs – All pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

Education Law – Student Discipline – Rustication – Conditions imposed by Writ Court – Validity – Learned Single Judge set aside rustication order but imposed multiple conditions including requirement to carry a placard admitting misconduct and stand at university gate for 30 minutes daily for 30 days – Division Bench held that while the High Court can mould relief under Article 226, directions must be reasonable, proportionate and non-stigmatic – Direction compelling student to publicly carry a placard was humiliating, punitive in nature and capable of casting a permanent scar on character – Such direction held wholly unjustified and liable to be set aside [Paras 9–11].

Education Law – Judicial Discretion under Article 226 – Humanitarian considerations – Scope – Directions relating to minimum attendance, affidavit of good conduct, written apology and deployment of anti-romeo squad upheld as reasonable and corrective – Court observed that appellant had poor attendance history and indulgence granted by Single Judge was justified – However, discretion cannot extend to imposition of degrading or shaming penalties [Paras 9–10].

Procedure – Delay in Filing Appeal – Condonation – Delay of 57 days – Sufficient cause shown by affidavit – Delay condoned in the interest of justice [Paras 4–7].

Relief – Consequences of setting aside stigmatic direction – If rustication was again imposed solely due to non-compliance with the quashed direction, appellant entitled to one opportunity to comply with remaining valid directions – On compliance, rustication to stand set aside – Appeal partly allowed and disposed of [Paras 11–13].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Direction No. (II) issued by the learned Single Judge set aside – Remaining directions upheld – Matter disposed of with consequential relief.

Criminal Law – Section 319 Cr.P.C. – Summoning of Additional Accused – Abetment of Suicide – Dowry Harassment – Revision Allowed – Revisionists (father-in-law and step-mother-in-law of deceased) summoned under Section 306 IPC by the trial court invoking Section 319 Cr.P.C., despite being exonerated during investigation and a closure report being filed against them – Charge sheet filed only against husband for offences under Sections 306, 498-A, 323 IPC – Allegations against revisionists found to be general and vague, unsupported by specific evidence of cruelty or additional dowry demand – Held: Impugned order summoning revisionists is not sustainable and is set aside – Trial court directed to decide the pending session trial expeditiously [Paras 2, 31-35].

Section 319 Cr.P.C. – Extraordinary Power – Standard of Proof – Higher than Prima Facie – Power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is discretionary and extraordinary in nature, to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection – Mere prima facie case is insufficient; strong and cogent evidence against the person sought to be summoned is required – The word "appears" in Section 319(1) imports a lesser degree of probability than proof but the court must be satisfied that the evidence, if unrebutted, may lead to conviction – Summoning order not to be passed in a casual and cavalier manner – Relied upon: Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab, AIR 2014 SC 1400; Sarabjit Singh vs. State of Punjab, AIR 2009 SC 2792 [Paras 16-19, 29-30].

Evidence – "Evidence" under Section 319 Cr.P.C. – Confined to Trial Evidence – The word "evidence" in Section 319(1) Cr.P.C. is limited to evidence recorded during trial and does not include materials in the charge sheet or case diary – Trial court can add a person as accused only on the basis of evidence adduced before it – Relied upon: Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2014) 3 SCC 92; Omi @ Omkar Rathore vs. State of M.P., 2025 INSC 27; Shiv Baran vs. State of U.P., Criminal Appeal No. 3008 of 2025; Brijendra Singh vs. State of Rajasthan, (2017) 7 SCC 706 [Paras 24-25].

Vague and General Allegations – Matrimonial Disputes – In-Laws – Caution Against Mechanical Summoning – Allegations against revisionists (father-in-law and step-mother-in-law) were general and vague with no specific demand of dowry or specific act of cruelty attributed to them during the entire subsistence of the marriage – PW-1 (father of deceased) himself admitted no complaint was made regarding cruelty or additional dowry demand – Minor daughter of deceased did not allege cruelty by revisionists – FIR not lodged under Dowry Prohibition Act nor was any charge sheet filed under the same – Held: Vague and cryptic allegations insufficient to summon accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. – Relied upon: Chhaya vs. State of Maharashtra, (2018) 17 SCC 8; Geeta Mehrotra vs. State of U.P., (2012) 10 SCC 741 [Paras 25-28, 31-34].

Hearsay Evidence – Dowry Harassment Cases – Section 306 IPC – While the trial court itself acknowledged that the testimony of PW-8 (bhabhi of deceased) regarding the deceased's oral complaints of harassment constituted hearsay evidence, it proceeded to summon the revisionists on that basis – Trial court erred in relying on such hearsay evidence as strong and cogent ground for summoning revisionists under Section 319 Cr.P.C. – The revisionist (father-in-law) himself had promptly informed the complainant of the deceased's death, indicating absence of concealment [Paras 8, 22, 31].

Criminal Revision – Maintainability – Post-Framing of Charge – Scope of Revision vs. Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Contention of opposite party that revision is not maintainable as charges have already been framed against the revisionists – Held: Scope and ambit of criminal revision under Cr.P.C. and inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are entirely different – Reliance on the Division Bench judgment in Shueb Mahmood Kidwai vs. State of U.P. (Application No. 3044 of 2017) to bar revision found inapplicable in the present context [Paras 12-15].

Decision: Criminal revision allowed – Impugned order dated 31.10.2025 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 17, Agra in Session Trial No. 2243 of 2023 set aside – All further orders passed on the basis of said order also set aside – Trial court directed to decide the pending session trial against other accused expeditiously in accordance with law [Paras 35-36].

Telegraph Act – Compensation for Surface Damage – Limitation – Respondent accepted assessed compensation in 1999 – Claim petition for enhancement filed in 2006 after 7 years – Specific plea of limitation taken in written statement – Held, limitation goes to the root of jurisdiction – Even if not framed, Court bound under Section 3 of Limitation Act to consider bar of limitation – Failure of District Judge to frame and decide issue of limitation vitiates impugned judgment [Paras 24-30].

Remand – Non-compliance with Earlier Directions – Earlier judgment of High Court in WP(C) No. 6097/2012 set aside initial award and remanded matter with observations including plea of limitation – On remand, District Judge again failed to frame issue on limitation and proceeded to award enhanced compensation – Held, such omission contrary to law and directions of High Court – Order liable to be set aside [Paras 11-13, 25, 28].

Ex Parte Proceedings – Duty of Court – Even if case proceeds ex parte or party fails to adduce evidence, Court must frame issues based on pleadings – Specific plea in written statement regarding limitation cannot be ignored – Framing of proper issues is mandatory [Paras 26-30].

Article 227 – Supervisory Jurisdiction – Where subordinate court fails to consider jurisdictional issue like limitation and acts contrary to law, interference warranted – Matter remanded for fresh decision after framing issue on limitation and granting opportunity to parties to adduce evidence [Paras 31-32].

Decision: Impugned judgment dated 21.09.2022 in Misc. (P.G.) Case No. 86/2006 set aside – Matter remanded to District Judge, Hailakandi to frame specific issue on limitation, permit parties to adduce evidence, and decide afresh – Expeditious disposal directed.

Matrimonial Law - Maintenance – Section 127 Cr.P.C. – Enhancement – Change in Circumstances – Divorced wife suffering from schizophrenia sought enhancement of maintenance – Husband, a Chartered Accountant employed in Dubai, earning substantial income – Wife unemployed, dependent on parents, and medically unfit to sustain herself – Held: Education does not equate to employability, particularly where mental illness is established – Husband who secured divorce on ground of wife’s mental illness cannot deny maintenance by asserting her earning capacity – Change in financial capacity of husband and rise in cost of living constitute valid grounds for enhancement [Paras 21–26, 34–36].

Maintenance – Quantum – Overseas Employment – Assessment of Income – Husband contended high cost of living in UAE and multiple liabilities – Court held voluntary liabilities such as personal loans and EMIs cannot override statutory obligation to maintain dependent spouse – Only mandatory deductions relevant – Cost of living abroad relevant but cannot be used to defeat wife’s right to dignified sustenance – Maintenance enhanced from ₹15,000/- to ₹20,000/- per month w.e.f. 12.07.2017 [Paras 29–36].

Maintenance – Date of Effect – Section 127 Cr.P.C. – Wife claimed enhancement should relate back to earlier Section 127 petition filed in 2007 which was dismissed on technical grounds – Held: Once earlier petition dismissed, even with liberty to file afresh, subsequent petition cannot relate back – Enhancement rightly granted from date of fresh application i.e. 13.01.2011 – No illegality in Family Court’s approach [Paras 37–45].

Execution Proceedings – Interpretation of Maintenance Order – Dispute whether maintenance was enhanced to ₹9,000/- or by ₹9,000/- per month for period prior to 12.07.2017 – Plain reading of operative portion showed substitution of amount, not addition – Family Court correctly held that ₹9,000/- per month was payable from 13.01.2011 till 12.07.2017 and ₹15,000/- thereafter – Execution rightly closed as satisfied with excess payment [Paras 46–51].

Conduct of Litigant – Frivolous Re-interpretation of Orders – Petitioner accepted interpretation of maintenance order for years and later took inconsistent stand during execution – Attempt to reopen settled issues deprecated – Revision challenging execution order held frivolous [Paras 52–54].

Decision: CRL.REV.P. No. 950/2017 partly allowed – Maintenance enhanced to ₹20,000/- per month w.e.f. 12.07.2017 – No interference with date of enhancement fixed by Family Court – CRL.REV.P. No. 295/2021 dismissed – Execution order upheld – Costs of ₹10,000/- imposed, payable to Delhi State Legal Services Authority.

Motor Accident Compensation – Multiplier – Age of Deceased – Deceased aged 55 years 3 months at time of accident – Insurer contended multiplier should be 9 instead of 11 – Held, as per Sarla Verma read with Reshma Kumari and affirmed in Pranay Sethi, multiplier for age group 51–55 years is 11 and for 56–60 years is 9 – Since deceased fell within 51–55 age bracket, Tribunal correctly applied multiplier of 11 – No interference warranted on this count [Paras 3-4, 39-40].

Future Prospects – Government Servant Above 50 Years – Deceased was an Assistant Teacher – Tribunal added 15% towards future prospects – Insurer contended no addition permissible for Government servant above 50 years – Court did not disturb addition of 15% future prospects but examined grant of interest thereon separately [Paras 8-10, 41, 43].

Interest on Future Prospects – Permissibility – Tribunal awarded interest @7% per annum on entire compensation including future prospects – Relying on Champabati Ray and similar Gauhati High Court precedents, held that interest cannot be awarded on component relating to future prospects, as same represents income relatable to future period – Interest to be calculated on compensation amount excluding 15% future prospects – Award modified to that extent [Paras 11, 42-45].

Driving Licence – Fake Licence – Liability of Insurer – Evidence of DTO official established that DL No. 363/NB/04 not issued by office and not traceable in register – Licence held not genuine – Applying Swaran Singh, insurer directed to pay compensation to claimants with liberty to recover from owner – Order of pay and recovery upheld [Paras 31-34, 37-38].

Negligence – Proof – Eye-witness testimony and charge-sheet established rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle – Finding of Tribunal on negligence affirmed [Paras 26-27].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Multiplier of 11 upheld – Direction of pay and recovery maintained – Award modified to exclude grant of interest on 15% component added towards future prospects – Interest @7% per annum to apply on remaining compensation amount – Records to be sent back to Tribunal.

Service Law – Departmental Enquiry – Judicial Review – Scope and Limits – Petitioner, a Customer Service Associate, was dismissed following an enquiry into allegations of unethical and dishonest activities involving unauthorized transfer of accounts and withdrawals from deceased accounts – Petitioner challenged the dismissal order and enquiry report on grounds of procedural illegality and lack of opportunity – Held: The scope of judicial review in departmental enquiry proceedings is extremely limited and does not assume the character of an appeal. The Court is confined to scrutinizing the decision-making process to ensure conformity with principles of legality, fairness, and natural justice. Once it is demonstrated that the findings rest upon some material evidence, the Court cannot re-appreciate or re-weigh the evidence to arrive at a different conclusion. The High Court must not venture into the adequacy or reliability of evidence unless the findings are perverse or wholly unsupported by evidence. – [Paras 6, 7, 9].

Service Law – Natural Justice – Opportunity to Defend – Petitioner contended that the dismissal order was passed without affording adequate opportunity and that the Enquiry Officer failed to allow defence evidence – Record indicated the petitioner requested 319 documents and a list of witnesses, which the Court viewed as a ploy to delay proceedings – Record further showed the petitioner explicitly declined the opportunity to cross-examine management witnesses or submit further evidence, stating he had "nothing to say further" – Held: The appraisal by the disciplinary authority clearly indicates that the charged employee was afforded ample opportunity at every stage. When an employee voluntarily declines to exercise the right to cross-examine or produce evidence despite being specifically asked by the Enquiry Officer, a subsequent plea of violation of natural justice is unsustainable. – [Paras 4, 5, 11].

Service Law – Disciplinary Proceedings – Perversity of Findings – Criteria for Interference – Held: A finding is perverse only if it ignores relevant material, considers inadmissible material, or is so outrageously illogical that no reasonable person would act upon it. In the present case, the Enquiry Officer based findings on the examination of over 300 documents, establishing unauthorized activation of inoperative accounts and mismatched signatures. Since the findings are supported by acceptable record, they cannot be treated as perverse. Interference is permissible only where there is evidence of malpractice, gross irregularity, or patent illegality, none of which were demonstrated by the petitioner. – [Paras 10, 11].

Service Law – Concurrent Proceedings – Enquiry during pendency of criminal case – Petitioner sought quashing of proceedings initiated during the pendency of a criminal case arising from identical facts (FIR No. 105) – Held: The disciplinary proceedings and criminal proceedings can proceed simultaneously as the standard of proof required in a departmental enquiry (preponderance of probability) is different from a criminal trial (proof beyond reasonable doubt). The pendency of a criminal case does not serve as an automatic bar to the conclusion of departmental proceedings. – [Paras 1, 2].

Decision: The High Court found no perversity or illegality in the impugned order of dismissal. The petitioner was afforded a full and fair opportunity of hearing, and the principles of natural justice were duly followed. The writ petition, being devoid of merit, was dismissed. – [Paras 11, 13].

Criminal Law – Criminal Intimidation – Section 506 IPC – Quash Petition under Section 482 CrPC – Allegation that accused drove car at victim with intention to cause fear of death – FIR and final report disclose specific overt act and intention – Prima facie offence made out – Proceedings not liable to be quashed [Paras 1–5, 8, 14–17].

Section 503 IPC – Ingredients – Threat with intent to cause alarm – Not confined to verbal threats – Act capable of creating reasonable apprehension of injury or death sufficient – Driving vehicle towards victim alleged to have instilled fear of death – Held: Satisfies basic ingredients of criminal intimidation at threshold stage [Paras 9–14].

Inherent Powers – Section 482 CrPC – Scope – High Court cannot conduct mini-trial or assess sufficiency of evidence – Interference justified only where allegations even if taken at face value do not constitute offence – Where FIR and final report disclose offence, proceedings must continue [Paras 15–16].

Distinction from Civil Dispute – Petitioner relied on precedents where allegations revealed purely civil disputes – Held: Present case involves allegation of physical act intended to cause alarm, supported by motive and eyewitness – Decisions relied on by petitioner held inapplicable on facts [Paras 6, 12–14].

Trial – Liberty to Accused – Though quashment declined, accused reserved liberty to raise all defences before Trial Court including filing discharge application – Trial Court directed to consider such plea independently, uninfluenced by observations in quash proceedings [Para 17].

Decision: Criminal Miscellaneous Case dismissed – No ground to invoke inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC – Criminal proceedings in C.C. No.17 of 2020 to continue in accordance with law.

False Promise of Marriage – Cheating under Section 417 IPC – Consensual Relationship Between Majors – Appellant convicted for cheating after acquittal under Section 376 IPC – Evidence showed long-standing love affair of more than 1½ years and repeated consensual physical relationship – No proof that consent was obtained under misconception of fact – Held: Conviction under Section 417 IPC unsustainable – Appeal allowed [Paras 7-8].

Consent – Section 90 IPC – Misconception of Fact – Prosecutrix aged about 23 years – Admitted love affair and voluntary physical relationship on several occasions – No evidence of force, threat or coercion – Medical evidence revealed no injuries – Trial Court itself held consent voluntary and not vitiated under Section 90 IPC – In absence of proof of false promise at inception, offence of cheating not made out [Paras 4, 7].

Rape Charge – Acquittal by Trial Court – Appellant acquitted of offence under Section 376 IPC – DNA evidence confirmed appellant as biological father of child – However, mere proof of paternity does not establish sexual intercourse against will or on false promise – Prosecution failed to prove absence of consent beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 3, 7].

Delay and Disclosure – Relationship Disclosed Only After Pregnancy – Evidence showed prosecutrix informed family only after becoming pregnant and when appellant declined marriage – Indicates consensual relationship rather than deception at inception – Conviction based solely on subsequent refusal to marry impermissible [Paras 4, 7].

Compensation – Despite Acquittal – Though conviction and sentence set aside, compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- already deposited in name of minor child directed to be sustained along with conditions permitting mother to withdraw periodical interest for welfare of child [Para 8].

Decision: Criminal Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 417 IPC set aside – Compensation already deposited in name of minor child sustained.