Anticipatory Bail – Petition filed seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. – Offences under Sections 120-B, 406, 420, 468, 471 IPC – Petitioner a victim of alleged conspiracy – Loan obtained against gold jewelry – Allegation of fraud against bank officials – Several criminal cases registered against similar individuals – Allegations of connivance with managing director of empaneledjeweler – Petitioner’s compliance with loan procedure – Petitioner joined investigation – Interim anticipatory bail made absolute. [Para 1-9]

Procedure and Compliance – Petitioner complied with bank’s procedure for availing loan – Jewelry verified by empaneledjeweler in presence of bank officials – Petitioner’s willingness to continue joining investigation – Interim anticipatory bail made absolute. [Para 7]

Observations – Court’s observations not indicative of merits of the case – Petitioner granted anticipatory bail without expressing opinion on case’s merits. [Para 6]

Petitioner’s petition for anticipatory bail disposed of – Interim anticipatory bail granted earlier made absolute, subject to compliance with Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. and continued cooperation with investigation. [Para 8]

Criminal Appeal – Sentencing in murder case – Convicts held guilty for various charges including murder, conspiracy, and destruction of evidence – Aggravating and mitigating circumstances considered – Court emphasizes reformation and integration of convicts into society – No “rarest of rare” circumstances found – Convicts sentenced to imprisonment for life with concurrent sentences for different charges – Fine imposed on convicts to be disbursed to legal heirs of victims – Court cites legal precedents and principles for imposing sentences – Appeals disposed of accordingly.

Sentencing Principles – Court refers to Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) and Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (1984) to emphasize the norm of life imprisonment with death penalty being an exception – Consideration of aggravating and mitigating factors, circumstances, and principles while determining sentence – Convicts’ arguments based on circumstantial evidence refuted – Convicts’ conduct, age, family situations, and past convictions taken into account.

Reformation and Integration – Court highlights importance of reformation and integration of convicts into society – Death penalty to be avoided when a chance of reformation exists – Lengthy trial process and pandemic-related delays considered as mitigating circumstances – Court balances retribution with rehabilitation.

Aggravating and Mitigating Circumstances – Court examines aggravating circumstances including multiple murders, previous criminal record, and fear instilled in victims’ families – Mitigating circumstances include age of convicts, dependent family members, and long incarceration – Court concludes that the case does not meet the “rarest of rare” criteria.

Sentence – Convicts sentenced to imprisonment for life – Specific sentences for different charges imposed concurrently – Convicts Jai Parkash and Parmod, already undergoing life imprisonment for murder of another complainant, sentenced to imprisonment for life for rest of their lives – Fine imposed to be disbursed to legal heirs of victims – Appeals concluded.

Civil Suit – Jurisdiction – Territorial jurisdiction of the court – Whether the Court at Patiala had territorial jurisdiction in a suit involving immovable property situated in Gurugram, Haryana – Provisions of Section 16 and Section 20 of the CPC considered – The suit property was situated in Gurugram, Haryana, and as per Section 16 CPC, suits in relation to immovable property are required to be instituted in the Court within the local limits of whose area the property is situated – The Courts of Gurugram had exclusive jurisdiction over the property – Jurisdiction cannot be conferred by agreement or contract when the Court lacks jurisdiction as per the provisions of the CPC – Relevant case law, including the case of Harshad Chiman Lal Modi vs. DLF Universal Ltd, discussed – Courts within whose territorial jurisdiction the property is not situate have no power to decide the rights or interests in respect of such property – Impugned order held to be erroneous, and the issue of jurisdiction decided in favor of the petitioner. [Para 23A-23K]

Civil Procedure Code – Rejection of plaint – Maintainability of the petitioner’s application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC – Petitioner sought rejection of the plaint on grounds including lack of territorial jurisdiction – Objection raised that Order 7 Rule 11 CPC deals with specific grounds for rejection of plaint and lack of jurisdiction is not one of them – Court found that the application also raised other grounds like insufficient court fees and forged document, which fall within the domain of Order 7 Rule 11 – Comprehensive application maintainable – Proper valuation of the suit also discussed – Application allowed on multiple grounds. [Para 24A-24C]

Civil Suit – Rejection of plaint – Multiple grounds for rejection of plaint including lack of jurisdiction, inadequate court fees, and forged document – Court found that the learned Trial Court did not address other material issues raised by the petitioner – Plaintiff’s valuation of the suit compared to the agreement’s sale consideration highlighted – Suit filed after a long gap of over 12 years from the alleged agreement – Impugned order set aside – Revision petition allowed – Plaintiff advised to file a civil suit before the competent jurisdiction. [Para 25-32]

Facts [Para 2, 3, 4]

The case revolves around a Sub Inspector of Police, S.SukumaranChettiyar, who had registered a crime against an Advocate under Section 51(A) of the Kerala Police Act, 1960. The Advocate was accused of behaving disorderly and uttering obscene words in public. The Magistrate found that the initial medical certificate did not mention any smell of alcohol, and a false certificate was later produced. The Magistrate also noticed a personal rivalry between the Sub Inspector and the accused.

 Issues [Para 1, 5]

The central issue is whether a Sub Inspector of Police can be imposed with compensation under Section 250 Cr.P.C. after the acquittal of the accused. The revision petitioner argued that the imposition of compensation is inherently without jurisdiction.

 Observations [Para 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13]

The court observed that Section 250 Cr.P.C. specifies instances when such compensation can be ordered and does not include cases registered suo motu by police officers. The court also referred to previous judgments that supported this view. The court emphasized that compensation under Section 250 Cr.P.C. is a special provision and should not be extended beyond its literal interpretation.

 Decision [Para 14]

The court set aside the imposition of compensation upon the revision petitioner, stating that it was irregular and liable to be set aside. The criminal revision petition was allowed.

Criminal Bail Application – Regular bail sought under Section 439 Cr.P.C. – Challenge to Order dated 31.10.2022 – NDPS Act – Offences under Sections 8/21/22/23/29 NDPS Act – Seizure of narcotic drugs – Conspiracy involving petitioner and co-accused – Recovery of Heroin and Cocaine from parcels and residential premises – Petitioner in custody for more than 7 years – Applicability of Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee vs. Union of India guidelines on undertrial prisoners’ release – Precedents considered – Nature of contraband, commercial quantity, and potential sentence – Consideration of period of incarceration – Necessity of continued detention – Balance between liberty and public interest – Adherence to principles of bail – Importance of fair trial – Bail application allowed with conditions.

Passport Renewal – The petitioner seeks the renewal of his passport – Passport renewal denied due to pending criminal cases against the petitioner – Reliance placed on Gazette Notification No.G.S.R No.298(E) dated 14.04.1976 – Reference to prior judgments regarding passport renewal in similar cases – Interpretation of the applicability of the Gazette Notification – Distinction between intending to depart from India and seeking passport renewal – Court concludes that the Gazette Notification pertains to those intending to depart from India, not to passport renewal – Legal impediment in applying the Gazette Notification to passport renewal not found – Writ petition allowed, directing respondents to renew petitioner's passport within three months – Clarification that passport renewal does not grant automatic permission to travel abroad – Permission from concerned courts required for travel abroad in cases with pending criminal proceedings. (Para 9 to 11)

Criminal Appeal – Appellant/Husband’s appeal against denial of divorce – Grounds of desertion, unsoundness of mind, and mental disorders – Examination of the appellant’s claims in light of legal provisions and precedent – Disputed issues pertaining to marriage dissolution.

Desertion as Ground for Divorce – Analyzing Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act – Marriage dissolution upon desertion for a continuous period – Distinction between desertion and temporary separation – Essential conditions for desertion – Factors such as separation, intent, and consent – Precedents emphasizing inference drawn from factual circumstances. [Para 49 to 57]

Unsoundness of Mind and Mental Disorders as Grounds for Divorce – Interpretation of Section 13(1)(iii) of the Act – Requirement for spouse seeking relief to reasonably not live with the other – Determining degree of mental disorder – Legal perspectives on mental disorders – Not all mental abnormalities considered as grounds for divorce – Need for incurable unsoundness of mind and inability to cohabit. [Para 58 to 65]

Marriage as a Sacred Institution – Recognizing the significance of marriage in Indian society – Honoring the sanctity and permanence of the marriage bond – Legal reflection on the responsibilities and challenges inherent in marital relationships – Importance of mutual support and endurance.

Burden of Proof and Evidence – Assessing burden of proof in divorce cases – Evaluation of evidence supporting desertion, unsoundness of mind, and mental disorder claims – Consideration of continuous cohabitation, child upbringing, and medical evidence – Relevance of medical prescriptions and treatment records.

Decision and Costs – Appellant/Husband’s appeal dismissed – Upholding Family Court’s decision to deny divorce – Each party to bear their respective costs – Judicial endorsement of the Family Court’s judgment based on the presented evidence and legal arguments. [Para 66]

Civil Suit for Injunction – Rejection of Plaint – Jurisdiction under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC – Defendants sought rejection of plaint on various grounds – Challenge to maintainability of a simpliciter suit for injunction without seeking relief of declaration of title – Applicability of principles of estoppel – Challenge to plaintiff’s claim based on unregistered and insufficiently stamped documents – Scope of power under Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Test to determine whether a cause of action is disclosed in the plaint – Importance of considering averments in the plaint and not the contentions in the written statement – Plaintiff’s claim based on Agreement to Sell, General Power of Attorney, and Deed of Apartment – Late Dr. Pushpa Khanna’s physical possession of suit property – Appointment of plaintiff as Interim Administrator of estate – Principles of estoppel in relation to earlier withdrawn suit – Prohibition of claim to ownership based on GPA/Agreement to Sell per Suraj Lamps decision – Clarification on genuine transactions and protection under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act – Application dismissed. [Para 1-16]

Criminal Appeal – Conviction under Section 29 of the ND&PS Act – Lack of evidence to establish abetment or criminal conspiracy – Discrepancies in link evidence – Non-compliance with Section 42 – Production of seized contraband before Magistrate – Presumption of possession under Section 54 – Mere non-production of specimen seal – Appeal allowed – Conviction set aside. [Para 42]

Criminal Conspiracy – Ingredients to establish criminal conspiracy under Section 29 of the ND&PS Act – Agreement between accused – Doing of an illegal act or lawful act by unlawful means – No evidence of criminal conspiracy – Appellant's presence not sufficient to infer conspiracy – Reference to case law and precedent. [Para 46-53]

Link Evidence – Discrepancies in link evidence – Minor contradictions in testimonies – Normal errors of observations – Test of credibility – Marginal variations do not render evidence brittle – Necessity to separate grain from shaft – Discrepancies not affecting core of prosecution case – No material improvement or contradiction undermining witness credibility. [Para 70-71]

Seizure and Production – Compliance with Section 52A of the ND&PS Act – Sampling and drawing of samples – Judicial Magistrate's role – Description of proceedings – Discrepancies in inventory preparation – Role of court seal and re-seal impression – Non-production of specimen seal – Precedent on non-production of seal in evidence. [Para 72-78]

Conclusion – Conviction under Section 29 of the ND&PS Act not sustained – Lack of evidence for abetment or criminal conspiracy – Discrepancies not undermining core of prosecution case – Non-compliance with Section 42 not fatal – Appeal allowed – Immediate release of appellant ordered – Personal bond and surety required as per Section 437A Cr.P.C. [Para 79-80]