Domestic Violence – Expeditious Disposal – Section 12(5) of D.V. Act – Directive Issued – Husband-Petitioner filed CRLMP seeking direction to J.M.F.C., Bhubaneswar to conclude CMC No. 40 of 2022 within 45 days on a day-to-day basis – Wife-Opposite Party had filed the original application under Section 12 of the D.V. Act claiming reliefs under Sections 18, 19, 20 and 22 – Status report revealed "Both the parties are filing multiple petitions on almost every date of adjournment... the case gets lingered for disposal of the petitions" – Held: The J.M.F.C. is directed to make endeavour to dispose of CMC No. 40 of 2022 within six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order – Unnecessary adjournments shall not be granted to either party [Paras 1-4, 10-11].

"Justice Delayed Is Justice Denied" – Salutary Object of Section 12(5) of D.V. Act – Time Limit for Disposal – Section 12(5) mandates that "the Magistrate shall endeavour to dispose of every application made under sub-section (1) within a period of sixty days from the date of its first hearing" – The Court observed that while strict compliance within 60 days may not always be practical, the legislative intent behind the provision is for expeditious disposal – "It may not be possible or practical to dispose of the application within 60 days, but endeavour should be made for expeditious disposal, without depriving any of the parties of effective hearing" – Dilatory tactics by either party cannot be permitted to defeat the purpose of the D.V. Act [Paras 8-9].

Women's Protection – Constitutional Mandate – Object of D.V. Act – The Court reaffirmed that "The D.V. Act has been enacted with the object of providing effective rights of protection to the women guaranteed under Article 15 of the Constitution of India, who are victim of any kind of violence within the family" – Section 12(5) was specifically inserted with the intention of ensuring expeditious disposal of applications filed by aggrieved women – Any prolonged pendency on account of unnecessary adjournments runs contrary to the constitutional guarantee and the protective object of the statute [Para 8].

Adjournments – Abuse of Process – Multiple Interlocutory Petitions – The status report from the J.M.F.C. revealed a pattern of procedural abuse wherein "Before disposal of one petition, another 2 to 3 petitions get added for consideration" – The case had been consistently adjourned at the instance of the Opposite Party or her counsel after the file was transferred to J.M.F.C. on 02.07.2025 – The Court found that such multiplicity of petitions and repeated adjournments were causing hardship and defeating the expeditious disposal mandated under the D.V. Act – "If unnecessary or long adjournments are granted, to either party, the case will continue to linger" [Paras 3-4, 9].

Notice – Dispensation – Ex-Parte Order – In view of the limited nature of relief and the directions proposed, the Court held that "notice of this application is not required to be issued to the Opp. Party, before disposing of the application" – The CRLMP was accordingly disposed of ex-parte with directions to the trial court, and a copy of the order was directed to be forwarded by the Registry to the J.M.F.C., Bhubaneswar forthwith [Paras 7, 11-12].

Decision: CRLMP disposed of – J.M.F.C., Bhubaneswar directed to make endeavour to dispose of CMC No. 40 of 2022 within six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order – Unnecessary adjournments shall not be granted to the parties – Copy of order to be sent to J.M.F.C., Bhubaneswar forthwith.

Criminal Appeal – Murder Conviction – Acquittal – Sole Eyewitness – Benefit of Doubt – Accused convicted by Sessions Court under Sections 302 and 324 IPC for causing death of deceased by hitting with wooden rafter – Appeal against conviction and sentence of life imprisonment – Prosecution case resting substantially on testimony of injured sole eyewitness (PW11) – High Court reappreciates evidence and finds prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 1–3, 50].

Evidence – Sole Eyewitness – Credibility – Intoxicated Witness – Inconsistencies – PW11 claimed to have witnessed assault and also sustained injuries – Her first version before doctor naming another assailant (Albin) materially inconsistent with later court testimony implicating accused – Admitted consumption of alcohol and repeated inability to recollect material facts – Witness not of “sterling quality” as required in law – Unsafe to base conviction solely on such testimony [Paras 12–14, 36–42].

Medical Evidence vs Ocular Testimony – Contradictions – PW11 alleged repeated assault, dragging, fainting and loss of consciousness – Medical evidence disclosed only simple injuries with no indication of concussion or prolonged unconsciousness – Medical evidence rendering ocular version improbable – Ocular evidence disbelieved to that extent [Paras 36, 41–42].

Investigation – Delay in Recording Statements – Effect – Statement of crucial eyewitness not recorded immediately though she allegedly approached police next day – FIR registered on information given by PW1 instead of injured eyewitness – Statements of material witnesses recorded after unexplained delay of several days – Delay creating serious doubt of embellishment and afterthought [Paras 43–45].

Investigation Lapses – Non-examination of Material Witnesses – Non-recovery of Evidence – Prosecution failed to examine independent witness (Shaji) to whom PW11 allegedly narrated incident – Bloodstained clothes of injured eyewitness not seized or sent for forensic examination – Serious gaps in evidentiary chain weakening prosecution case [Paras 46–47].

Criminal Jurisprudence – Suspicion vs Proof – Reiterated that suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute proof beyond reasonable doubt – Trial court convicted accused on surmises and conjectures without proper evaluation of evidence – Accused entitled to benefit of doubt [Paras 48–50].

Decision: Criminal Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 302 and 324 IPC set aside – Accused acquitted and directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case.

Family Law - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 13(1)(i-a) – Divorce on Ground of Cruelty – Sustained mental cruelty – Appellant-wife subjected to dowry harassment and cruelty – After birth of female child, harassment intensified – Multiple criminal and maintenance proceedings initiated – Respondent persistently failed to appear before courts and willfully defaulted in payment of maintenance despite judicial orders – Held: Cumulative conduct of respondent amounts to grave and continuing mental cruelty making cohabitation impossible – Marriage dissolved [Paras 8, 9, 10, 12, 18].

Mental Cruelty – Assessment on Totality of Circumstances – Family Court examined incidents in isolation and ignored consistent pattern of neglect and non-compliance – Appellant’s sworn testimony remained unshaken in cross-examination and stood corroborated by judicial records of maintenance and domestic violence proceedings – Failure to appreciate cumulative effect of conduct amounts to manifest error of appreciation of evidence – Appellate interference warranted [Paras 11, 12, 13, 17].

Non-Payment of Maintenance – Wilful Disobedience of Court Orders – Recovery warrants issued under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. – Arrears of interim maintenance under Domestic Violence Act remained unpaid – Repeated ex parte proceedings due to respondent’s absence – Such deliberate defiance of judicial orders and financial deprivation of wife and minor child constitutes sustained mental cruelty [Paras 8.1, 8.2, 8.3, 9, 10].

Abandonment of Proceedings – Forfeiture of Right to Contest – Respondent disengaged counsel and willfully refrained from participating in mediation and appellate proceedings – Consistent abandonment of defence across matrimonial and criminal litigations – Held: Conduct signifies forfeiture of right to contest and implied acquiescence – Appeal allowed [Paras 14, 15, 18].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and decree dated 20.08.2024 passed by Family Court, Pokaran set aside – Petition under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act decreed – Marriage between parties dissolved – Decree sheet directed to be prepared.

Interim Maintenance – Wife and Minor Child – Article 227 – Modification of Quantum – Trial Court directed husband to pay Rs.5,000/- per month each to wife and minor child – High Court held that in absence of concrete evidence regarding income of husband, maintenance awarded was on higher side – Held: Interim maintenance reduced to Rs.3,000/- per month each to wife and child [Paras 8–9].

Marriage – Plea of Non-Consummation – Absence of Specific Pleading – Husband sought dissolution of marriage on grounds of cruelty and desertion – No specific plea of non-consummation raised in main H.M.O.P. – Such plea raised only at interim maintenance stage held unsustainable – Objection to maintenance on ground of non-consummation rejected [Paras 6–7].

Presumption of Legitimacy – Section 112 Evidence Act – Child Born Within Wedlock – Marriage solemnised on 10.02.2017 and child born on 09.12.2017 – Statutory presumption of legitimacy attracted – Wife entitled to rely on presumption under Section 112 – Prima facie entitlement to maintenance upheld [Para 6].

Maintenance Proceedings – Burden Regarding Income – Conflicting Claims – Wife alleged husband earning Rs.40,000/- per month as flower decorator – Husband claimed to be daily wage worker earning Rs.400/- per day – No documentary proof produced by either side – Court assessed maintenance on overall circumstances and reasonableness [Para 8].

Scope of Supervisory Jurisdiction – Article 227 – Limited Interference – High Court not inclined to set aside grant of interim maintenance – Interference confined only to correction of quantum found excessive – Order of Trial Court otherwise affirmed [Paras 8–10].

Decision – Civil Revision Partly Allowed – Interim maintenance modified from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.3,000/- per month each to wife and minor child – Arrears to be paid within six weeks – Trial Court directed to dispose of main H.M.O.P. expeditiously – No costs [Paras 9–10].

Service Law – Disciplinary Proceedings – Desertion vs. Absence without Leave – CRPF Act, 1949 – Charge-sheet alleged desertion though petitioner voluntarily rejoined duty within about 20 days – Essential ingredient of animus deserendi absent – Held: Temporary absence followed by voluntary resumption of duty cannot constitute desertion under Section 9 CRPF Act – Charge of desertion legally unsustainable [Paras 24–27, 30–31, 37–38].

Service Law – CRPF Rules – Rule 31 – Court of Enquiry – Where disciplinary proceedings initiated on premise of desertion, statutory procedure under Rule 31 cannot be bypassed – Even if punishment imposed under Section 11 CRPF Act, foundation of proceedings based on allegation of desertion renders action vitiated – Non-compliance with statutory scheme amounts to non-application of mind [Paras 27–28].

Service Law – Unauthorised Absence – Willfulness – Medical Grounds – Petitioner produced cogent medical evidence of illness of self and spouse – Enquiry Officer ignored medical records without assigning reasons – Held: Absence due to bona fide medical emergency cannot be treated as willful misconduct – Findings perverse [Paras 41, 38].

Service Law – Natural Justice – Denial of Fair Enquiry – Non-supply of relied upon documents – Refusal to permit defence witnesses – Enquiry Officer unilaterally curtailed defence – Held: Enquiry vitiated for violation of audi alteram partem and fair procedure [Paras 40, 45].

Service Law – Misconduct during Training – Findings without Evidence – Training records showed good performance and high grading – Allegations of quarrel and indiscipline unsupported and based on conjecture – Held: Findings not based on legally acceptable evidence [Paras 43–44].

Service Law – Past Punishments – Use as Independent Charge – Earlier minor penalties already undergone – Cannot be treated as substantive charge to brand employee as habitual offender – Held: Charge No.4 unsustainable in law [Para 44].

Service Law – Punishment – Proportionality – Removal from service imposed on constable with commendable service record and gallantry awards – Punishment shockingly disproportionate to alleged misconduct – Discipline cannot override fairness and reasonableness – Interference under Article 226 warranted [Paras 29, 48].

Service Law – Appellate and Revisional Orders – Non-speaking Orders – Mechanical confirmation without addressing grounds raised – Held: Orders unsustainable for lack of reasons and independent application of mind [Paras 46–47].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Orders of removal, appellate, revisional and rejection orders dated 27.07.2002, 08.11.2002, 01.01.2003, 21.03.2003 and 24.07.2003 quashed – Petitioner directed to be reinstated with continuity of service and seniority – Back wages denied; pay fixation and consequential benefits granted on notional basis – Compliance directed within 60 days – Pending applications disposed of.

Temporary Injunction – Specific Performance – Appeal From Order – Interference Warranted – Plaintiffs sought injunction restraining defendants from developing suit land pending suit for specific performance of agreements dated 10.02.2010 and MOU dated 26.02.2013 – Trial Court rejected injunction holding that MOU not executed by original landowners created no enforceable right – High Court set aside rejection holding approach of Trial Court parochial and unsustainable [Paras 1–2, 11, 15].

Agreement for Sale – Rights Prior to Formal Allotment – Not Purely Speculative – Original landowners received allotment proposal and LOI from CIDCO in 2007 – Subsequent agreements and MOU executed on basis of identified plot though corrigendum later substituted plot number – Held: Agreements could not be treated as speculative merely because physical allotment was completed later in 2022 [Paras 3, 7–9, 12–13].

Payments of Consideration – Prima Facie Proof – Conduct of Parties – Plaintiffs prima facie established payment of ₹3.12 crores to original landowners and intermediary defendants over long period through bank records – Denial by original landowners held prima facie untenable when receipt reflected in bank statements and admitted by intermediary defendants – Conduct of landowners found highly questionable [Paras 8, 11–12, 14].

MOU Executed by Intermediaries – Creation of Third-Party Rights – Agreement dated 10.02.2010 expressly permitted intermediary defendants to create third-party rights – MOU dated 26.02.2013 executed pursuant thereto – Held: Absence of signatures of original landowners on MOU not fatal at interim stage when they accepted benefits under arrangement [Paras 8, 11–12].

Bona Fide Purchaser – Due Diligence – Failure – Contesting respondents claimed protection as bona fide purchasers under Tripartite Agreement of 2023 – Court held that no due diligence was shown to have been conducted before entering transaction – Rights of subsequent purchasers could not override prior equitable rights of plaintiffs at prima facie stage [Paras 10, 12, 14].

Injunction – Prima Facie Case, Balance of Convenience and Irreparable Loss – Plaintiffs established strong prima facie case based on substantial payments and contractual framework – Balance of convenience held in favour of plaintiffs who paid large consideration – Irreparable harm likely if construction or third-party rights created pending suit [Paras 11–14].

Decision: Appeal From Order allowed – Order rejecting injunction set aside – Application for temporary injunction allowed – Status quo to continue – Defendant Nos.19 and 20 restrained from dealing with suit land until disposal of suit.

Right to Information – Personal Information – Salary Details of Employee – Petitioner sought copies of pay slips/details of salary paid to an employee of the respondent department for specific period – Information denied on ground that it pertains to third party and is personal in nature – Held: Service-related details including pay slips fall within ambit of “personal information” under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act – Disclosure impermissible in absence of larger public interest [Paras 3–4].

Section 8(1)(j), RTI Act – Third Party Information – Exemption – Information relating to performance and service matters of an employee is primarily between employer and employee – Such information has no relationship to public activity or public interest unless larger public interest is shown – No overriding public interest demonstrated by petitioner [Para 4].

Judicial Review under Article 226 – Scope – Orders of competent authority and State Information Commission refusing disclosure upheld – No illegality or infirmity found warranting interference in writ jurisdiction [Paras 3–5].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Order dated 23.10.2024 of Rajasthan State Information Commission upheld – No direction for disclosure of pay slips/salary details – Stay petition disposed of.

Criminal Revision – Quashing of Proceedings – Alleged Forgery of Vouchers and Cheques in R&D Project – Charge-sheet based on disputed handwriting and encashment of cheques – Handwriting expert repeatedly opined inability to fix authorship of disputed writings qua petitioner – Witnesses admitted handing over withdrawn amounts to another person (Debashis Shome) – Held: Materials collected give rise at best to suspicion and not grave suspicion – Continuance of proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law – Proceedings quashed [Paras discussing expert reports; Witness C.S.W.7, 8, 10; Final paragraphs].

Expert Opinion – Handwriting Analysis – Three opinions obtained – In respect of disputed writings allegedly attributable to petitioner, expert unable to fix authorship – No conclusive linkage between petitioner and disputed signatures – Prosecution case weakened at threshold stage [Expert Reports dated 03.08.2020, 21.03.2023, 14.08.2023].

Charge Framing Stage – Test of Grave Suspicion – Court not to act as mere post office – If two views possible and one gives rise to suspicion only, accused entitled to discharge – Criminal law not to be set into motion as a matter of course – State must ensure reasonable prospect of conviction before prosecuting [Relied on P. Vijayan; M.E. Shivalingamurthy; Pepsi Foods Ltd.; Dilawar Balu Kurane; Tuhin Kumar Biswas].

Abuse of Process – Self-Contradictory Materials – Prosecution witnesses stated cheques encashed on instructions of Debashis Shome and amounts handed over to him – No material indicating wrongful gain by petitioner – Investigative materials inconsistent and insufficient to proceed to trial – Proceedings liable to be quashed [Discussion on C.S.W.7, 8, 10].

Judicial Responsibility – Filtering Weak Prosecutions – Filing of charge-sheets in absence of strong suspicion clogs judicial system – Courts must ensure only cases with strong suspicion proceed to trial – Protection of individual from unwarranted criminal trial emphasized [Tuhin Kumar Biswas, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2604].

Decision: Revisional application allowed – All further proceedings arising out of Ballygunge Police Station Case No. 145/18 dated 03.11.2018 quashed – Pending applications disposed of – Case diary directed to be returned.

Accident Claim - Motor Vehicles Act – Permit Violation – Absence of Permit – Breach of Policy – Insurance Company Liability – Claimant sustained grievous injuries while working as cleaner in offending truck – Accident occurred in State of Madhya Pradesh – Evidence on record (Ex.D-7, Ex.D-9) showed permit authorised vehicle only for Delhi, U.P., Rajasthan and Haryana – No permit to ply vehicle in State of M.P. – Held: Plying vehicle without permit amounts to clear violation of Section 66 M.V. Act and breach of insurance policy conditions [Paras 12–15].

Insurance Law – Burden of Proof – Breach of Permit Conditions – Insurance company discharged initial burden by examining its officer and producing permit verification documents – Claimant himself admitted in cross-examination that vehicle had no permit for State of M.P. – Owner and driver remained ex parte and failed to rebut defence – Onus shifted to owner to prove valid permit, not discharged – Breach established [Paras 13–14].

Insurance Policy – Compliance with Motor Vehicles Act – Policy issued subject to Chapters X and XI of M.V. Act – Requirement of permit under Section 66 read with Section 158 M.V. Act is mandatory – Insurance company not required to specifically mention permit condition when policy incorporates statutory compliance – Violation disentitles insured from indemnification [Paras 14–17].

Supreme Court Precedents – Route / Area Violation – Gohar Mohammed v. UPSRTC – K. Nagendra v. New India Insurance Co. Ltd. – Vehicle being plied beyond authorised route/area exonerates insurer from liability – However, to balance interests of third-party victim, pay and recover principle to be applied [Paras 15–18].

Third Party Claims – Pay and Recover – Though insurer not liable due to breach of policy conditions, claimant being third party cannot be denied compensation – Held: Insurance company directed to first satisfy award and thereafter recover amount from owner/driver of offending vehicle [Paras 18].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Finding of Claims Tribunal fastening liability on insurance company set aside – Insurance company held not liable due to absence of permit – However, insurer directed to pay awarded compensation to claimant and recover same from owner/driver – Appeal disposed of accordingly.