Succession Law – Registered Will – Suspicious Circumstances – Reversal of Appellate Court Judgment – Plaintiff claimed ½ share in suit land based on Will executed by father Sardara Singh – Defendants challenged Will citing testator’s terminal illness, proximity of death, delay in disclosure, and dubious attestation – High Court held that mere registration of Will is not enough where Will is shrouded in suspicious circumstances – Will discarded as not proved in accordance with law [Paras 30–43].

Attesting Witness – Credibility – Non-acquaintance with Testator – Procedural Irregularity – One attesting witness unfamiliar with testator’s personal life – Name handwritten while other’s was typed – Admitted signing at behest of other witness and lacked basic knowledge of testator – Not credible to prove Will [Paras 34–36].

Proof of Will – Inconsistencies in Testimony – Onus on Propounder Not Discharged – Time of execution, presence of witnesses, and names mentioned in Will contradicted in depositions – No explanation for exclusion of legal heirs – No reason for non-production of Will at time of mutation – Held: Will not proved beyond doubt [Paras 38–42].

Coparcenary Property – Limited Right to Bequeath – Plaintiff’s Claim Unsupported – Even if testator had right to bequeath ¼ share under Section 30 of Hindu Succession Act, Will still had to be proved valid – Suspicion around Will remained unresolved – Plaintiff entitled only to his legal ¼ share [Paras 28–29].

Permanent Injunction – Not Maintainable Against Co-sharer – Legal Error by First Appellate Court – Injunction granted against co-sharers found unsustainable in law – No injunction can be granted against co-owner without partition – First Appellate Court's judgment set aside [Para 46–47].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and decree dated 11.03.2016 passed by First Appellate Court set aside – Trial Court’s judgment dated 24.04.2014 restored – Will dated 07.06.2005 held to be surrounded by suspicious circumstances – Plaintiff entitled only to monetary relief as decreed by trial court – No relief granted on basis of Will.

Administrative Law – Reservation – OBC-NCL Certificate – Cut-off Date for Eligibility – Delay in Furnishing Document – Petitioner was denied admission to DNB Surgery seat under OBC quota due to failure to produce valid OBC-NCL certificate by the cut-off date (25.02.2025) – Certificate was applied for only after counselling date and issued on 28.03.2025 – Court held that in absence of valid document or prima facie evidence of eligibility as on cut-off date, benefit of reservation could not be extended – OM dated 08.10.2015 could not apply to petitioner as no provisional proof existed [Paras 3, 22-24].

Review Jurisdiction – Error Apparent on Record – Discovery of New Evidence – Scope of Review under Article 226 – RTI-based evidence about other candidates allegedly being selected without valid certificates did not constitute error apparent on the face of record – Court emphasized that review is not an appeal in disguise – Petitioner failed to meet statutory requirements under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC for invoking review jurisdiction [Paras 14-18, 33-34].

Negative Equality – No Right to Seek Parity in Illegality – Allegation that other candidates (including Dr. Chandra Prakash) were admitted despite similar or worse lapses could not justify granting relief to petitioner – Court held that Article 14 does not permit negative equality – Absence of impleadment of such candidates further limited judicial examination of those cases [Paras 27-29].

Reservation Law – Prima Facie Proof Requirement under OBC Guidelines – Dynamic Nature of Creamy Layer Status – Earlier OBC-NCL certificate dated 10.09.2013 could not serve as valid proof as it had expired – Court emphasized that non-creamy layer status is dynamic and must be based on current income status, making outdated certificates irrelevant [Paras 22-23].

Decision: Review Petition dismissed – No error apparent or sufficient ground for invoking review jurisdiction – Alleged procedural irregularities in other cases could not be a ground for parity – Pending applications also disposed of [Paras 33-35].

Criminal Law – Truncation of Proceedings – Hostile Prosecutrix – In a prosecution for gang rape, prosecutrix resiled completely from allegations and denied sexual assault – Statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. disowned – Held, where star witness demolishes prosecution case, continuation of trial would be futile – Trial court justified in truncating proceedings and acquitting accused [Paras 6, 9–14, 18].

Criminal Law – Rape – Evidentiary Value of Testimony – Prosecutrix categorically stated that alleged videos were fake and no sexual assault was committed – Lodging of FIR explained as result of depression and mistaken belief – Absence of incriminating evidence held fatal to prosecution case [Paras 9–14].

Criminal Law – Consensual Relationship – Evidence on Record – Witnesses admitted existence of love affair between prosecutrix and one of accused – Possibility of consensual relationship could not be ruled out – Prosecution failed to establish forcible sexual assault beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 12–14, 18].

Information Technology Act – Section 67 – Proof of Publication or Transmission – Mere seizure of mobile phone and memory card insufficient – Prosecution failed to prove that alleged obscene material was published or transmitted electronically – FSL expert not cited as witness – Authentication of videos/photos not established – Charge under Section 67 IT Act held not provable [Paras 15–17].

Criminal Trial – Appreciation of Evidence – Duty of Court – Where evidence on record makes conviction impossible, prolonging trial amounts to empty formality – Trial court correctly exercised discretion in closing prosecution evidence and acquitting accused [Paras 18–19].

Appeal Against Acquittal – Scope of Interference – Appellate court will not interfere unless findings are perverse or illegal – Acquittal based on proper appreciation of evidence – No perversity or illegality found [Paras 18–19].

Decision: Criminal Appeal dismissed – Judgment of acquittal dated 12.10.2023 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Anantnag upheld – No ground made out for interference – Trial court record directed to be returned.

Criminal Law – Discharge – Magistrate’s Jurisdiction – Re-investigation – Magistrate discharged the accused petitioner after considering the police report which exonerated him – Simultaneously directed re-investigation without request or leave under Section 173(8) CrPC – Held: Magistrate became functus officio after discharge and lacked authority to order re-investigation suo motu – Direction for re-investigation unsustainable in law and contrary to settled legal position [Paras 1, 6, 10, 11, 15].

Criminal Law – Further Investigation vs. Re-investigation – Court distinguished between ‘further investigation’ permissible under Section 173(8) CrPC and ‘re-investigation’ which is impermissible without statutory sanction – Magistrate may permit further investigation only at prosecution’s behest and prior to discharge – No such application existed – Held: Only investigating agency may seek leave for further probe – Re-investigation order quashed but liberty given to police to proceed under law if new evidence emerges [Paras 10, 11, 14, 16].

Evidence – Absence of Prima Facie Case – FIR named three accused but charge-sheet was filed only against one – Communication from Assistant Commissioner Revenue exonerated petitioner of any role in the issuance of cheque – FSL report relied on by prosecution pertained to an unrelated matter – Held: Material on record failed to substantiate petitioner's involvement – Discharge order valid and based on judicial application of mind [Paras 4, 5, 12, 13].

Decision: Petition partly allowed – Discharge of petitioner upheld – Magistrate’s direction for re-investigation set aside – Police permitted to conduct further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC if new material is discovered in accordance with law.

Criminal Law – Suspension of Sentence – Condition to Deposit Compensation – Petitioners convicted under Section 138 NI Act sought suspension of sentence – Appellate Courts allowed suspension but directed 20% of compensation to be deposited – Petitioners challenged such conditions, citing financial incapacity or delay – Held: As per Division Bench ruling in Coromandel International Ltd., imposition of such condition is permissible but not mandatory – Deposit not a prerequisite to maintain appeal [Paras 2–3, 6–8]

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 148 – Scope and Application – Court held that Section 148 empowers Appellate Court to direct deposit of 20% compensation during appeal – But non-deposit does not bar right to appeal – Failure to deposit may allow Appellate Court to vacate suspension of sentence, but such power must be exercised judicially and with due regard to liberty and hardship [Paras 7–8]

Right to Bail – Non-compliance with Deposit Condition – Petitioners argued that inability to deposit should not cancel bail – Court reiterated that liberty is paramount – Where sentence is suspended, and appeal is pending, non-payment alone cannot lead to automatic revocation unless due opportunity and judicial satisfaction is recorded [Paras 8–13]

BNSS – Applicability of Section 403 and 430 – Section 403 BNSS (bar on review) does not prevent reconsideration where legal error apparent or rights are affected – Section 430 BNSS (akin to Section 389 CrPC) governs suspension of sentence and empowers Court to impose reasonable conditions, but such power not to be exercised mechanically [Paras 7–10]

Division Bench Reference – Precedent – Larger Bench in Coromandel International Ltd. v. Shri Ambica Sales Corporation, 2025 (4) RCR (Cri) 490, clarified that deposit under Section 148 NI Act is not mandatory for hearing appeal or continuing bail – Appellate Courts can waive or modify deposit in exceptional cases – Liberty cannot be sacrificed solely due to non-deposit [Paras 7–8]

Decision: All six petitions allowed in part – Orders directing deposit of 20% of compensation stayed temporarily – Matters remanded to respective Appellate Courts for fresh consideration in light of Coromandel International judgment – Appellate Courts to decide afresh within 15 days – Till then, condition of deposit to remain inoperative and bail not to be cancelled – Courts to prioritize hearing and disposal of appeals within 60 to 90 days, unless delay is attributable to complainant [Paras 9–15]

Service Law – Disciplinary Proceedings – Disproportionate Punishment – Doctrine of Proportionality – Article 14 – Petitioner, a Head Constable in CID, was punished with permanent forfeiture of two annual increments for not informing seniors promptly about the loss of a service animal – Inquiry established that petitioner was not responsible for the animal's disappearance – Held: There was only a minor lapse in timing of communication – The punishment was disproportionate to the nature of the misconduct – Modified from permanent to temporary forfeiture of two increments [Paras 6, 9-10].

Constitutional Law – Article 14 – Arbitrary and Excessive Penalty – Violation of Equality Clause – Citing Om Kumar v. Union of India and Bhagat Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh, the Court reiterated that excessive or mechanical punishment without commensurate misconduct is violative of Article 14 – Court observed that State authorities acted mechanically and without justification in inflicting harsh penalty [Paras 7-8].

Administrative Law – Avoidance of Remand – Delay and Lapse of Time – Judicial Economy – Though normally the matter would be remanded to reconsider the quantum of punishment, the Court exercised discretion to modify punishment directly given the lapse of over two decades – Remand would only prolong litigation unnecessarily [Para 10].

Decision: Writ petition partly allowed – Punishment of forfeiture of two increments with permanent effect modified to temporary effect – Respondents directed to pay arrears arising from modified punishment within six months, failing which interest @7.5% p.a. will apply – Petition disposed of [Paras 10, 12-13].

Goods and Services Tax – Appeal – Condonation of Delay – Petitioner filed appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act with a delay of six days beyond the statutory limit of 120 days – Appellate Authority rightly held it lacked jurisdiction to condone delay beyond prescribed period – High Court upheld finding that even discretionary extension is limited to 30 days beyond initial 3-month period [Paras 7–8.1]

Constitutional Law – Article 226 – Exercise of Writ Jurisdiction – Petitioner invoked writ jurisdiction seeking direction to condone delay rejected by appellate authority – High Court held powers under Article 226 cannot override express statutory bar on limitation – Reference made to Supreme Court’s ruling in Glaxo Smith Kline and ONGC cases – Legislative intent behind limitation provisions must be respected [Paras 9–14]

Alternative Remedy – Maintainability – Challenge to Order-in-Original not entertained – Court held petitioner had already availed statutory appellate remedy and cannot seek to reopen matter through writ petition in absence of jurisdictional error or violation of natural justice – No exceptional circumstances shown to justify bypassing of statutory mechanism [Para 16]

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – Delay of six days in filing appeal under Section 107 of CGST Act held uncondonable – Appellate Authority order upheld – Challenge to Order-in-Original not entertained in view of alternative remedy already pursued – No costs awarded [Para 17]

Civil Law - Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Partition suit based on plea of acquisition from joint family funds – Defendants sought rejection of plaint for no cause of action and limitation – Held: plaint pleaded foundational facts and limitation was a mixed question – rejection refused – appeal dismissed [Paras 20-39].

Civil Procedure – Rejection of Plaint – Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC – “Cause of action” test – Court to undertake meaningful reading of plaint as a whole and documents relied upon – Truthfulness of allegations not to be examined – Only whether averments disclose right to sue – Plaint cannot be dissected sentence-wise and read in isolation – Defence in written statement/application irrelevant [Paras 20-23, 25, 27-28].

Civil Procedure – Rejection of Plaint – Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC – Suit barred by law – Bar must be evident from plaint statements – Where limitation/statutory bar not ex facie apparent and requires evidence, plaint not rejectable – Continuation termed abuse only when bar is apparent on face of plaint [Paras 22, 25, 36-38].

Partition – Pleadings – Joint family / hotchpotch plea – Requirement of material particulars – Distinguishing prior Delhi High Court precedents – Where plaint specifically pleads source of acquisition as joint family funds and sale proceeds of पिता’s properties, foundational facts sufficient – Sagar Gambhir and Sunny (Minor) distinguished as plaint there lacked essential particulars like creation of HUF, succession chain etc. [Paras 30-33].

Limitation – Partition suit – Article 113 Limitation Act – Right to sue accrues upon refusal of demand for partition – Cause of action recurring so long as joint status subsists – Plaint averred partition discussions in 2018 and refusal thereafter – At Order VII Rule 11 stage, such averments to be accepted – Suit not barred on face of plaint [Paras 35-37].

Partition v. Challenge to title documents – Defendants argued suit indirectly challenges old registered documents – Held: plaint did not seek to set aside title deeds – Plaintiff asserted share on basis of joint family funds – Relief remains partition, not cancellation – Limitation objection therefore not determinable at threshold [Paras 34-36].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Impugned order declining rejection of plaint upheld – Application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC rightly dismissed [Paras 38-39].

Civil Law – Appeal by Non-Party – Grant of Leave to Appeal – Section 96 CPC – Locus Standi – Application by a person who was not a party to the suit seeking leave to file first appeal against an ex parte decree for declaration of title and confirmation of possession – Held: Mere non-joinder as a party is not an absolute bar, but the applicant must establish that she is bound by or prejudicially affected by the decree – Non-party must show semblance of subsisting right over the suit property [Paras 5–6].

Supervisory Jurisdiction – Article 227 – Interference with Discretionary Order – District Judge granted leave to appeal by a cryptic and non-speaking order without proper reasoning – High Court held that supervisory jurisdiction can be exercised where the subordinate court fails to consider relevant legal parameters while granting leave to appeal to a non-party [Paras 3, 6].

Ex Parte Decree – Declaration of Title and Possession – Encroacher’s Claim – First Appellate Court relied on Amin’s report showing encroachment by the applicant prior to filing of suit – Held: Encroachment or assertion of an independent claim does not ipso facto make such person “adversely affected” by the decree – Such person had remedy either to seek impleadment in the suit or to file an independent suit [Paras 6–8].

Fraud Allegation – Knowledge of Suit – Effect – Applicant seeking leave to appeal did not plead lack of knowledge of pendency of suit – Allegation of fraud simpliciter insufficient to confer right to appeal against decree – Held: Absence of pleading showing binding effect of decree disentitles non-party from maintaining appeal [Para 8].

Decision: CMP allowed – Order dated 28.01.2020 granting leave to appeal set aside – Non-party cannot challenge the decree by way of appeal – Liberty reserved to seek appropriate independent legal remedy, if so advised.