Criminal Law - Framing of Charge - Revision Petition - Challenge to order framing charge under Section 188 IPC - Petitioner accused of violating public order during Covid, granted permission by Assistant Agriculture Engineer for agricultural purposes - Held, Cognizance of offence under Section 188 IPC barred except on a written complaint by a public servant - FIR and subsequent charge framing invalid - Revision Petition Allowed, order framing charge quashed [Paras 11-13].

Jurisdiction of Magistrate - Analysis - Held, Jurisdiction of the Court to take cognizance of offence under Section 188 IPC is barred except on a complaint in writing by the concerned public servant - Non-compliance with this mandatory provision vitiates the prosecution - Magistrate's action deemed improper [Para 11].

Decision - Quashing of Charge - Court quashes the order framing charge against the petitioner under Section 188 IPC, directing compliance with statutory requirements [Para 13].

Criminal Law - Surety’s Liability - Appeal - Appeal against orders imposing a fine of Rs.1 lac on surety due to the non-appearance of the accused - Held, Fine must be proportionate to the circumstances, inconvenience to the court, and expense in re-apprehending the accused - Appellant, who facilitated the re-arrest of the accused, deserves reduction in penalty - Appeal Partly Allowed, fine reduced to 50% of the surety amount [Paras 7-10].

Discretionary Power of Court - Analysis - Held, Section 446(3) Cr.P.C. provides the court discretion to remit part of the penalty for sufficient cause - Appellant’s active role in securing the accused’s re-arrest considered - No allegation of connivance with the accused [Para 7].

Decision - Reduction of Penalty - Court modifies the impugned orders, reducing the penalty to 50% of the surety amount, directing appellant to deposit Rs.50,000/- before the Trial Court [Para 10].

Criminal Appeal – Application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. – Dismissal of application to summon respondent No.2 as an additional accused – Aggrieved petitioner challenging the order – Examination of evidence and legal aspects warranted further consideration – Special leave granted for review. [Para 1]

Prima Facie Evidence – Importance of admissible evidence to summon an additional accused – Court's discretion to proceed against an individual based on substantial, corroborated evidence – Need to uphold the principle of justice while considering an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. [Para 10]

Power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. – Scope and limitations of the court's powers – Emphasis on evidence collected during trial or inquiry to summon an additional accused – Discretionary power to be exercised judiciously, ensuring that justice is upheld and innocent parties are not harmed. [Para 11]

Evidence Standard – Evaluation of petitioner's deposition – Significance of quality and admissibility of evidence – Highlighting that "hear say" evidence is inadmissible – Absence of admissible evidence against respondent No.2 for summoning her as an additional accused. [Para 13]

Conclusion – Court's decision to dismiss the petition upheld – No admissible evidence available to summon respondent No.2 as an additional accused – Principles of justice upheld by refusing to proceed without substantial, corroborated evidence. [Para 14]

Statutory Remedy – Municipal Taxation - Challenge to Assessment Order – Availability of Statutory Appeal – Petitioner challenges assessment and demand orders related to the levy of Local Body Tax (LBT) – Court emphasizes the legislative scheme of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations (MMC) Act and the availability of a statutory remedy through appeal under Section 406 of the Act – Observes that the grounds raised by the petitioner are primarily related to assessment orders and can be effectively addressed through the statutory appeal process. [Para 17]

Purpose of Statutory Appeal – Avoiding Bypass of Appellate Remedy - Court notes that challenging assessment orders via an en bloc writ petition would render the statutory appeal provision redundant and defeat the legislative intent – Refers to earlier decisions highlighting that the appropriate remedy for challenging property tax bills is through the statutory appeal process – Dismisses the contention that a common cause among multiple members warrants an exception from pursuing the statutory remedy. [Para 18]

Challenging Vires of Statutory Provision – Foundation and Cause of Action - Court addresses the contention to challenge the vires of Section 152D of the MMC Act – Observes that merely challenging the validity of a provision does not automatically require entertaining a petition without a strong foundation and a cause of action – Keeps the challenge to the vires open for the petitioner to assert when necessary. [Para 20]

Disposition – Directions for Appellate Process - Court permits the petitioner to avail the remedy of a statutory appeal under Section 406 of the MMC Act to challenge the assessment orders – Instructs the petitioner to file the appeal within four weeks and directs that the appeals be adjudicated on their merits by the appellate authority – Keeps open the challenge to the vires of Section 152D for the petitioner to assert when needed. [Para 21]

Criminal Appeal – Anticipatory Bail – Denial of anticipatory bail and direction to surrender before the Court for regular bail – Appellant aggrieved by the High Court’s order – Peculiar nature of the impugned order warranted further consideration – Special leave granted. [Para 1]

Personal Liberty – Importance of personal liberty in the context of applying discretion to grant bail – Emphasis on granting bail ordinarily, with caution in serious cases involving offences carrying long sentences or special offences. [Para 9]

Arrest – Power to arrest not mandatory in every case – Arrest to be made only when essential for custodial investigation, preventing further offences, or avoiding tampering with evidence or witnesses – Courts to consider Section 41A of the CrPC in this regard. [Para 10]

Land Dispute – Validity of Registered Sale Deed – Ownership Dispute – Certification of Mutation Entry – Scope of Writ Jurisdiction – Detailed analysis of facts and legal issues surrounding a dispute over land ownership and the validity of a registered Sale Deed – Court emphasizes the clarity in description of the conveyed land in the Sale Deed – Mutation entry and division of survey No. 233 – Previous Civil Suit No. 238 of 2000 – Court’s examination of the basis and circumstances of mutation entry No. 1802 – Writ Petition No. 9127 of 2005 – Court’s observations on the limited scope of the dispute – Setting aside of the Additional Commissioner’s order – Importance of clear description in registered instruments – Court’s emphasis on seeking remedies before the Civil Court – Upholding substantive justice over technicalities – Petition allowed, impugned order quashed, and mutation entry No. 8744 restored – Parties given option to seek remedies in the Civil Court – All parties’ contentions kept open for consideration in future proceedings. [Para 16-31]

Criminal Appeal – Murder – Appellants challenging their conviction under Sections 302, 323, 504, and 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Analysis of ocular account – Principles for appreciating ocular evidence – Consistency of witness statements – Medical evidence corroborating ocular account – Recovery of weapons – Application of Section 149 of IPC – Conviction upheld for some appellants while acquittal for others – Appeal dismissed. [Para 23-37]

Witness Testimonies – Ocular Account – Examination of PW3 Vilas, PW4 Shubham, and PW5 Arun – Consistency in narrating the occurrence – Role of each accused distinctly brought on record – Deceased’s visit to the house of accused, subsequent altercation, and assault established – Presence of accused members confirmed by multiple witnesses – Reliability of ocular account established. [Para 25-26]

Role of Accused – Identification of roles attributed to appellants – Appellant accused no.3 Rushi implicated in stabbing with knife – Intent of murderous assault confirmed – Appellant accused no.1 Rama attributed with using sword, but injury at ankle not indicative of intent to commit murder – Role of each accused assessed based on evidence – Acquittal of accused no.2 Digambar due to lack of evidence – Conviction upheld for appellant accused no.3 Rushi, others for Section 323 of IPC. [Para 27-34]

Principles for Appreciating Ocular Evidence – Supreme Court guidelines for assessing witness testimony – Ring of truth in evidence – Scrutiny of deficiencies and infirmities – Weight attached to trial court’s evaluation – Minor discrepancies not leading to rejection of evidence – Consideration of witness’s mental faculties and powers of observation – Impact of overawing or nervousness – Evaluation of former inconsistent statements – Reliability of ocular evidence affirmed. [Para 25]

Objections – Challenge to the FIR and recovery of weapons – Failure to name accused in initial FIR – Elderly witness’s perspective and trauma – Incomplete FIR not discrediting overall evidence – Scrutiny of recovery process – Doubts about sword recovery – Confirmation of knife recovery through Investigating Officer – Scientific evidence linking weapons to deceased – Rejection of objections. [Para 30-32]

Section 149 IPC – Doubts about invoking Section 149 – Lack of evidence for an unlawful assembly – Sequence of events and witness accounts – Appellant’s individual actions not necessarily forming an unlawful assembly – Charge under Section 149 not established – Conviction based on individual roles upheld. [Para 33]

Conclusion – Appeals dismissed – Conviction upheld for appellant accused no.3 Rushi for murder – Acquittal of appellant accused no.2 Digambar – Conviction upheld for appellant accused no.1 Rama, accused no.4 Jyoti, and accused no.5 Rani under Section 323 of IPC – Trial court’s judgment maintained. [Para 35-37]

Eviction Petition - Concealment of Vital Facts - Jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India - The present revision petition challenges the order dated 04.08.2022 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ferozepur, dismissing the objections filed by the petitioner and issuing warrants of possession in favor of the respondent-decree holder. [Para 1]

Importance of Full Disclosure - The petitioner concealed the fact of filing a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court and the subsequent withdrawal after addressing arguments. The petitioner also failed to disclose the judgment dated 14.10.2021 by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Ferozepur, declaring the sale deed as illegal. Such concealment constitutes an attempt to deceive and mislead the court, which is frowned upon. Litigants withholding vital documents to gain an advantage are guilty of playing fraud on the court and the opposite party. The obligation to approach the court with clean hands is absolute. [Para 11]

No Entitlement to Relief - Due to the petitioner's concealment of vital facts, the court refused to entertain the merits of the case. The petitioner was disentitled to any relief. The court cited legal precedent that litigants concealing facts from the court are not entitled to be heard on the merits of the case and should not receive any relief. [Para 12]

Conclusion - The court dismissed the revision petition due to the petitioner's concealment of vital facts and unclean hands, emphasizing that litigants attempting to deceive the court should not be entitled to relief. The petitioner was imposed with exemplary costs and was directed to deposit the costs within a specified timeframe. [Para 13]

Eviction - Concealment of Facts - Revision Petition - Petitioner challenged eviction order citing non-ownership by respondent - Held, Petitioner concealed filing and withdrawal of SLP before Apex Court - Petitioner's unclean hands disentitled him from relief - Revision Petition dismissed with exemplary costs of Rs.1,00,000 for non-disclosure of material facts [Paras 12, 13].

Judicial Conduct - Analysis - Held, Litigants must fully disclose all relevant facts - Concealment to gain advantage amounts to misleading the court - Petitioner's failure to disclose SLP withdrawal and judgment regarding ownership deemed intentional deception [Para 13].

Decision - Dismissal and Exemplary Costs - Court dismisses the revision petition, imposing exemplary costs for abuse of judicial process and intentional concealment of material facts, to be deposited in the High Court Legal Services Committee [Para 14].

Criminal Procedure - Supply of Documents - Petition under Section 482 CrPC to set aside Trial Court’s order refusing to provide documents not part of challan - FIR registered for offenses under Sections 376, 354, 354-A, 506, 120-B IPC - Petitioner sought documents including inquiry report and witness statements recorded by an investigating officer - Trial Court dismissed application, stating documents could be summoned at defense stage - Supreme Court guidelines and amended High Court Rules require list of 'un-relied' documents to be submitted with report under Section 173 CrPC - Held, non-compliance with mandatory procedural requirements vitiates Trial Court order - Petition partly allowed, matter remanded to Trial Court for fresh consideration in light of Supreme Court judgment and amended High Court Rules. [Paras 10, 12, 17]

Supply of Documents in Criminal Trials - Analysis - Held - Supreme Court's guidelines and amended High Court Rules mandate providing a list of documents not relied upon by the prosecution along with the report under Section 173 CrPC - Procedural safeguards ensure fair trial and prevent suppression of exculpatory evidence - Trial Court’s failure to consider these requirements warrants setting aside its order. [Paras 6, 7]

Decision - Setting Aside Trial Court’s Order - Court sets aside the impugned order, directing the Trial Court to reconsider the application for supplying documents not part of the challan, ensuring compliance with the Supreme Court guidelines and the amended High Court Rules - Trial Court to decide afresh within two months. [Para 13]