Civil Law - Territorial Jurisdiction – Re-Presentation of Returned Plaint – Order 7 Rule 10 CPC – Suit Re-registered Without Amendments – Set Aside – A plaint once returned for lack of jurisdiction cannot be re-registered without incorporation of new facts showing jurisdiction – Held: The re-registration of the suit on identical pleadings without any amendment was impermissible in law [Paras 8-13, 18-20].

Cause of Action – No New Averments Made – Section 151 CPC Cannot Cure Jurisdictional Deficiency – The plaintiff re-submitted the plaint without introducing any new factual pleadings indicating the defendant carried out business within Jaipur – The application under Section 151 CPC merely annexed bills and invoices, which cannot substitute formal pleadings – Held: Lack of cause of action in the plaint rendered it unsustainable [Paras 9, 13, 19-20].

Rejection of Plaint – Order 7 Rule 11 CPC – Scope and Test – Court Must Examine Only the Plaint – The High Court reaffirmed that only the averments in the plaint must be examined to assess cause of action under Order 7 Rule 11 – Applications or annexures cannot replace substantive pleadings – Re-registration of plaint without jurisdiction was held to be legally unsustainable [Paras 14-16].

Judicial Discretion – Duty to Reject Unsustainable Suit – Previous Order Attained Finality – Held: The Commercial Court had no legal authority to re-register the same plaint without amendment after having already returned it – Judicial discipline required consistency in orders and adherence to earlier findings [Paras 17, 20, 23].

Decision – Writ Allowed – Order Quashed – The High Court quashed the Commercial Court’s order dated 23.02.2021 – Directed return of plaint to the plaintiff for filing before competent court – Connected suit (Other Original Suit No. 2/2022) also disposed accordingly [Paras 24-29].

Suo motu - Sedition and Endangering National Unity – Public Remarks by Elected Official – Section 152 BNS – Prima Facie Offence Made Out – Minister Vijay Shah’s comments equating a Muslim Army officer with terrorists were held as promoting separatist sentiments – Such statements were found to endanger the sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India – FIR under Section 152 BNS directed [Paras 2-6].

Communal Harmony – Promoting Enmity Between Communities – Section 196(1)(b) BNS – Inflammatory Language Criticised – Remarks aimed at Col. Sofia Quraishi held likely to disturb public tranquillity and promote religious discord – Held: Prima facie offence under Section 196(1)(b) BNS made out [Paras 7-8].

National Integration – Imputation Against Religious Class – Section 197(1)(c) BNS – Derogatory Assertion Attributed to Faith – By associating a Muslim Army officer with terrorists, the Minister’s statement seen as undermining the integrity and loyalty of a religious group – Court held this as likely to cause communal disharmony – FIR under Section 197(1)(c) BNS ordered [Paras 9-10].

Judicial Oversight – Suo Motu Cognizance by High Court – Abuse of Free Speech by Public Officials – High Court initiated proceedings based on widespread media reports and public outcry – Directed DGP to register FIR immediately failing which contempt action to be considered – Next hearing fixed for compliance [Para 11].

Decision – FIR to be Registered – High Court Directed Registration of FIR under Sections 152, 196(1)(b), and 197(1)(c) BNS against Minister Vijay Shah – Registrar IT to collect additional digital evidence – Matter to be monitored for compliance [Paras 11-12].

Criminal Law - Abetment of Suicide – Prima Facie Case – FIR Not Quashed - Petitioners sought quashing of FIR under Section 306 read with 34 IPC on ground of false implication and lack of proximate cause – Court held that the deceased had expressed distress and suicidal intent following quarrel with petitioners – Statement of Anil Kumar revealed deceased was under mental trauma – Held: Material exists on record to allow trial to proceed, FIR not liable to be quashed [Paras 18–19].

Quashing of FIR – Limits of Section 482 CrPC – No Mini-Trial Permissible - Petitioners argued contradictions in witness statements and absence of direct incitement – Court reiterated that disputed facts cannot be adjudicated under Section 482 – Investigation completed and charge sheet filed – Held: Trial Court to consider discharge, High Court cannot evaluate evidence at this stage [Paras 20–23].

Scope of Instigation under Section 306 IPC – Legal Parameters Restated - Court analyzed precedents including Ramesh Kumar, Chitresh Kumar Chopra, and Amalendu Pal – Held: Instigation must be proximate and active, but where mental trauma is evident post-quarrel, factual matrix must be examined at trial – Summarized legal test for instigation and abetment of suicide [Paras 15–17, 56–67].

No Ground for Interference – Petition Dismissed - Despite reliance on precedents like Sanju v. State of MP and Shabir Hussain, Court found case distinguishable due to specific statement by deceased to Anil Kumar indicating intent to end life due to distress caused by petitioners – Held: No case for quashing FIR or proceedings at this stage [Paras 24–26].

Civil Review – Time-Bound Disposal Direction by High Court – No Grounds for Interference – Review Dismissed - The petitioner sought review of a direction in the appellate judgment requiring the Family Court to dispose of a long-pending matrimonial dispute within six months – Court held that such time-bound direction was justified in light of 15 years of ongoing litigation – Constitutional Bench decision in High Court Bar Association, Allahabad distinguished on facts – Review dismissed as devoid of merit [Paras 2–6, 8].

Review Jurisdiction – No Error Apparent on Record – Mere Disagreement Not Sufficient – Review Dismissed - Citing settled principles from S. Murali Sundaram and Sanjay Kumar Agarwal, the Court reiterated that review cannot be used to rehear or reargue already adjudicated issues – Petitioner failed to point out any self-evident error or exceptional circumstance – Review petition treated as attempt to prolong litigation [Paras 7–8].

Delay in Matrimonial Litigation – Judicial Duty to Ensure Speedy Disposal – Cost Imposed - Court noted petitioner’s conduct as dilatory, having not disclosed trial progress nor justified the need for review – Emphasized importance of finality in matrimonial cases and judicial economy – Imposed ₹5,000 cost to deter frivolous litigation and directed remittance to Lawyer's Association Welfare Fund [Paras 5, 9].

Decision – Review Petition Dismissed with Cost – Finality of Judgment Maintained - Civil Review No. 259 of 2024 dismissed – Direction to dispose matrimonial dispute in six months upheld – Cost imposed and all interim applications disposed [Paras 8–10].

Eviction Suit – Section 23 PSCC Act – Title Dispute Alleged – Application for Return of Plaint Rejected – Tenant raised dispute of title at belated stage in proceedings initiated in 1995 – Court held that mere plea of ancestral title without substantial evidence or prior action over decades was not sufficient – Repeated admissions by tenant and his son, as well as acknowledgment of landlord’s title in earlier litigation, weighed against tenant – Held: Title issue was incidental and did not require return of plaint – Application rightly rejected [Paras 9-10, 27-36].

Title by Will – Competing Wills Claimed by Defendant's Son and Plaintiff’s Legal Representative – Registered Will in favour of respondent accepted – Defendant witnessed Will in respondent’s favour but did not contest it – Admission by defendant’s son of landlady’s title by asserting rival Will also undermined challenge – Held: Claim of title not bona fide and raised to delay proceedings [Paras 7, 29-32].

Jurisdiction – Scope of Section 23 PSCC – Discretionary Power – No Mechanical Return of Plaint – Court reaffirmed that SCC Court may incidentally consider title issues where necessary to determine landlord-tenant relationship – Held: Unless relief entirely depends on disputed title, return of plaint not mandatory – No patent error in trial court’s reasoning [Paras 23-26, 36].

Final Decision – Revision Dismissed – Trial Court Order Upheld – No miscarriage of justice or improper exercise of jurisdiction found – Trial court directed to conclude proceedings within six months from date of judgment [Paras 37-39].

Bail - Dowry Death – Section 304B IPC – Prima Facie Ingredients Not Met – Bail Granted – Allegation that the applicant demanded car EMI payments from the deceased’s family not corroborated by contemporaneous evidence – EMI payments found to have been made by the applicant himself – No credible evidence of cruelty “soon before death” in connection with dowry demand – Statutory presumption under Section 113B Evidence Act not automatically applicable – Bail granted [Paras 6-11].

Extramarital Affair – Not Sufficient to Constitute Cruelty or Abetment – Bail Not Denied – Applicant’s alleged relationship with a colleague named Sarita and existence of video chats were cited by prosecution – Court held that such a relationship, without intent to harass or drive the deceased to suicide, does not satisfy cruelty under Section 498A or abetment under Section 306 IPC – Mere suspicion or emotional neglect does not establish mens rea required under these provisions [Paras 12-15].

Presumption under Section 113B Evidence Act – Not Absolute – Conditional on Foundational Facts – Statutory presumption requires establishment of harassment in connection with dowry “soon before death” – In absence of such proximate cruelty, burden does not shift to accused – Court emphasized the presumption is rebuttable and conditional [Paras 7-9].

Custody – No Risk of Tampering or Flight – Trial in Early Stages – Bail Warranted – Applicant in custody since March 2024 – Chargesheet filed and trial pending – No risk of absconding or influencing witnesses established – Continued incarceration deemed unnecessary – Personal liberty not to be curtailed where trial will take time [Paras 17-18].

Decision – Bail Application Allowed – Applicant Released on Conditions – Bail granted on furnishing personal bond of ₹50,000 with two sureties – Restrictions imposed on communication, reporting, and appearance to secure presence and prevent interference with evidence [Para 18].

Civil Law – Will - Suspicious Circumstances – Allegations Rejected – Probate Upheld – Appellant raised doubts over timing of execution, non-production of original Will initially, use of different inks, and alleged contradictions in witnesses' evidence – Court held none of the issues raised amounted to real or germane suspicious circumstances – Execution of Will during marriage of daughter found natural and explained by presence of attesting witnesses – Court held that presence of relatives, lack of objection to exhibit marking, and acknowledgment of property distribution supported genuineness of Will [Paras 44-56].

Proof of Will – Compliance with Section 63 of Succession Act and Section 68 of Evidence Act – Valid Execution Proven – Sole surviving attesting witness (P.W.2) deposed to all elements required under Section 63 – No contradiction found in his testimony – Execution proven even though full cross-examination was not completed – Appellant chose not to avail further cross-examination opportunity or challenge relevant order – Valid proof of Will held to be established [Paras 71-73].

Evidence of Attesting Witness – Partial Cross-Examination – Not Fatal – Deposition Accepted – Despite initial expunction, High Court remitted matter to trial court to assess sufficiency of P.W.2’s testimony – Trial court found evidence substantial – Appellant failed to challenge this or produce further evidence – Court affirmed lower court's decision to accept the evidence [Paras 74-85].

Codicil – Letter Not Compliant with Legal Requirements – Not a Codicil – Letter dated 21/08/1999 allegedly modifying Will treated as informal correspondence – Lacked required formalities of execution and attestation under law – Held: Not a codicil and irrelevant for grant of probate [Paras 66-69].

Disparity in Bequests – Not a Ground to Invalidate Will – Property Distribution Justified – Testatrix’s Kalna property bequeathed to appellant and Kolkata property to other daughters – Appellant admitted this aligned with prior promises – Will not vitiated by uneven distribution – Courts must respect testatrix’s autonomy in property disposition [Paras 50-53, 63].

Decision – Probate Affirmed – Appeal Dismissed – Court found valid execution, no suspicious circumstances, and proper evaluation of evidence – Judgment and decree of probate granted on 17/12/2018 affirmed – Appeal dismissed on contest without costs – Stay on judgment’s operation granted for three weeks [Paras 86-89].

Anticipatory Bail - NDPS Act – Commercial Quantity – Rigours of Section 37 Applicable – Bail Denied - The petitioner was named in an FIR relating to the transportation of 4.36 kg of charas and was alleged to have fled from the spot with a co-accused – Held: Quantity recovered being commercial, stringent conditions under Section 37 applied – Prima facie involvement of petitioner found – Petition dismissed [Paras 2, 11, 15].

Statement of Co-Accused – Not Inadmissible at Bail Stage – Custodial Interrogation Warranted – Bail Denied - Though the petitioner contended reliance on inadmissible statement of co-accused under Tofan Singh, the Court noted the Supreme Court’s contrary approach in Khaliludeen, Ajay Kumar Singh, and Samarth Kumar – Held: Even at pre-trial stage, such disclosure warranted consideration for bail denial – Custodial interrogation deemed essential to unearth wider conspiracy [Paras 10–14, 16].

Anticipatory Bail – Extraordinary Relief – Not Routine in Narcotics Cases – Bail Denied - Reiterating P. Chidambaram, Srikant Upadhyay and State vs. Anil Sharma, the Court emphasized that anticipatory bail is not a rule and must be denied where serious offences are involved – Liberty must be balanced with effective investigation – Presence of petitioner in vehicle, abscondence, and destruction of evidence argued against bail [Paras 7–9, 16–18].

Decision – Pre-Arrest Bail Denied – Petition Dismissed - Court dismissed the anticipatory bail petition of Shyam Lal – Held: Circumstances do not justify invocation of Section 438 CrPC – Observations confined to bail and not to be treated as findings on merits [Paras 19–20].

Education Law – Eligibility Criteria for BDS Course – 50% PCB Requirement – Rounding-Off Not Permitted – Appellant had 49.66% marks in Physics, Chemistry, Biology (PCB) in 10+2—Did not meet 50% eligibility criteria under Clause 6 of notification dated 10.06.2016—Family Court and Single Judge held rounding-off impermissible—Appellant’s name struck off from college rolls [Paras 2, 6–7].

Equitable Jurisdiction – Completion of Full Course under Interim Order – Degree Directed to be Conferred – Appellant allowed to continue BDS studies under interim order since 2017—Completed entire course and internship—High Court held: Appellant acted in good faith; no fraud; equity warrants issuance of degree—Writ Court cannot permit technicalities to defeat substantial justice [Paras 5, 8–10, 13].

Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit – Litigant Not to Suffer Due to Court Delay – Court emphasized that delay in final hearing must not prejudice litigants protected by interim orders—Cited binding precedents (Pasupuleti Venkateshwarlu, Milind, Budhia Swain)—Held: Interim protection matured into legitimate expectation of qualification—Degree cannot be denied [Paras 9–12].

Administrative Law – Rigid Application of Rules Disfavored – Proportionality Doctrine Invoked – Court stressed writ jurisdiction must balance fairness over technicality—Doctrine of proportionality used to assess harm from denying degree versus regulatory breach—Held: Larger public interest served by confirming degree of trained dentist [Paras 9–10].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Impugned communication and judgment of Single Judge set aside – Respondents directed to confer BDS degree upon appellant within one week – No costs awarded [Paras 13–14].