Criminal Law - Default Bail - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 - Section 187(3) - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 - Section 22(b) - Petitioners were arrested for possession of 4.22 grams of MDMA and remanded to custody on 30/12/2025 - Investigation was required to be completed within sixty days as the offence carries a maximum punishment of ten years with no prescribed minimum threshold - Final report was e-filed on 28/02/2026 at 6:02 p.m. being the 60th day - Petitioners claimed default bail on the ground that filing after court hours was invalid and the ninety-day limit did not apply - Prosecution argued that the BNSS terminology "ten years or more" in Section 187(3)(i) replaced the CrPC phrase "not less than ten years" and thus attracted a ninety-day limit for all offences punishable up to ten years - Held - The ninety-day benchmark for default bail applies only where the offence carries the death penalty - imprisonment for life - or a minimum sentence of ten years - Offences punishable with imprisonment that may extend up to ten years but without a minimum threshold fall within the sixty-day category - The distinction crystallised in Rakesh Kumar Paul v. State of Assam remains applicable under the BNSS - Offence under Section 22(b) NDPS Act attracts the sixty-day limit - [Paras 1-16].

Evidence Law - Computation of Limitation - Electronic Filing Rules for Courts (Kerala) 2021 - Rule 13 - Criminal Rules of Practice Kerala 1982 - Rules 4 and 5 - Effective date of e-filing - Final report in a narcotics case was electronically filed at 6:02 p.m. on the 60th day of custody - Court office hours are prescribed from 10:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. - Petitioners contended the filing should be reckoned as having occurred on the 61st day - Held - For the purpose of computing limitation - electronic filings received up to 5:00 p.m. shall be treated as instituted on that day - Filings made after 5:00 p.m. shall be deemed to have been instituted only on the next working day - The filing in the present case must be reckoned as instituted on 01/03/2026 which is beyond the statutory period of sixty days - Petitioners have an indefeasible right to statutory bail under Section 187 BNSS - [Paras 17-19].

Decision: Application allowed – Petitioners granted statutory bail subject to execution of bonds for Rs. 1,00,000/- each with two solvent sureties and conditions regarding non-tampering of evidence and territorial restrictions.

Criminal Law - Jurisdiction - Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 - Sections 12 and 27 - Competence of Designated MP/MLA Court - Petitioner a sitting Member of Legislative Assembly challenged the summoning order issued by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Rouse Avenue Courts Delhi - Contention that PWDV Act proceedings are predominantly civil and should be heard by the regular jurisdictional Magistrate in Saket Courts where the respondent resides and other matrimonial cases are pending - Respondent had previously withdrawn an application from Saket Courts to file before the designated MP/MLA court citing administrative notifications for trial of cases against elected representatives - High Court observed that designated MP/MLA courts are not separate statutory entities but are regular Magistrate or Sessions courts assigned specific matters for expeditious adjudication - Though reliefs under PWDV Act are civil in nature the procedure is governed by CrPC or BNSS and the forum is a Magistrate Court - Breach of protection orders entails criminal penalty under Section 31 making the presence of the same Magistrate desirable for continuity - Held - Designated MP/MLA court continues to be a Court of Magistrate within the meaning of the Act and is competent to entertain the application - No prejudice shown to the petitioner by this administrative allocation - Petition dismissed - [Paras 1-48].

Criminal Law - Administrative Law - Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 - Section 2(i) - Nature of Designated Court - Designated courts for elected representatives are regular ACMM or ACJM courts entrusted with specific cases by administrative orders - Such designation does not change the fundamental character of the court as a Magistrate - Held - An ACJM presiding over a designated MP/MLA Court remains a Magistrate under Sections 2(i) and 27 of the PWDV Act - [Paras 29-36].

Criminal Law - Procedure - Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 - Section 31 - Multiplicity of Proceedings - Breach of protection order is a cognizable offence - Section 31(2) requires trial by the same Magistrate who passed the order - Separating civil remedies and criminal breach trials between different courts would frustrate legislative intent and lead to procedural complications - Held - Continuity of proceedings before the designated court is preferred to avoid inconsistent proceedings - [Paras 37-40].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Summoning order and proceedings before ACJM-04 Rouse Avenue Courts Delhi affirmed.

Civil Law - Rejection of Plaint - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order VII Rule 11 - Delhi Land Reforms Act 1954 - Section 50 - Hindu Succession Act 1956 - Section 4(2) - Succession to agricultural land - Plaintiff daughter sought partition of agricultural land claiming share as Class-I heir of her father who died intestate in November 2002 - Defendants filed application for rejection of plaint contending the suit is barred by Section 50 DLR Act as succession opened prior to 2005 HSA amendment - High Court observed that at the time of death in 2002 the land was agricultural and governed by the DLR Act - Section 4(2) HSA specifically saved provisions of local laws relating to the devolution of tenancy rights in agricultural holdings until its omission in 2005 - Amendment to HSA in 2005 has prospective application and cannot disturb successions that opened prior to 09-09-2005 - Succession crystallized in favor of male lineal descendants in 2002 under Section 50 DLR Act - Subsequent urbanization of the village in 2017 or acquisition of land in 2016 cannot unsettle the settled legal position at the time succession opened - Held - Plaint does not disclose a cause of action and is barred by law - Application allowed and plaint rejected - [Paras 1-50].

Civil Law - Succession - Delhi Land Reforms Act 1954 - Section 50 - Hindu Succession Act 1956 - Section 4(2) - Prospective application of amendment - The rule of succession contained in Section 50 DLR Act is protected for successions opening before the 2005 amendment of HSA - Rights of descendants crystallize on the date of death of the Bhumidhar - Deletion of Section 4(2) HSA does not have retrospective effect by virtue of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act - Held - Daughter has no right to succeed to Bhumidhari land where male lineal descendants are available and succession opened in 2002 - [Paras 19-33].

Civil Law - Pleadings - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order VI Rule 4 and Order VII Rule 11 - Hindu Undivided Family - Material facts - Plaintiff made bald assertion that property was part of an HUF and father was Karta - No specific averments provided regarding the date of creation of HUF or how the property became HUF property - Post-1956 there is no presumption that inheritance of ancestral property creates an HUF - Specific pleadings are a sine qua non to establish a cause of action for partition of HUF property - Mere ipse dixit or clever drafting to create an illusory cause of action is insufficient - Held - Plaint bereft of material facts regarding HUF fails to disclose a cause of action - [Paras 34-47].

Decision: Application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC allowed – Plaint rejected – Suit and pending applications stand disposed of.

Criminal Law - Murder - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Sections 302 and 34 - Appellant Pravesh and three others intercepted deceased on bicycle due to land dispute litigation since 1972 - Accused assaulted deceased with sticks and knives resulting in homicidal death - Trial Court convicted appellants for life imprisonment - Surviving appellant Pravesh challenged conviction on grounds of false implication and discrepancies in eye-witness testimony - High Court found motive established through civil litigation records and defense witness admissions - Testimony of father and brother-in-law of deceased found consistent regarding date-time-place and manner of incident - Held - Conviction of appellant affirmed - Appeal dismissed - [Paras 1-105].

Evidence Law - Quality of Evidence - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 134 - Non-examination of material witness - Prosecution did not examine cited witness Rohtash who submitted application stating reluctance to testify due to relationship with both parties - Defense argued adverse inference under Section 114 - Court held that it is quality and not quantity of evidence that matters - Conviction can be based on solitary reliable witness - Omission not fatal when other eye-witnesses are trustworthy - Held - Non-examination of one witness does not weaken the prosecution case when unfolding of narrative is complete through other witnesses - [Paras 47-55].

Criminal Law - Inquest Proceedings - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 174 - Signatures of eye-witnesses - Appellant contended eye-witnesses were not present as they did not sign inquest report or recovery memos - Court held that scope of Section 174 is limited to ascertaining apparent cause of death and not to name assailants or record eye-witness details - Inquest report is not substantive evidence - Non-mention of names or lack of signatures of eye-witnesses on such reports cannot be ground to reject ocular testimony - Held - Eye-witness testimony cannot be discarded for lack of signatures on police papers - [Paras 68-70].

Evidence Law - Ocular vs Medical Evidence - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 3 - Compatibility - Defense argued fractures on head could not be caused by knives - Autopsy surgeon found incised wounds bone-deep with underlying fractures - Court observed that heavy blows with sharp-edged weapons like knives can cause fractures - No inconsistency found between nature of injuries and weapons assigned to accused - Held - Medical evidence fully corroborates eye-witness account - [Paras 24-98].

Evidence Law - Related Witness - Credibility - Testimony of father and brother-in-law - Defense argued witnesses were related and interested - Court held that relationship is not a factor to affect credibility as a relative would not typically shield the real culprit to rope in an innocent person - Ocular testimony found consistent despite extensive cross-examination spanning months - Held - Evidence of related witnesses cannot be discarded if it inspires confidence - [Paras 66-67].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence of surviving appellant Pravesh under Section 302/34 IPC and Arms Act affirmed – Appellant to serve remaining part of sentence.

Civil Law - Procedure - Family Courts Act 1984 - [Not stated in judgment] - Restoration of application - Revision petitioner challenged the dismissal of his application C.M.P No. 2/2024 which was filed to restore an earlier petition to set aside an ex-parte order - The Family Court dismissed the application on the technical ground that the prayer was to set aside the order dated 30.08.2024 instead of explicitly seeking restoration - The High Court held that the nomenclature of the relief sought should not have been the primary focus of the lower court while ignoring the actual purpose sought to be achieved by the petitioner - Held - The decision of the lower court to dismiss the petition on purely technical grounds cannot be justified - Order set aside - [Paras 1-5].

Civil Law - Maintenance - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - [Not stated in judgment] - Conditional Restoration - Petitioner sought to set aside an ex-parte maintenance order directing payment of Rs 8000 per month - High Court observed that huge arrears were due to the respondent wife and further procrastination would cause hardship - As a pre-condition for the restoration of the petition to set aside the ex-parte order the Court directed the petitioner to deposit Rs 200000 out of the arrears within two months - Held - Restoration of C.M.P No. 1/2024 directed subject to the condition of partial deposit of arrears to balance the interests of both parties - [Paras 2-5].

Decision: Revision petition allowed in part – Order of Family Court in C.M.P No. 2/2024 set aside subject to petitioner depositing Rs 200000 within two months – Family Court directed to restore and decide C.M.P No. 1/2024 on merits upon compliance – Execution proceedings in M.C No. 289/2022 stayed for two months.

Criminal Law - Cruelty and Dowry Harassment - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 482 - Quashing of Proceedings - Applicants-in-laws challenged the charge-sheet and criminal proceedings for offences including Section 498A IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act - Complainant alleged she was subjected to cruelty for additional dowry of five lakhs and landed property - Allegations included physical assault and retention of stridhan by the mother-in-law - Applicants contended that the FIR was a retaliatory counterblast to a prior divorce petition and criminal complaint filed by the husband - Reliance was placed on a handwritten note where the complainant allegedly stated she left the matrimonial home voluntarily - Court observed that the authenticity of the note and the medical evidence regarding injuries were disputed questions of fact - Held - High Court cannot conduct a mini-trial at the stage of quashing under Section 482 - Prima facie allegations exist against the applicants that require trial - Application dismissed - [Paras 1-23].

Criminal Law - Inherent Powers - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 482 - Scope of Jurisdiction - Stage of Quashing - High Court is only required to consider whether sufficient material is available to proceed against the accused - Jurisdiction is limited and does not extend to an enquiry into the reliability or genuineness of allegations as if conducting a trial - Even if an FIR appears to be a counterblast to earlier proceedings such an aspect cannot be conclusively determined at this stage when adjudication requires appreciation of evidence - Held - Power under Section 482 should be exercised sparingly and only to prevent abuse of the process of the court - [Paras 17-20].

Criminal Law - Criminal Breach of Trust - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Section 406 - Ingredients - Entrustment of Property - Applicants argued that the essential ingredients of Section 406 were not met as allegations of stridhan retention were general - Court noted specific allegations against the mother-in-law regarding non-return of stridhan and administering harmful medicine - Reliance placed on precedent that the gist of the offence is dishonest misappropriation - Held - Whether the retention was dishonest or if misappropriation occurred are matters for trial when prima facie material is collected during investigation - [Paras 12-15].

Decision: Application dismissed – No interference warranted at the stage of charge-sheet as allegations require examination through trial – Trial Court to proceed as per earlier directions.

Criminal Law - Quashing of FIR - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Sections 406, 420 and 120B - Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002 - Sections 3 and 4 - Foreign Direct Investment - Petitioner news portal challenged FIR and ECIR alleging illegal FDI through share overvaluation and siphoning of funds - Complainant alleged FDI was structured to bypass 26 percent cap and used for non-business payments - Petitioner argued no FDI cap existed for digital media in 2018 and share valuation followed Discounted Cash Flow method under FEMA - High Court found that the investor never complained of cheating and no public money was involved - Investigation by EOW showed initial RBI reply confirmed no FEMA violation - Court held that ingredients of Sections 406 and 420 IPC were missing as no entrustment or fraudulent induction was established - Held - Continuation of FIR and ECIR would be gross abuse of process of law - FIR and ECIR quashed - [Paras 1-132].

Criminal Law - Money Laundering - Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002 - Sections 3 and 4 - Scheduled Offence - Dependency of ECIR on Predicate Offence - ED registered ECIR based on FIR alleging proceeds of crime from illegal FDI - High Court analyzed the interplay between the predicate offence and money laundering proceedings - Following the ratio in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary - the Court observed that PMLA authorities cannot act on an assumption that property is proceeds of crime unless a scheduled offence is registered and subsisting - Held - If the person named in the criminal activity is finally absolved or the criminal case for the scheduled offence is quashed - there can be no action for money laundering - Since the FIR for the predicate offence was quashed for failing to disclose any cognizable offence - the ECIR cannot stand alone and is also quashed - [Paras 127-130].

Criminal Law - Criminal Conspiracy - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Section 120B - Allegation of connivance - ED claimed conspiracy existed between the Petitioner and foreign entities to bring funds into India under the automatic route - Held - Mere agreement between parties is insufficient to constitute criminal conspiracy unless the ED shows an illegal objective or illegal means - No material on record substantiated the commission of an illegal act - Conspiracy is a substantive offence but requires a meeting of minds for an unlawful purpose which was absent in the present commercial transaction - [Paras 103-105, 124-125].

Evidence Law - Investigative Reports - Contradictory Status Reports - EOW filed two status reports where the second report omitted earlier references to an RBI reply exonerating the Petitioner from FEMA violations - Held - The exclusion of the RBI reply in the second report without explanation appeared to be an attempt to obfuscate the absence of a cognizable offence - Court relied on the initial findings that indicated compliance with extant FEMA regulations - [Paras 53-57, 77-78].

Decision: Writ Petitions allowed – FIR No. 0116/2020 and ECIR/14/HIU/2020 quashed – W.P. (Crl.) No. 1129/2021 disposed of as infructuous.

Civil Law - Succession - Mutual Wills vs Identical Wills - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 96 - Appellants sought to set aside Trial Court judgment dismissing suit for partition and possession of property jointly owned by parents - Parents executed two separate Wills on 20-04-2006 in identical language bequeathing shares to the surviving spouse with absolute rights and subsequent devolution to children - After mother demise in 2007 father executed gift deeds for different floors in favor of Respondent No 1 and a subsequent Will in 2010 - Appellants contended that 2006 Wills were mutual wills creating binding irrevocable obligations - High Court examined the language of the Wills which provided that the survivor shall enjoy property in exclusive rights interest and control with power to dispose - Held - For a will to qualify as a mutual will there must exist a clear and definite agreement between executants that the arrangement remains irrevocable after death of one party - Mere execution of identical wills on the same day does not establish mutuality - Language used unequivocally conferred complete dominion and absolute ownership upon the survivor - Father was competent to execute gift deeds and subsequent Will - Appeal dismissed - [Paras 1-48].

Civil Law - Interpretation of Wills - Life Estate vs Absolute Ownership - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order XV Rule 3 - Determination of interest created in favor of surviving spouse - Appellants argued father acquired only a limited life interest and could not alienate property except for necessity - High Court analyzed phrases shall enjoy the same in his/her own exclusive rights and shall be able to dispose of the same to meet necessities - Held - Use of such terminology reinforces intention to confer complete ownership - The condition regarding devolution to heirs only if property subsists after survivor death indicates alienation was contemplated and permitted - If testators intended to create a life estate they would have used specific restrictive language - No restrictive covenant or prohibition against alienation was discernible - [Paras 37-42].

Civil Law - Evidence and Pleadings - Competency to alienate - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order VI Rule 17 - Challenge to validity of gift deeds - Appellants alleged fraud and undue influence in procurement of gift deeds - High Court noted that no specific averments or pleadings were made in the plaint regarding validity of documents other than the competency of the father to execute them - Ratio Decidendi - In the absence of a clear agreement not to revoke discernible from the tenor of the will or surrounding circumstances separate wills with identical terms remain revocable by the survivor who acquires absolute interest - Held - Trial Court correctly concluded that property devolved upon father in absolute manner - [Paras 43-46].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Trial Court judgment and decree affirmed – Respondent No 1 directed to honor bequests in the father subsequent Will dated 06-08-2010.

Writ Law - Service Matter - Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 16 - Discrimination in grant of relaxation - Petitioner a 1991-Batch IAS officer challenged the rejection of his empanelment as Additional Secretary/Secretary to the Government of India - Rejection was based on the failure to meet the minimum three-year central deputation experience at the level of Deputy Secretary and above - Petitioner produced evidence of 20 other IAS officers with nil central experience who were granted relaxation and empaneled - Central Administrative Tribunal held that the rule could not be relaxed and dismissed the original application - High Court observed that the Union of India had repeatedly exercised its jurisdiction to relax the eligibility condition for others while denying it to the petitioner without any valid or differentiating reason - Held - The non-exercise of the power of relaxation in favour of the petitioner while granting it to similarly situated officers constitutes hostile discrimination and violates the principle of equality under the Constitution - Writ petition allowed - [Paras 1-16].

Writ Law - Service Matter - Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 16 - Benefit of Parity - Future Prospects - Petitioner retired during the pendency of the litigation - Respondents argued that the petition was rendered infructuous - Petitioner contended that empanelment is a preferred requirement for various post-retirement assignments and its absence renders him less meritorious - Held - Although the petitioner cannot be brought on deputation now due to retirement the respondents are directed to treat him as empaneled at the level of Additional Secretary/Secretary on equal footing with other similarly situated officers for the purpose of consideration for future assignments only - [Paras 8-17].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Petitioner directed to be treated as empaneled as Additional Secretary/Secretary with the Government of India for consideration of future assignments only.