Transfer of Criminal Case – Allegation of Bias – Application for transfer based on dissatisfaction with trial court’s order rejecting recall of witness under Section 311 CrPC – Allegation of unjustified and discriminatory conduct – Held: Mere dissatisfaction with judicial order cannot be grounds for transfer – Apprehension of bias must be reasonable, not imaginary or presumed – Transfer denied [Paras 2-4, 23-24]

Judicial Orders – Not a Valid Basis for Transfer – Judicial orders passed by competent courts after hearing parties cannot be construed as indicators of bias – Transfer sought merely because court rejected application under Section 311 CrPC – Court reiterated that such orders form part of judicial process and cannot justify apprehension of injustice [Paras 3, 6]

Reasonable Apprehension – Meaning and Threshold – Reiterated legal position that for a case to be transferred, party must demonstrate reasonable and substantiated apprehension that justice will not be done – Mere suspicion or dissatisfaction insufficient – Reference to Gurcharan Das Chadha v. State of Rajasthan (1966) 2 SCR 686 [Paras 6, 10, 16, 22]

Protection of Judges – Courts Warn Against Forum Shopping – Strong judicial warning against attempts to malign presiding officers or seek ‘forum shopping’ – Cited precedents including Ajay Kumar Pandey (1998) 7 SCC 248 and R.K. Anand (2009) 8 SCC 106 – Held: No civilised system of justice permits forum shopping or judicial intimidation [Paras 8, 11-13, 19, 22]

Judicial Discipline – Expression of Opinion During Hearing – Judges not expected to be sphinx-like – Mere expression of views during proceedings not to be misconstrued as bias – Allegations must be substantiated by material facts – Court cautioned against frivolous and vexatious transfer pleas [Paras 7, 17, 21]

Exceptional Relief – Transfer to be Granted Sparingly – Court emphasized transfer is not to be granted routinely – Must be exercised cautiously and in rare cases where justice may be jeopardized – Cited multiple Apex Court decisions including Amarinder Singh v. Parkash Singh Badal and Afzal Ali Sha v. State of West Bengal [Paras 15, 16, 22]

Decision: Transfer application rejected – No case made out for reasonable apprehension of bias – Judicial order under challenge not a valid basis for transfer – No costs imposed.

Criminal Procedure – Additional Evidence – Section 311 CrPC – Prosecution allowed to produce video clip at defence evidence stage – Accused objected citing prolonged trial since 2018 and alleged abuse of process – Held: Trial court rightly exercised discretion to allow additional evidence to discover truth – Technical objections cannot defeat justice [Paras 1–3, 7–11].

Fair Trial – Delay and Prejudice – Petitioner contended that late-stage evidence prejudices right to speedy and fair trial – Supreme Court precedent in Ashutosh Pathak v. State of U.P., 2025(2) Crimes 332 relied upon – Court held that if evidence is essential to justice, delay alone not sufficient ground to reject it [Paras 7–11].

Hostile Witnesses – Evidentiary Impact – Accused argued that video lacks credibility as its preparers turned hostile – Court held: Relevance of material outweighs credibility concerns at this stage – Admissibility and weight to be assessed at trial [Para 8].

Judicial Discretion – Scope under Section 311 – Court cited Vijay Kumar v. State of U.P., (2011) 8 SCC 136 and Zahira Sheikh v. State of Gujarat, (2006) 3 SCC 374 – Reiterated that Section 311 empowers courts to summon or recall witnesses at any stage for a just decision – Discretion must be judicial, not arbitrary [Paras 12–13].

Decision: Criminal Revision Petition dismissed – Trial court’s discretion upheld – No interference warranted with order permitting additional evidence in interest of justice [Paras 14–15].

Motor Accident – Determination of Income – Presumptive Basis – Admissibility – Deceased was owner of loader vehicle and paying monthly EMI of ₹18,250 – Tribunal presumed additional earnings of ₹7,000/month to support his family of five dependents – Held: Tribunal justified in estimating income at ₹25,250/month in absence of documentary proof – Supported by SC ruling in Gurpreet Kaur v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1778 – No interference warranted [Paras 2, 4, 6–8]

Motor Accident – Future Prospects – Age-based Calculation – Tribunal awarded 40% future prospects though deceased was aged 36 – Under Rule 220-A of the U.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, claimants were entitled to 50% – Held: Award of 40% is conservative; no scope for reduction – Appeal against adequacy of compensation not sustainable [Paras 3, 9–10]

Compensation – No Deduction Warranted – Tribunal’s Approach Reasonable – Appellant-insurer raised ground that compensation was excessive due to presumed income – Held: Income based on proven expenditure (EMI) and family responsibilities is a valid basis – Future prospects correctly applied – No illegality in award [Paras 4–10]

Decision: Appeal dismissed at admission stage – Tribunal’s award of ₹48,56,250/- with 7.5% interest affirmed – Statutory deposit to be remitted to Tribunal forthwith.

Company Law – Misfeasance proceedings under Section 542 of Companies Act – Non-executive nominee directors’ application for deletion at threshold rejected – Interim freezing orders vacated – Matter to proceed to trial [Paras 29–41].

Company Law – Fraudulent Conduct – Section 542 of Companies Act, 1956 – Interim Relief Partially Granted – Non-executive nominee directors Srinivasan and Sreenivasulu sought to strike out their names from misfeasance proceedings, alleging lack of specific pleadings and no evidence of fraudulent participation – Held: Though pleadings lack specificity, presence in board meetings and fiduciary obligations as directors justify trial – Relief under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and Order I Rule 10 CPC declined [Paras 29–32, 38–39].

Nominee Directors – Fiduciary Liability – Directors Cannot Evade Corporate Responsibility – Court held that nominee directors, though non-executive, fall within ambit of persons "knowingly party" under Section 542 and cannot escape scrutiny solely on designation – Absence of express allegations insufficient for rejection at threshold [Paras 20–24, 36–38].

Pleadings in Fraud Cases – Order VI Rule 4 CPC – Liberal Approach for Official Liquidator Permitted – Court acknowledged limitations on Official Liquidator's access to internal records and granted permission to file additional affidavit with specific allegations before trial – Leave granted to applicants to reapply for deletion if no evidence is brought during trial [Paras 30–31, 39].

Interim Orders – Freezing of Assets – Interim Orders Vacated – Considering hardship to applicants and lack of prima facie evidence, the Court vacated prior ex parte orders freezing their bank/demat accounts and restraining them from dealing with movable/immovable assets – Balance of convenience not in favour of continuation [Para 40].

Final Decision – Applications Partly Allowed – Interim freezing orders vacated – Misfeasance proceedings to continue – Official Liquidator permitted to amend pleadings with specific charges; applicants allowed to reapply for deletion after evidence stage [Para 41].

SC/ST Act – Anticipatory Bail – Bar Under Section 18 – Prima Facie Case – Appellant sought pre-arrest bail in FIR alleging public insult of complainant belonging to Scheduled Caste by using caste-based slurs – Held: Prima facie, allegations attract Section 3(1)(r) of SC/ST Act – Abuse was specific, caste-based, and made in public view while complainant was discharging official duties as Panchayat Member – Bar under Section 18 applicable – Anticipatory bail rightly denied [Paras 2, 7–9]

Criminal Procedure – Maintainability of Anticipatory Bail Under SC/ST Act – Legal Position Summarised – Court reiterates principles from Subhash Kashinath Mahajan and Prathvi Raj Chauhan – Anticipatory bail is maintainable under SC/ST Act only where complaint is prima facie false, malafide or no offence is made out – In present case, FIR discloses specific allegations supported by witnesses – Hence, no case for anticipatory bail [Paras 6–8]

Caste-based Abuse – Public Insult – Specific Utterances and Context – Alleged remarks (“Kutti-chudi-dhedni”) were caste-centric and publicly made, attracting ingredients of Section 3(1)(r) – Dispute regarding garbage dumping site is defence argument, not relevant at anticipatory bail stage – Role of appellant, nature of allegations and societal impact considered – Appeal dismissed [Paras 2, 7–9]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Anticipatory bail denied – Prima facie offence under Section 3(1)(r) of SC/ST Act made out – Bar under Section 18 attracted – Pending applications also disposed

Motor Accident Claim – Proof of Income – Summoning Income Tax Records – Petitioners (legal heirs of deceased) sought summoning of Clerk of Income Tax Department and employer’s salary records to prove deceased’s income – Tribunal rejected application – Held: Petitioners failed to produce even basic bank account statement of deceased – Claimed salary paid partly in cash but could not specify how much or when – Income tax documents of the firm alone cannot prove payment to a specific employee without direct correlation – Summary nature of MACT proceedings limits scope of wide-ranging fishing inquiries – No illegality in Tribunal’s refusal [Paras 5–7]

Civil Procedure – Relevancy of Evidence – Court's Discretion in Summoning Witnesses – Held: Mere existence of firm’s audit or tax records showing overall salary disbursement insufficient to prove individual’s income – Petitioners failed to establish how proposed evidence is material for adjudication – Dismissal of summoning application justified – No perversity or irregularity in impugned order [Paras 6–8]

Constitution of India – Article 227 – Supervisory Jurisdiction – Held: High Court will not interfere with interlocutory orders of subordinate courts or tribunals unless there is manifest perversity or jurisdictional error – Tribunal rightly exercised discretion based on lack of foundational material – Revision petition dismissed [Paras 3, 8]

Decision: Civil Revision Petition dismissed – No material irregularity in rejection of summoning request – No ground to interfere under Article 227

Domestic Violence – Shared Household – Right of Residence – Section 2(s) read with Section 17, PWDV Act – Wife began residing at property owned by her in-laws immediately after marriage – Held: Property qualifies as “shared household” irrespective of ownership – Right of residence under Section 17 not dependent on title – Once aggrieved person has lived there in a domestic relationship, protection from dispossession can be granted – Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja, (2021) 1 SCC 414, followed; S.R. Batra v. Taruna Batra, (2007) 3 SCC 169, overruled [Paras 11–14, 28].

Ownership of In-laws – Effect on Residence Right – Property purchased and registered in name of father-in-law held to be self-acquired – Still constitutes shared household for purpose of protection under DV Act – Ownership is immaterial for Section 17 protection so long as relationship and cohabitation exist – Civil decree on title (even if stayed) has no bearing on right of residence [Paras 13–14].

Domestic Relationship – Termination of Cohabitation – Whether destroys right to reside – Held: No – Section 2(f) includes relationships where parties “have at any point of time lived together” – Right of residence continues to protect woman even after separation, till eviction through due process of law [Para 14].

Residence Orders – Power of Magistrate – Sections 17 & 19 PWDV Act – Magistrate empowered to restrain dispossession and alienation – Directions do not confer ownership but preserve possession until due process is followed – Restraint on alienation falls within Section 19(1)(d) – Challenge to such restraint unsustainable [Paras 15, 28].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Limited Scope – Sections 397/401 CrPC – High Court cannot reappreciate evidence or admit fresh evidence – Findings of Mahila Court and Appellate Court upheld as reasoned and based on record – Electricity bills produced for first time in revision rejected as extraneous [Paras 8, 19–20].

Physical Residence – Electricity Consumption as Proof – Low electricity usage not conclusive proof of non-occupation – Findings of actual residence by lower courts based on evidence cannot be disturbed – Weak inference cannot rebut statutory protection [Paras 17–20].

Balance of Interests – Coexistence – Both parties occupying separate floors (Respondent on ground floor, Petitioner on first floor) – Arrangement ensures protection to daughter-in-law and peaceful residence to senior citizen – Equilibrium achieved consistent with Section 19 PWDV Act and proportionality principle [Paras 23–25].

Alternate Relief – Section 19(1)(f) – Though Court could have directed alternate accommodation, choice to preserve possession till due process not perverse – Judicial discretion properly exercised; no interference warranted [Paras 26–27].

Civil Proceedings – Pendency before Civil Court and Supreme Court – Does not oust jurisdiction under DV Act – Sections 17, 19, and 26 allow parallel protective remedies – Residence order independent of proprietary adjudication [Para 27].

Decision: Revision petitions dismissed – Concurrent findings of Trial and Appellate Courts upheld – Property qualifies as shared household under Section 2(s) – Respondent’s right of residence under Sections 17 and 19 sustained – Restraint against dispossession and alienation confirmed – Observations confined to protection under DV Act; title and mesne profits left to be decided in civil proceedings – No order as to costs [Paras 28–30].

Family Law – Partition Suit – Legal Heirship Disputed – Respondent-plaintiff claimed share in ancestral property as son of Godari Beeraiah through second wife Banamma – Trial court decreed the suit based on declarations and oral evidence – Appellate court found no conclusive proof of legal marriage between Beeraiah and Banamma – Plaintiff failed to produce birth certificate, school records or examine his mother who was alive – Held: Plaintiff failed to establish status as legal heir – Trial court’s decree set aside [Paras 7, 19–31]

Evidence Act – Section 50 and 60 – Relationship by Conduct – Court reiterated that opinion expressed by conduct must be proved by direct evidence under Section 60 – Conduct must relate to person having special means of knowledge – Held: Mere declarations or documents based on self-declaration (Exs.A7–A17) do not constitute conclusive proof – Referred Dolgobinda Paricha v. Nimai Charan Misra [AIR 1959 SC 914] [Paras 15, 26]

Limitation – Partition Suit Barred – Plaintiff filed suit 13 years after death of alleged father without reasonable explanation for delay – No prior assertion of rights or legal notice issued – Held: Suit barred by limitation and indicates lack of bona fides [Paras 3.1, 30]

Documentary Evidence – Public Documents and Presumptions – Certified copies of voter lists, gas records, and employment documents (Exs.A7–A17) relied on by plaintiff were based on self-declared data – Held: Not sufficient to displace legal burden to prove relationship – Absence of school records, birth certificate, and pedigree registers noted – [Paras 16, 26]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Trial court decree set aside – Respondent-plaintiff’s suit for partition dismissed – No costs – Interim orders vacated – Miscellaneous applications closed [Paras 31–32]

Criminal Law – Section 61(2) r/w 318(3), 316(5), and 112 BNS - Paper Leak – Departmental Examination – Economic Offence – CBI Investigation – Bail Granted – Delay in Trial – Procedural Irregularities – Parity with Co-Accused – Accused railway officials and candidates allegedly conspired to leak the CLI departmental examination paper in exchange for bribes – Leaked paper allegedly handwritten by paper-setter and circulated via intermediaries – Recovered documents and cash used as key evidence – CBI relied on confessions, call intercepts, and seizures – Applicants contended lack of direct recovery, lack of expert opinion, procedural violations under BNSS – Court held that trial unlikely to begin soon due to lack of sanction and large volume of evidence – 16 co-accused already granted bail – Bail granted to all remaining applicants on parity and due to prolonged incarceration without trial [Paras 1–85].

Evidence Law – Section 23 Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam – Admissibility – Custodial Statements – Recovery Before Arrest – Handwriting and Voice Analysis Inconclusive – Several recoveries based on pre-arrest disclosures – No expert verification of handwriting or voice samples produced – Statements recorded without magisterial supervision – Held: Statements inadmissible under law and cannot be sole basis for denial of bail [Paras 30–31, 58–61].

Search and Seizure – Section 105 BNSS – Audio-Visual Recording Mandatory – Procedural Non-compliance by CBI – Accused argued seizure proceedings were not fully recorded on video as required under BNSS – Lack of sketch map in some cases – CBI failed to justify procedural lapses – Held: Such deficiencies weaken evidentiary value – Favors bail [Paras 32–33, 52–53].

Bail Principles – Economic Offences – Serious Allegation Not Sole Ground to Deny Bail – Right to Speedy Trial – CBI opposed bail citing economic offence seriousness – Court reiterated principles from Sanjay Chandra, Satender Antil, Dataram Singh, and Manish Sisodia – Held: Bail is rule, jail is exception – Long trial delay, lack of prior criminal history, and co-accused parity are valid considerations for bail [Paras 34–35, 70–78].

Bail – Role of Accused – Individual Allegations Considered – Bail Conditions Imposed – Specific roles detailed for each accused: from paper-setter to bribe collector to candidate – Some named in FIR, others only in charge-sheet – Many with no recovery or direct link – All applicants in custody for over 7 months – Bail granted subject to conditions of non-tampering, attendance, and non-intimidation of witnesses [Paras 1–85].

Decision: Bail allowed – All 8 applicants (Sushant Parashar, Ramayan, Ajit Kumar Singh, Niraj Kumar Verma, Raj Narayan Singh Yadav, Surjeet Singh, Rakesh Kumar, and Sanjay Kumar Mishra) granted bail on personal bonds and two sureties each – Conditions imposed to prevent interference with trial or witnesses [Paras 84–86].