Criminal Law – Robbery – Doubtful Identification – Nighttime Crime – Conviction Set Aside – Petitioners (A1 & A3) convicted for stabbing and robbing two employees carrying ₹16 lakhs – Conviction confirmed by appellate court – However, eye-witnesses (PW1 & PW2) admitted to contradictions regarding identity, absence of lighting, prior exposure to accused photographs, and conflicting testimonies on sequence of events – Test Identification Parade conducted 45 days post-arrest after exposure to accused undermined its probative value – Held: Identification highly doubtful – Conviction unsustainable [Paras 13-18, 22].

Evidence – Eye-Witness Testimony – Contradictions – Lack of Corroboration – Acquittal Justified – Evidence of PW1 and PW2 contradictory and unsupported by independent witnesses – Medical records silent on crucial aspects such as chilli powder allegedly used – Doctor did not confirm stated injuries or circumstances – PW3 and PW5 claimed to have transported victims to hospital but hospital registers mention different names – Place of occurrence itself in dispute – Held: Trial and appellate courts failed to appreciate contradictions – Evidence insufficient for conviction [Paras 12, 15-16, 18].

Criminal Trial – Parity Principle – Similar Role, Disparate Outcome – Conviction Discriminatory – Co-accused A2 and A4–A8 acquitted despite similar evidence – No weapon recovery traced to petitioners – No specific overt act attributed to them – Conviction based solely on disputed identification – Held: Principle of parity mandates that petitioners be given same benefit of doubt as others – Conviction unsustainable [Paras 23-26].

Investigation – Recovery and Confession – Procedural Irregularities – Witness Credibility Doubtful – Confession and recovery allegedly made in presence of PW7 (VAO) and PW8 (Village Assistant) who admitted to being stock witnesses – No independent witness or house owner (Rajendran) examined – Typed confessions using laptop and mobile printer at scene not supported by evidence – Held: Recovery procedure artificial and unsupported – Evidence unreliable [Paras 19-21].

Decision: Revision allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Petitioners acquitted – Fine, if paid, to be refunded – Petitioners to be released forthwith unless required in any other proceedings.

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Dishonour of Cheque – Acquittal – Accused admitted signature on cheque but denied liability – Complainant presented sufficient documents including return memo, legal notice, postal proof, and reply – Trial Court acquitted the accused citing discrepancies and held complainant acted without reasonable cause – Held: Acquittal alone insufficient to invoke Section 250 CrPC – No finding of malicious prosecution – Direction to pay compensation unsustainable [Paras 10–15]

Criminal Law – Compensation to Accused under Section 250 CrPC – Setting Aside – Appellant filed complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 alleging that the respondent issued a cheque for ₹3,00,000/- towards repayment of a hand loan, which was dishonoured for “Insufficient Funds” – Trial Court acquitted the accused but awarded compensation of ₹25,000/- under Section 250 CrPC to the accused, holding that the complaint was filed without reasonable cause – High Court held that although the complainant failed to prove his case, the essential requirements to invoke Section 250 CrPC were not satisfied – No material to show malafide, malicious prosecution, or that the complaint was frivolous – Acquittal alone is insufficient ground for awarding compensation under Section 250 CrPC [Paras 3, 6, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15]

Compensation – Malicious Prosecution – Scope of Section 250 CrPC – High Court analyzed precedents including State of Rajasthan v. Jainudeen Shekh (2016) 1 SCC 514 and Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd. (2006) 6 SCC 736 – Reiterated that compensation under Section 250 CrPC can only be awarded if prosecution was without reasonable cause, was malicious or actuated by ulterior motives – Findings of the Trial Court based on presumption, not on cogent evidence of malice – Held: Procedural lapses or acquittal do not justify invoking Section 250 CrPC unless malicious prosecution is established [Paras 9, 13, 14, 15]

Cheque Dishonour – Existence of Reasonable Grounds – Cheque admitted by accused to bear his signature – Dishonour proven by return memo from SBI – Legal notice issued and duly served – Evidence such as postal acknowledgment, receipts, and reply to notice placed on record – High Court found that these materials constituted reasonable grounds to file complaint under Section 138 NI Act – Absence of memo from payee’s bank or discrepancies in endorsement do not amount to frivolous or malicious prosecution [Paras 10, 11, 12, 13]

Trial Court Findings – Held Perverse – Trial Court placed undue emphasis on evidentiary gaps like lack of bank memo from Nishant Society and endorsement by third-party bank – Found complainant had misused cheque without concrete evidence – High Court noted such findings were based on surmises – Witness from credit society admitted blank cheques are not permitted, contradicting respondent’s defence – No finding of malice or ill-intent against complainant – Invoking Section 250 CrPC unjustified [Paras 11, 13, 14, 15]

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Trial Court’s order dated 16/03/2017 awarding compensation of ₹25,000/- under Section 250 CrPC quashed and set aside – Acquittal of respondent under Section 138 NI Act remains undisturbed – No compensation payable to respondent – Appeal disposed accordingly [Para 15, Final Order]

Criminal Law – Additional Evidence at Appellate Stage – Section 391 Cr.P.C. – Scope and Object – Appellate Court dismissed application for production of additional documents in appeal against conviction under Section 138 NI Act – Held: Power under Section 391 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised to secure ends of justice and where non-receipt of evidence may result in failure of justice – Additional evidence not confined to cases where judgment cannot be pronounced but where its absence may occasion miscarriage of justice – Impugned order set aside and petitioner permitted to adduce additional evidence [Paras 8, 12-14].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Conviction under Section 138 – Appeal Pending Since 2017 – Application for Production of Ledgers and Cheque Records – Appellate Court rejected plea treating it as dilatory tactic and holding that documents would not conclusively prove unlawful custody of cheques – High Court held that appellate court ought not to draw adverse inference on merits at stage of considering application under Section 391 Cr.P.C. and should examine necessity of evidence for just decision of appeal [Paras 10-11, 14].

Section 391 Cr.P.C. – Parameters for Exercise of Power – Additional evidence permissible where party was prevented from producing evidence despite due diligence or where facts came to light during pendency of appeal – Evidence must be necessary to avoid failure of justice – Reliance placed on Ajitsinh Chehuji Rathod v. State of Gujarat and Brig. Sukhjeet Singh (Retd.) MVC v. State of U.P. – Wide discretion vested in appellate court but to be exercised judiciously [Paras 12-13].

Decision: Criminal Petition allowed – Order dated 25.07.2025 in Crl.M.P. No.22 of 2023 in Crl.A. No.859 of 2017 set aside – Application under Section 391 Cr.P.C. allowed – Petitioner permitted to adduce additional evidence – Miscellaneous petitions closed [Paras 14-15].

Criminal Law – Bail – POCSO and JJ Act Offences – Parity with Co-Accused – Petitioner charged under multiple IPC, JJ Act and POCSO provisions for alleged torture and abuse of a 3-year-old foster child – Other co-accused including petitioner’s husband (prime accused) granted bail – Held: On ground of parity and similar footing in charges, petitioner entitled to bail [Paras 5, 35]

Criminal Procedure – Illegal Arrest – Violation of Sections 50, 50A, 41B(b)(i), 46(4) CrPC – Arrest made without furnishing grounds, informing relatives, attesting arrest memo or obtaining prior judicial permission for arrest of woman at night – Held: Cumulative procedural lapses render arrest illegal – Fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 22(1) violated – Arrest unsustainable [Paras 26–32]

Constitutional Law – Article 21 – Prolonged Incarceration – Right to Speedy Trial – Petitioner in custody for over 2½ years, with only 15 of 74 witnesses examined and trial expected to take further considerable time – Held: Long incarceration violates right to liberty under Article 21 – Bail granted to prevent injustice and safeguard constitutional rights [Paras 22–24]

Interpretation of Precedent – Pankaj Bansal and Mihir Rajesh Shah Cases – Mandate to inform arrestee of grounds in writing applicable irrespective of arrest date – Argument that Pankaj Bansal applies only prospectively rejected – Section 50 of CrPC pre-existed and must be followed – Non-compliance affects validity of arrest [Paras 33–34]

Bail Conditions – Stringent Safeguards Imposed – Accused directed to furnish ₹1 lakh bond with two sureties (one government servant), surrender of official documents, non-contact with victim or witnesses, restriction on travel without court permission and cooperation in trial mandatory [Para 36]

Decision: Bail granted – Petitioner Dr. Sangeeta Dutta directed to be released in connection with Sessions (Special) Case No. 112/2023 on furnishing bond and fulfilling strict conditions – Court noted gross procedural violations during arrest and prolonged custody with pending trial – Petition allowed with liberty to State to seek cancellation in case of violation of conditions [Paras 35–37]

Criminal Law – Rape and Murder – Conviction Based on Circumstantial Evidence – Death Penalty Commuted – Five-month-old infant abducted by maternal cousin from a marriage function – Later found severely injured and unconscious in a nearby vacant plot – Died during treatment – Convict last seen with victim – Recovery of victim and circumstantial evidence including forensic analysis supported prosecution – Conviction upheld but death sentence commuted to life imprisonment till natural life without remission – Held: Brutality alone cannot justify capital punishment in absence of premeditation or ruling out reform [Paras 1, 4, 35–39, 47–48, 57–58, 62, 63–72].

Evidence Act – Last Seen Theory – Circumstantial Evidence – Forensic Linkage – Accused seen taking child from mother at 7 p.m. – Found hours later with injuries consistent with sexual assault and blunt force trauma – Biological fluid of female origin found on accused’s clothing – No credible alternative hypothesis – Chain of circumstances complete – Theory of enmity rebutted – Held: Conviction sustainable even without DNA match where other links are firmly established [Paras 39, 48–50, 57–58, 60, 62].

Criminal Procedure – Capital Punishment – Rarest of Rare Doctrine – Commutation to Life Imprisonment Without Remission – Though trial court imposed death penalty, High Court held that since conviction was based on circumstantial evidence, and there was no premeditated intent, past criminal record, or evaluation from Probation Officer or psychologists, death penalty not justified – Reformation potential not ruled out – Life imprisonment without remission ordered [Paras 63–72].

Criminal Law – Investigation Lapses – Non-Fatal to Prosecution Case – CCTV footage procured but not produced in original Pen Drive – Compact Disc version unavailable – However, oral testimony of Investigating Officer and other witnesses, along with physical and forensic evidence, sufficient to prove guilt – Held: Investigation lapses alone cannot override substantive evidence [Paras 31–32, 60–61].

Constitutional Law – Sentencing – Consideration of Mitigating Factors Mandatory Before Awarding Death Penalty – Trial court did not obtain reports from Jail Administration, Probation Officer, or psychologist – Convict was 27 years old with no criminal antecedents – Death penalty must only be imposed when reform is unquestionably ruled out – Commutation appropriate in absence of full inquiry [Paras 63–71].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Conviction upheld – Death penalty under Sections 302 and 376(Ka)(Kha) IPC read with Section 6 POCSO Act commuted to life imprisonment for natural life without remission – Sentence under Section 364 IPC and fines confirmed – Reference in Capital Case No. 4 of 2021 not confirmed.

Civil Law – Ownership Dispute – Relief of Mandatory Injunction – Appeal Dismissed – Plaintiff, sole owner of the property by virtue of registered gift deeds dated 6.7.2009 and 9.5.2014 executed by his mother Smt. Santosh Kumari, filed suit seeking possession from his brother (defendant) who was residing in a portion of the house as a licencee – Defendant contested, claiming co-ownership and challenged validity of gift deeds alleging fraud, coercion and undue influence – Trial court decreed the suit for mandatory injunction – Appeal by defendant dismissed – Held: Defendant failed to prove co-ownership or any title – Gift deeds validly executed – Suit for mandatory injunction maintainable post revocation of licence [Paras 1, 2, 5, 13, 14, 45, 49, 66, 73].

Transfer of Property – Valid Gift Deeds – Challenge to Gift by Sibling – Defendant claimed mother was not in sound mind and gift deeds were fraudulently executed – Plaintiff proved execution through attesting witness and documentary evidence – Both gift deeds executed in compliance with Section 123 of Transfer of Property Act – Gift valid even if possession not delivered at the time – Defendant’s allegations of fraud, coercion, and undue influence not proved – No specific pleadings or evidence to substantiate claim – Held: Gift deeds legally valid and enforceable [Paras 50–54, 58–66].

License – Nature of Possession – Permissive Possession of Defendant – Plaintiff’s brother allowed to stay as licencee – Relationship of licensor and licencee existed post-execution of gift deeds – Licence revoked via legal notice dated 4.8.2014 – Defendant failed to vacate – Held: Defendant's occupation was permissive and post-termination, plaintiff entitled to seek possession through mandatory injunction – Plaintiff rightly proceeded under Specific Relief Act and not for recovery of possession – Apex Court precedents relied upon [Paras 67–79].

Construction by Licencee – Irrevocability of Licence – Defendant alleged raising permanent structure in suit premises – No sanctioned plan or evidence produced – Plaintiff filed sanctioned plans in name of mother – Held: Defendant failed to prove that any construction raised by him – Licence not rendered irrevocable [Paras 80–81].

Registered Documents – Allegation of Interpolation – Defendant alleged manipulation in sale and gift deeds – Plaintiff produced originals – Every cutting signed – Held: No adverse inference – Registered documents carry presumption of genuineness – Defendant failed to rebut it [Paras 82–84].

Non-Exhibition of Documents – Procedural Lapse – Documents submitted in sealed cover for safe custody – Trial court failed to mark exhibits – Defendant did not object before trial court – Held: Procedural lapse by court – No prejudice caused – Plaintiff proved documents and execution through oral and documentary evidence – Decree not liable to be reversed merely for non-exhibition [Paras 85–95].

Mesne Profits – Appellate Court's Power Under Order 41 Rule 33 CPC – Trial court denied mesne profits @ ₹30,000/month for lack of proof – During appeal, stay granted on condition of ₹10,000/month deposit – Held: Appellate court can award mesne profits at ₹10,000/month as condition of stay – Defendant bound by the order – Plaintiff entitled to receive damages for use and occupation till actual handover of possession [Paras 96–100, 106].

Caretaker/Trespasser – No Title by Long Possession – Defendant residing gratuitously – No tenancy or lease established – Apex Court in Maria Margarida and Behram Tejani reiterated caretaker acquires no right – Held: Long possession does not confer any right – Defendant must vacate [Paras 101–103].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Judgment and decree dated 01.07.2019 upheld – Plaintiff entitled to possession via mandatory injunction and damages @ ₹10,000/month from 01.07.2019 till delivery of possession – Interim orders vacated [Paras 104–109].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree of trial court affirmed – Defendant to hand over vacant possession to plaintiff – Plaintiff entitled to ₹10,000 per month as damages from date of decree till possession is handed over.

Child Custody – Interim Custody – Appeal – Appellant-father challenged Family Court order granting interim custody of two minor children to respondent-mother – Alleged failure of Family Court to apply welfare principle and omission to record children’s wishes – Held: Family Court rightly prioritised emotional and psychological well-being of children over material considerations – Welfare of child is paramount – No ground for interference in appeal [Paras 1, 7, 26-27]

Welfare of Child – Paramount Consideration – Family Court applied Section 17 of Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 and relevant case law – Assessed stability, caregiving capacity, emotional needs of children – Held: Welfare principle was correctly applied – Physical custody alone not determinative – Emotional nurturing and continuity of care weighed over financial stability [Paras 17-20.1, 23]

Custody – Unilateral Removal by Father – Appellant took both children to Gurugram without mother’s consent – Claimed to be primary caregiver since 2023 – Held: Temporary unilateral custody cannot override long-standing caregiving role of mother – Family Court merely restored prior custody status – No vested right created by father’s self-assumed custody [Paras 5, 20.2, 20.3]

Child’s Preference – Daughter’s Choice to Reside with Mother – Court found elder child to be mature, articulate, and clear in expressing desire to live with respondent-mother – Held: Preference is genuine and not result of coercion or inducement – Supported by confidential in-camera interactions and continued voluntary residence with mother [Paras 13, 20.6, 21, 24]

Allegations Against Mother – Claims of Extra-marital Affairs – Appellant alleged respondent was unfit due to alleged extra-marital relations and erratic behaviour – Held: Allegations were unsubstantiated and speculative – No adverse impact on children’s welfare established – Custody decisions cannot be based on conjecture or moral assumptions [Paras 15.4, 20.4, 20.5]

Parental Alienation – No Proof of Manipulation – Appellant claimed daughter was alienated by respondent – Held: No credible evidence of such alienation – Court interactions showed daughter’s discomfort in father’s exclusive custody – Continued residence with mother based on her own volition [Paras 20.6, 21]

Violation of Visitation Orders – Appellant Took Children Abroad – Appellant took children to Dubai in March 2024 despite court’s visitation orders – Held: Conduct frustrated court’s directions and reflects disregard for legal process – Undermines claim of being responsible custodial parent [Paras 6, 22]

Sibling Bond – Split Custody Arrangement – Daughter residing with mother, son with father – Court observed such split is not ideal – Directed Family Court to explore ways to preserve sibling bond and ensure gradual transition if appropriate [Paras 25, 29]

Judicial Role – Parens Patriae Jurisdiction – Court emphasised its duty to protect minors’ welfare over adversarial rights of parties – Approach must be child-centric, not parent-centric – Reaffirmed from Rosy Jacob v. Jacob A. Chakramakkal [Paras 18-19]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Impugned Family Court order upheld – Interim custody arrangements to continue for 8 weeks – Parties permitted to seek modification from Family Court – All pending applications closed [Paras 27-30]

Administrative Law – Termination of License – Writ Against APTDC – Maintainability – Petitioner challenged termination of license granted under agreement dated 03.10.2020 for operation of shop at Rushikonda Beach – Held: Though APTDC is ‘State’ under Article 12, disputes arising from license agreements are contractual and remedy lies in civil suit for damages – Writ not maintainable to challenge termination of license [Paras 9, 16]

Contract Law – License Agreement – Nature of Rights – Licensee Cannot Seek Interim Relief Against Termination – Petitioner admitted arrears of rent and operational default – Clause 7 of license agreement permits termination for non-compliance – Law well settled that licensee has no vested right to prevent termination – Once terminated, continued occupation is unlawful – Licensee may claim compensation but cannot seek injunction or continuation [Paras 4, 9-14, 16]

Distinction Between Lease and License – License Does Not Confer Interest or Possession – Agreement was clearly a license and not a lease – Reference to “lease” in correspondence was casual – Legal possession remains with licensor – Licensee has only a personal right which ceases upon termination – Petitioner cannot assert tenancy-like rights after expiration or cancellation [Paras 7, 12-14]

Writ Jurisdiction – Commercial Contract Disputes – No Public Law Element – Alternative Remedy Available – Court held that licensee’s grievance is private in nature – Remedy lies in filing a civil suit for compensation – No violation of constitutional or public duty shown – Writ jurisdiction not to be invoked for enforcing purely contractual rights [Paras 16-17]

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Termination of license upheld – Interim order dated 06.10.2025 vacated – Petitioner may seek compensation by filing civil suit – No costs [Paras 17-18]

SARFAESI Act – Redemption of Mortgage – Right extinguished – Appeal against dismissal of writ petition challenging sale of mortgaged property by bank under SARFAESI Act – Appellants contended undervaluation and fraudulent sale of property worth ₹15 crore at ₹5.78 crore – Bank had attempted sale on four occasions and reduced reserve price due to lack of bidders – High Court held: Once sale certificate is registered, mortgagor's right of redemption extinguished – No procedural lapse or fraud established – Writ petition rightly dismissed – Appeal rejected [Paras 1–19]

SARFAESI Act – Compliance with Statutory Procedure – Bank had issued notices under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) – Symbolic possession taken – Physical possession obtained under Section 14(1) – Repeated attempts made to auction the property – Proper valuation, publication and notice of auction conducted – Sale held on 29.09.2021 after 4 failed attempts – Sale certificate issued and registered in favour of respondent No.4 – No procedural violation found – Borrowers' contention of fraud and undervaluation rejected [Paras 7–8, 18–19]

SARFAESI Act – Section 13(8) – Right of Redemption – Appellants sought to redeem property after sale certificate was issued – Held: Right of redemption under Section 60 of the Transfer of Property Act is overridden by amended Section 13(8) of SARFAESI Act – Right to redemption ceases upon publication of auction notice – Writ petition filed after sale certificate was registered – No right of redemption remained [Paras 9, 12, 13, 14, 16–17]

Writ Jurisdiction – Availability of Alternate Remedy – High Court reiterated settled law that writ petition under Article 226 should not be entertained when effective alternate remedy under SARFAESI Act exists – Appellants had already approached DRT twice (S.A. No.174/2018 and S.A. No.212/2019), both dismissed – No exceptional ground shown for invoking writ jurisdiction – Reliance placed on Satyawati Tondon and Mathew K.C. – Writ rightly dismissed by Single Judge [Paras 9–11]

One-Time Settlement (OTS) – Borrower’s Entitlement – Appellants sought mandamus to consider OTS proposal – Held: No legal right to claim OTS – Grant of OTS lies within commercial wisdom of the bank – Writ of mandamus cannot be issued to enforce OTS – Borrower must satisfy eligibility criteria under scheme – Reliance placed on Bijnor Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Meenal Agarwal – Request for OTS rightly rejected [Paras 5, 7, 15]

Undervaluation Allegation – Reduction of Reserve Price – Appellants alleged fraudulent undervaluation – Bank demonstrated that reserve price was reduced proportionally after repeated failed auctions – Final sale fetched higher than reserve price – Court found no mala fides or irregularity in sale process – Allegation of collusion between bank and purchaser not substantiated [Paras 8, 19]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – No procedural violation or fraud by bank – Right of redemption extinguished after registered sale – No entitlement to OTS – No error found in Single Judge’s order – Writ petition and intra-court appeal devoid of merit [Paras 17–19]