Criminal Law – Murder of Minor – Circumstantial Evidence – Last Seen Theory – Appellant convicted for murder of 10-year-old boy and for causing disappearance of evidence – Child last seen alive in company of appellant who took him on cycle on pretext of showing exhibition – Deceased later found dead near canal in another district – Medical evidence proved death by strangulation – Chain of circumstances complete and consistent only with guilt of appellant – Conviction upheld [Paras 27–33].

Evidence – Child Witness – Credibility – Deceased last seen with appellant by his younger brother aged about 7 years at time of deposition – Trial Court satisfied about child’s competency – Testimony corroborated by independent witnesses from neighbourhood and other places – Held: Evidence of child witness reliable and admissible when corroborated [Paras 13–16].

Evidence – Last Seen Together – Independent Witnesses – Appellant seen with deceased by neighbour tailor, at railway station and later at village in Sultanpur late night – Witnesses independent and having no animus – Absence of Test Identification Parade immaterial as accused well known to witnesses – Held: Last seen circumstance firmly established [Paras 16–19].

Circumstantial Evidence – Motive – Importance – Appellant had monetary dispute with mother of deceased – Though motive alone not decisive, existence of motive lends support to prosecution case – Absence of recovery not fatal when medical and circumstantial evidence conclusive [Paras 15, 29–31].

Medical Evidence – Cause of Death – Strangulation – Post-mortem proved death due to asphyxia caused by compression of neck – Injuries consistent with manual strangulation – Time of death matching prosecution timeline – Medical evidence corroborated ocular and circumstantial evidence [Paras 7, 25–26].

Criminal Trial – Appreciation of Evidence – Five Golden Principles – Prosecution proved complete chain of circumstances excluding every hypothesis of innocence – No perversity or illegality in findings of Trial Court – Held: Conviction justified [Paras 27–33].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 302 and 201 IPC affirmed – Appellant directed to surrender to serve remaining sentence.

Review Jurisdiction – Scope and Limitations – Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC – Review petition filed seeking review of order dropping contempt proceedings – Held: Review jurisdiction is extremely limited and can be exercised only on discovery of new and important matter, error apparent on face of record, or other sufficient reason – Review cannot be treated as an appeal in disguise or for re-argument of issues already decided [Paras 13–15, 17].

Error Apparent on Face of Record – Meaning – Error must be self-evident, glaring, and apparent without elaborate argument – Mere dissatisfaction with reasoning or conclusions of Court does not constitute error apparent – Petitioner failed to demonstrate any such error warranting review [Paras 13–14].

Contempt Proceedings – Compliance with Court Directions – Wilful Disobedience – Earlier contempt petition dismissed after Court found that Opposite Parties had taken bona fide steps to comply with writ directions – Engagement through contractor offered pursuant to Court’s directions – Held: No wilful or deliberate disobedience of Court order established so as to attract contempt jurisdiction [Paras 9–11].

Service Jurisprudence – No Vested Right to Appointment – Direction in writ petition to consider engagement on contractual basis did not confer enforceable right to appointment – MCL having no provision for contractual appointment of Electrician, engagement through contractor could not be said to be non-compliance – Claim based on select list of 1996 held devoid of legal basis [Paras 4, 7–8].

Finality of Litigation – Effect of Supreme Court Order – Any right claimed by petitioner stood extinguished by order of Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 27.01.2011 in SLP(C) No.14784 of 2008 setting aside earlier favourable order – Subsequent attempts to reopen settled issues deprecated – Review jurisdiction cannot be invoked to unsettle finality of judicial decisions [Para 16].

Equitable Observation – Opportunity through Contractor – While declining review, Court observed that Opposite Parties may once again extend offer of engagement through third party contractor – Petitioner given liberty to accept or refuse such offer within stipulated time – Such observation not conferring enforceable legal right [Para 18].

Decision: Review Petition disposed of – No ground made out for exercise of review jurisdiction – Order dated 23.02.2024 in CONTC No.3931 of 2023 upheld – No interference warranted.

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – Bail – Section 43D(5) – Statutory Embargo – Appeal under Section 21(4) NIA Act against rejection of bail – Accused alleged to be member of proscribed terrorist organisation Islamic State – Involvement in radicalisation, conspiracy, reconnaissance, arson and terror funding through cryptocurrency – Held: When Court finds reasonable grounds for believing that accusations are prima facie true, statutory bar under Section 43D(5) squarely applies – Bail cannot be granted [Paras 9–11].

Terrorist Activities – Prima Facie Case – Evidentiary Material at Bail Stage – Material on record including voluntary statement, seizure of mobile phone, digital evidence, FSL report and cryptocurrency transactions considered – Images of sensitive locations, arson-related material and news clippings recovered – Evidence showing receipt and transfer of terror funds through crypto wallets – Held: Cumulative material establishes prima facie involvement in terrorist activities and conspiracy – Trial Court justified in rejecting bail [Paras 3–5, 9–11].

Criminal Conspiracy and Support to Terrorist Organisation – Sections 16, 17, 18, 20, 38, 39 & 40 UAPA – Appellant alleged to have facilitated terror funding, shared crypto wallet details, converted funds into cash and assisted co-accused – Participation in reconnaissance and arson held to be acts furthering objectives of terrorist organisation – Contentions that ingredients of Section 15 UAPA not made out rejected – Prima facie satisfaction sufficient at bail stage [Paras 6, 9–11].

Bail Jurisdiction – Scope of Appellate Interference – Appellate Court to examine whether Trial Court’s view is perverse or ignores material on record – Trial Court discussed evidence in detail and recorded reasons for prima facie satisfaction – No ground made out for interference with bail rejection order [Paras 11–13].

Reliance on Supreme Court Precedents – Arrest and Procedural Safeguards – Reliance placed on Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India and Ram Kishor Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement – Held: Observations regarding procedural safeguards do not dilute statutory bar under Section 43D(5) UAPA in presence of prima facie material – Bail rightly declined [Para 12].

Decision: Criminal Appeal dismissed – Order dated 20.05.2025 rejecting bail upheld – Appellant not entitled to enlargement on bail.

Civil Procedure – Temporary Injunction – Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC – Scope of Appellate Interference – Appellate court can interfere only when discretion exercised by trial court is arbitrary, capricious, perverse or contrary to settled principles – If the view taken by trial court is a possible view, appellate court cannot substitute its own view [Paras 66–68, 75].

Contract – Memorandum of Understanding for Development of Immovable Property – MOU not signed by all co-owners – No power of attorney in favour of signatory co-owner – Held: MOU not binding or enforceable against non-signatory owners – No prima facie enforceable right created in favour of builder [Paras 16–17, 26–27, 69].

Stamp Act & Registration Act – Unstamped and Unregistered MOU – Clauses creating ownership rights in immovable property – MOU providing for transfer of 42% ownership in land and superstructure – Held: Document compulsorily registrable and chargeable with stamp duty – Unstamped and unregistered MOU inadmissible in evidence and incapable of conferring legal rights unless defect cured [Paras 18–19, 39–46, 70].

Specific Relief – Suit for Permanent Injunction – Absence of Prayer for Specific Performance or Declaration – Plaintiff seeking to restrain true owners from dealing with property – Held: Suit for injunction simpliciter not maintainable when equally efficacious remedy of specific performance available – Bar under Section 41(h) of Specific Relief Act attracted [Paras 47–51, 72].

Possession – Builder Claiming Possession under MOU – Clause showing possession as mere licence for construction – No transfer of possession or interest – Held: Builder not in settled or lawful possession – Injunction cannot be granted against true owners [Paras 19, 52–54, 71].

Arbitration Clause – Effect on Civil Court Jurisdiction – Mere existence of arbitration clause does not bar civil suit – No application under Section 8 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act filed – Parties waived arbitration – Trial court’s finding on lack of jurisdiction held erroneous but not affecting final outcome [Paras 55–61, 74].

Equitable Relief – Injunction – Discretionary Nature – Plaintiff capable of being compensated by damages – MOU containing penal clauses for monetary compensation – Held: No irreparable injury made out – Balance of convenience not in favour of plaintiffs [Paras 64–65, 75].

Decision: Appeal dismissed with costs – Order rejecting ad-interim injunction affirmed – Interim status quo order vacated – Trial court directed to decide suit expeditiously – Observations confined to appeal and not to prejudice trial [Paras 76–79].

Criminal Law – Cruelty by Husband or Relatives – Section 498A IPC – Appeal against conviction – Trial court acquitted accused of dowry death under Section 304B IPC but convicted husband and mother-in-law under Section 498A IPC – Mother-in-law died during pendency of appeal – Appeal proceeded only against husband – Held: Ingredients of Section 498A not proved beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction unsustainable [Paras 10, 36–37].

Matrimonial Offences – Meaning of “Cruelty” – Section 498A IPC – Distinction between matrimonial discord and statutory cruelty – Evidence disclosed marital unhappiness, neglect, and dissatisfaction due to late return of husband from work – No specific instances of willful conduct of such gravity as to drive woman to suicide or cause grave injury – Held: Mere emotional distress, neglect, or ordinary wear and tear of married life does not constitute cruelty under Section 498A IPC [Paras 28–30, 34].

Dowry Demand – Proof – Alleged payment of cash and articles – Omnibus allegations without specific particulars – Inconsistent and vague testimony of relatives – Absence of contemporaneous complaints despite long subsistence of marriage – Held: Failure to establish unlawful demand for property or valuable security as contemplated under Explanation (b) to Section 498A IPC – Prosecution version unreliable [Paras 11–14, 29–30].

Delay in Lodging Complaint – Effect – Incident occurred on 15.04.2002 – Complaint lodged after considerable delay without satisfactory explanation – Delay indicative of afterthought in matrimonial dispute cases – Held: Delay weakens prosecution case in absence of corroborative evidence of cruelty [Paras 7, 29].

Evidence – Relatives as Witnesses – Omnibus and Interested Testimony – Close relatives made general allegations of torture without particulars of time, manner, or nature – Independent neighbour witness largely hearsay and failed to report alleged cruelty earlier – Held: Such evidence insufficient to sustain conviction under Section 498A IPC [Paras 23, 30–31].

Medical Evidence – Burn Injuries – Post-mortem showed extensive burns with bruises – Possibility of injuries caused during fire or transportation not ruled out – Husband also sustained burn injuries – No evidence of homicidal violence or cruelty “soon before death” – Acquittal under Section 304B IPC attained finality – Held: Medical evidence did not support prosecution case of cruelty leading to suicide [Paras 22, 27, 33–34].

Documentary Evidence – Diary Entry of Deceased – Expression of mental distress and neglect – No allegation of physical cruelty or dowry demand – Diary reflected emotional dissatisfaction and family discord – Held: Mental unhappiness without proof of statutory cruelty insufficient for conviction under Section 498A IPC [Paras 26–27, 34].

Principles of Criminal Jurisprudence – Benefit of Doubt – Prosecution required to prove cruelty beyond reasonable doubt – Where two views possible, view favourable to accused must be adopted – Held: Appellant entitled to benefit of doubt as prosecution failed to prove essential ingredients of offence [Paras 34–36].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and order of conviction dated 09.01.2014 under Section 498A IPC set aside – Appellant acquitted – Bail bond discharged under Section 481 BNSS – Trial court records directed to be sent back – Urgent certified copy directed to be supplied if applied for [Paras 36–39].

Specific Performance – Proof of Agreement to Sell – Suspicious Circumstances – Plaintiff relied upon two Agreements to Sell dated 21.11.2005 and 16.12.2005 for same property, same parties, same consideration – No plausible explanation for execution of two agreements – Explanation that first was handwritten and second typed found unconvincing – Held: Multiple unexplained agreements for same transaction cast serious doubt on genuineness of contract [Paras 12].

Agreement on Pre-Signed / Blank Papers – Evidentiary Inference – Typed Agreement dated 16.12.2005 showed abnormal narrow gaps in last lines – Thumb impressions only on last page – Admissions by plaintiff that signatures were obtained at village Nihalpura, Rajasthan and attestation done later at Gurgaon – Stamp papers purchased by plaintiff – Held: Strong inference that thumb impressions were obtained on blank papers and agreement typed subsequently – Agreement surrounded by suspicious circumstances [Paras 13–15].

Admissions in Evidence Contradicting Pleadings – Plaintiff denied in replication that agreement was executed at Nihalpura – In cross-examination admitted execution/signatures obtained at Nihalpura and attestation elsewhere – Held: Plaintiff took false stand in pleadings – Such inconsistencies materially affect credibility and proof of contract [Paras 14, 17].

Sale Consideration – Contradictions between Agreement and Sale Deed – Agreement mentioned total consideration of ₹2,00,000/- – Sale Deed prepared by plaintiff mentioned ₹1,50,000/- as full consideration – No pleading or proof as to payment of balance ₹50,000/- – Stamp papers purchased and Sale Deed prepared prior to target date without explanation – Held: Serious discrepancies go to root of transaction and render agreement unreliable [Paras 15, 18].

Readiness and Willingness – Section 16(c) Specific Relief Act – Mere affidavits of attendance before Sub-Registrar insufficient – Plaintiff failed to prove availability of balance consideration – Failed to plead or prove when and how remaining amount was paid – Held: Mandatory requirement of readiness and willingness not satisfied [Para 18].

Burden of Proof – Fraud and Execution – Onus lies first on plaintiff to prove execution of agreement beyond doubt – Only thereafter burden shifts to defendant to prove fraud – Trial Court correctly applied burden of proof – First Appellate Court wrongly shifted burden on defendant merely on admission of thumb impressions [Paras 17, 19].

First Appellate Court – Duty under Order XLI Rule 31 CPC – Judgment of First Appellate Court reversed detailed trial court findings without framing points for determination or discussing evidence – Cryptic reasoning ignoring material discrepancies and trial court analysis – Held: Judgment suffers from patent illegality and non-compliance with Order XLI Rule 31 CPC [Paras 19–21].

Specific Performance – Discretionary Relief – Relief cannot be granted on shaky, inconsistent and suspicious evidence – Courts must examine intention of vendor from attendant circumstances – Grant of specific performance by First Appellate Court held perverse and unsustainable [Paras 15, 22–23].

Second Appeal – Section 100 CPC – Interference Justified – Though scope is limited, interference warranted where findings are perverse, based on no evidence, or ignore mandatory legal requirements – Present case falls within exception – High Court entitled to restore trial court decree [Para 23].

Decision: Regular Second Appeal allowed – Judgment and decree dated 24.12.2011 of First Appellate Court set aside – Judgment and decree dated 03.12.2010 of Trial Court restored – Suit for specific performance dismissed, decree for recovery of ₹50,000/- upheld.

Arbitration – Section 34 – Scope of Interference – Court not to act as appellate authority – Re-appreciation of evidence impermissible – Interference warranted only in cases of patent illegality, perversity or violation of fundamental policy of law – Plausible interpretation of contract and evidence by Arbitral Tribunal not open to challenge [Paras 41–43].

Limitation – Section 34 Petition – COVID-19 Extension of Limitation – Period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 excluded – Petition filed within extended limitation period – Objection of limitation rejected [Paras 44–46].

Contract Law – Liquidated Damages – Clause providing pre-estimated damages for delay in achieving Start Date – Use of expression “fair” and acknowledgment of loss of expected sales – Held: Parties consciously agreed to genuine pre-estimate of damages – Proof of actual loss not required where loss is difficult to quantify – Award of Rs.25 lakhs upheld under Section 74 of Contract Act [Paras 48–66].

Arbitration – Time Not Essence of Contract – Conduct of parties and contractual modification – Despite time ceasing to be essence, contractual right to claim pre-Start Date damages expressly reserved – Reservation of rights does not amount to waiver – Tribunal’s findings affirmed [Paras 47–55].

Liquidated Damages vs. Penalty – Distinction – Clause 4.3 not penal in nature – Pre-estimate mutually agreed – Tribunal’s interpretation commercially sound and plausible – Judgments in Kailash Nath Associates and Construcciones Y Auxiliar De Ferrocarriles distinguished on facts [Paras 59–65].

Counterclaims – Electricity Charges (Counter Claim No.1) – Tribunal found petitioner partly responsible for delay – No entitlement to recover electricity charges for pre-Start Date period – Finding based on evidence and contractual allocation of risk – No interference warranted [Para 67].

Counterclaims – Removal of Equipment (Counter Claim No.3) – Clause 20.1.3 – Evidence showing access to site was granted and equipment not removed by respondent – Tribunal ignored vital documentary and oral evidence – Finding held perverse and patently illegal – Award set aside to this limited extent applying doctrine of severability [Paras 68–79].

Counterclaims – Broken Glass Charges (Counter Claim No.4) – No proof that broken glass belonged to respondent or that loss was suffered – Tribunal’s rejection based on lack of evidence – Finding held plausible – No interference [Paras 80–81].

Decision: Section 34 petition partly allowed – Arbitral Award dated 15.09.2020 upheld in respect of Claim No.1 (liquidated damages) and rejection of Counter Claim Nos.1 and 4 – Award set aside only to the extent of rejection of Counter Claim No.3 – Doctrine of severability applied – Petition disposed of.

Criminal Writ - Habeas Corpus – Illegal Arrest – Non-communication of Grounds of Arrest – Violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution – Arrest Memo Defective – Petitioner No.1 arrested and remanded to judicial custody in Case Crime No. 750 of 2025 under Sections 317(2) and 317(4) BNS – Habeas corpus petition filed alleging arrest without disclosure and furnishing of written grounds of arrest – Maintainability of habeas corpus upheld where arrest is in breach of procedure established by law – Held: Habeas corpus is maintainable even when the detenue is in judicial custody, if arrest itself is illegal [Paras 10, 14].

Arrest Memo – Mandatory Disclosure of Grounds of Arrest – Clause 13 of Arrest Memo – Non-compliance – Arrest memo relied upon by the State did not disclose any of the six mandatory particulars under Clause 13 relating to grounds of arrest, material collected, necessity of arrest, and supporting evidence – Mere mention of offence and statutory sections held insufficient – Arrest rendered illegal for non-compliance with statutory and constitutional safeguards [Paras 12–14].

Article 22(1) – Written Grounds of Arrest – Compliance Mandatory – Supreme Court precedents mandate that grounds of arrest must be communicated and furnished in writing to the arrestee – Breach of this requirement vitiates the arrest – Arrest of petitioner No.1 held unconstitutional and void [Paras 10, 14].

Judicial Remand – Duty of Magistrate – Failure to Satisfy Statutory Compliance – Magistrate failed to verify compliance of Sections 47 and 48 BNSS before authorising remand – Non-application of judicial mind at remand stage noted – Remand order dated 27.12.2025 quashed [Paras 14, 18].

Police Accountability – Dereliction of Duty – Disciplinary Action Directed – Non-compliance with arrest memo format issued by Director General of Police, U.P. dated 25.07.2025 held to be serious misconduct – Directions issued that future violations shall entail departmental proceedings and suspension – Copy of order directed to be sent to DGP, U.P. for strict compliance [Paras 15–17].

Relief – Quashing of Arrest and Remand – Release Ordered – Arrest of petitioner No.1 quashed – Remand order set aside – Direction issued to release petitioner No.1 forthwith unless required in any other case – Liberty reserved to the State to proceed afresh strictly in accordance with law [Paras 18–21].

Decision: Habeas corpus writ petition allowed – Arrest and remand declared illegal – Petitioner No.1 directed to be released forthwith – Directions issued for strict enforcement of arrest safeguards.

Tenancy Rights – Heritability – Death of Tenant – Punjab Village Common Lands Act – Tenant Kulwant Rai held to be in cultivating possession as gair maurusi for decades – Upon his death, tenancy rights devolved upon legal heirs – Gram Panchayat failed to show any statutory provision extinguishing tenancy on death – Held: Tenancy rights are heritable and plaintiffs lawfully stepped into shoes of deceased tenant [Paras 12].

Village Common Land – Dispossession by Gram Panchayat – Requirement of Due Process – Earlier civil decree recognised tenant’s possession and restrained dispossession except in accordance with law – Panchayat initiated ejectment proceedings under Section 7 but resorted to auction during pendency – Held: Panchayat could not dispossess tenants or their heirs without completing statutory ejectment proceedings [Paras 11, 14].

Auction of Panchayat Land – Validity – Auction conducted during pendency of injunction and ejectment proceedings – Found to be a short-cut method to oust tenants – Held: Auction dated 06.04.1985 illegal, null and void and incapable of conferring lawful possession on auction vendees [Paras 7.1, 11].

Injunction – Dispossession During Pendency of Suit – Mandatory Injunction – Plaintiffs dispossessed despite interim injunction order – Civil court competent to restore possession and grant mandatory injunction to restore status quo ante – First Appellate Court rightly ordered restoration of possession [Paras 7.2, 13].

Second Appeal – Scope under Section 100 CPC – Findings of Fact – No Substantial Question of Law – Appellate Court’s findings based on revenue record, prior judgments and evidence – No perversity or misapplication of law shown – Held: Interference in second appeal not warranted [Paras 15, 16].

Decision: Second appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree dated 21.11.1997 passed by First Appellate Court affirmed – Plaintiffs entitled to declaration of tenancy and restoration of possession.