Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Section 528 BNSS – Scope of Interference at Investigation Stage – Petitioner sought quashing of FIRs registered for offences under Sections 132, 224, 352, 351(3), 353(2) and 56 of BNS arising out of a single incident – FIRs registered within days of incident and investigation yet to commence in earnest – Held: FIR is not an encyclopedia and High Court cannot assess correctness or sustainability of invoked sections at threshold – Investigation must be permitted to proceed [Paras 9, 14–16].

Public Servant – Obstruction and Abuse – Section 132 BNS – Prima Facie Disclosure of Cognizable Offence – Contention that Section 132 BNS not attracted as no criminal force used – Court held that whether correct provision is invoked or alteration is required is a matter for investigation and not for quashing at inception – Police entitled to add or alter offences during investigation with leave of Court [Paras 9, 14].

Offences Against Women – Insult to Modesty – Section 79 BNS (Section 509 IPC) – Telephonic conversation attributed to petitioner contained abusive and offensive language directed at a woman public servant – Prima facie material discloses words and expressions capable of outraging modesty of a woman – Failure of prosecution to invoke Section 79 BNS at initial stage not fatal – Investigation warranted into offence of insulting modesty of woman [Paras 10, 13].

Elected Representative / Public Figure – Standard of Conduct – Petitioner, a former electoral contestant, expected to exercise restraint in speech – Abusive language against a woman public servant performing statutory duty held impermissible and beyond tolerance in civilised society – Such conduct requires investigation in public interest [Paras 10, 12].

Unauthorised Banners and Flexes – Civic Nuisance – Karnataka Open Places (Prevention of Disfigurement) Act, 1981 – Court took judicial notice of rampant erection of unauthorised banners for film promotion and political publicity – Such acts cause public nuisance and disfigurement of public spaces – State directed in principle to enforce provisions of the Disfigurement Act more stringently [Para 11].

FIR – Not an Encyclopedia – Limits of Section 528 BNSS / Section 482 CrPC Jurisdiction – Reiterated that High Court should not conduct a mini-trial or scrutinise evidence at quashing stage – Reliance placed on Supreme Court decisions emphasising restraint and sparing exercise of inherent powers – Criminal proceedings not to be scuttled at nascent stage [Paras 12, 14].

Connected Petitions – Common Incident – Similar Relief – Both FIRs arose out of same transaction with different complainants – For reasons applicable to Crl.P. No.716 of 2026, companion petition also held devoid of merit – Both petitions dismissed [Paras 15–16].

Decision: Criminal Petition Nos. 716 of 2026 and 721 of 2026 dismissed – Investigation permitted to continue – Observations confined only to consideration under Section 528 BNSS and not to influence investigation or trial.

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].

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.

Pre-emption – Tenant’s Right – Municipal Area – Extinguishment of Right – Sale of co-sharer’s land effected after inclusion of village within municipal limits – Held: Right of pre-emption stood extinguished – Suit for pre-emption not maintainable [Paras 8].

Tenancy – Proof – Gair Maurusi Entry – Absence of Rent – Revenue records consistently showed plaintiff in possession as gair maurusi with entry “bila lagan bawaja tameer makaan” – No entry of rent, no lease deed, no pleadings or proof regarding creation of tenancy – Held: Possession simpliciter or gair maurusi entry without rent does not establish tenancy – Tenancy being bilateral relationship cannot be inferred merely from possession [Paras 10.1–10.2, 13].

Pleadings and Evidence – Beyond Pleadings – Plaintiff attempted to improve case during evidence by alleging tenancy under Gram Panchayat at nominal rent – Such plea neither pleaded nor supported by documents – Held: Evidence beyond pleadings cannot be considered – No amount of evidence can substitute absence of pleadings [Paras 10.2].

Earlier Judgments – Binding Effect – Parties Not Same – Earlier civil judgment relied upon by plaintiff did not bind defendants who were not parties thereto – Subsequent suit dismissal did not adjudicate nature of possession – Held: Earlier judgments do not conclusively prove tenancy [Paras 10.3, 13].

Second Appeal – Scope – Section 100 CPC – Findings of Fact – First Appellate Court being final court of facts reversed trial court’s finding on tenancy after detailed re-appreciation of evidence – Findings neither perverse nor illegal – Held: No substantial question of law arises – Interference declined [Paras 13–14].

Possession – Protection – Due Process of Law – Though tenancy not proved, plaintiff found to be in settled possession – Held: Plaintiff cannot be dispossessed except in accordance with law [Paras 8, 15].

Contempt Petition – Not Pressed – COCP dismissed as not pressed [Para 16].

Decision: RSA dismissed – Finding affirmed that plaintiff is not proved to be tenant though in possession – Protection against dispossession except by due process upheld – COCP No. 3975 of 2018 disposed of as not pressed.

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.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 9 – Ad-interim Mandatory Injunction – “Status quo ante” direction restoring earlier state of affairs – Special Judge directed parties to “maintain status quo ante as on the date of filing of Section 9 petition” without recording reasons – Held: such ad-interim mandatory injunction cannot be granted lightly and must be supported by justifiable reasons and prima facie finding that status quo was altered and justice demands restoration – Impugned non-speaking order unsustainable and liable to be set aside [Paras 25-33, 47].

Injunctions – Status quo and Status quo ante – Meaning – “Status quo” means existing state of affairs at the relevant time – “Status quo ante” means state of affairs prior to the existing state and necessarily involves disturbing present position to restore the previous one – Held: order to maintain “status quo ante” operates as mandatory direction and therefore requires higher scrutiny and reasons [Paras 27-31].

Judicial Orders – Reasons – Necessity – “Reasons are the life of law” – Orders must disclose application of mind – Litigant entitled to know why relief is granted/declined – Held: absence of reasons vitiates judicial order; reasons cannot be substituted later through arguments/affidavits [Paras 32-35, 39-40].

Administrative/Statutory Law Principles – Validity of order must stand on reasons contained in the order – Supplementation barred – Held: order can be judged only on reasons stated therein; fresh reasons cannot be supplied subsequently (Mohinder Singh Gill principle) – Therefore, respondent’s attempt to justify “status quo ante” order on alleged violation of prior directions/lease terms rejected at appellate stage [Paras 38-40].

Commercial Appeals – Maintainability – Appeal against ad-interim order during pendency of Section 9 petition – Registry objection as to maintainability overruled and appeal held maintainable [Para 24].

Lease Dispute – Possession controversy – Appellants claimed possession taken pursuant to lease termination and re-entry clauses and Section 68, Major Port Authorities Act, 2021 – Respondent asserted possession not taken as per lease and statutory procedure – Held: such contested factual/legal issues should be examined by Special Judge in pending Section 9 petitions; appellate court confines itself to legality of impugned ad-interim order [Paras 36-44].

Precedent – Bank Guarantee principles not applicable – Reliance on (2025) 10 SCC 176 (Jindal Steel and Power Ltd.) distinguished as it related to restraint on invocation of bank guarantee when Section 9 matter ripe for hearing – Present case concerns ad-interim mandatory “status quo ante” direction and hence no benefit to respondent [Paras 48-49].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Impugned ad-interim “status quo ante” order dated 19.12.2025 (extended subsequently) set aside (judgment records setting aside at Para 51) – Special Judge directed to decide CAOP Nos.37 & 38 of 2025 under Section 9 of the 1996 Act on the date already fixed (27.01.2026) in accordance with law – No order as to costs – Miscellaneous applications, if any, closed [Paras 51-53].

Civil Writ - Recruitment Examination – Alleged Paper Leak and Mass Copying – Systemic Malaise – Petitioners sought quashing of entire recruitment process alleging circulation of OMR sheets on social media, identical wrong answers, geographical concentration of toppers and collusion – Held: Mere suspicion, conjecture or post-result dissatisfaction is insufficient to vitiate a recruitment process – Heavy onus lies on petitioners to establish systemic fraud going to the root of the selection [Paras 1, 12, 15].

Judicial Review – Recruitment Process – Limits of Interference – Court reiterated that interference is warranted only when sanctity of examination is compromised at a systemic level rendering segregation of tainted and untainted candidates impossible – Where allegations rest on disputed questions of fact and are examined by a fact-finding inquiry, courts should exercise restraint [Paras 10, 12–13].

Inquiry by Retired High Court Judge – Evidentiary Value – Respondents placed sealed inquiry report prepared by a retired Judge of the High Court – Inquiry exhaustively examined allegations relating to regional concentration, prior poor performance, age of candidates, familial relationships and identical wrong answers – Forensic examination of OMR sheets ruled out common authorship and impersonation – Inquiry report upheld fairness and transparency of examination – Held: Such report deserves due deference in absence of perversity or mala fides [Paras 2, 11, 16].

Objective-Type Examination – Similar Wrong Answers – Evidentiary Appreciation – Allegation that top candidates chose identical incorrect answers – Held: Similarity in wrong answers can arise from common preparation material, elimination techniques and exam stress – In absence of evidence of tampering, communication devices or access to answer keys, such similarity does not establish malpractice [Paras 11(e), 16].

Geographical Concentration of Successful Candidates – Effect – High number of toppers from particular districts alleged to indicate cheating nexus – Inquiry found candidates appeared at different centres with no roll-number or seating proximity – Held: Regional concentration by itself cannot give rise to presumption of collusion or unfair means [Paras 11(a), 16].

Cancellation of Examination – Doctrine of Proportionality – Court relied on Supreme Court jurisprudence to hold that cancellation of an examination is an extreme measure – Where no systemic breach is demonstrated and it is possible to segregate tainted candidates, cancellation would be disproportionate – Facts of Tanvi Sarwal and Sachin Kumar distinguished as involving proven large-scale and organized malpractice [Paras 14–17].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Recruitment process under Advertisement No. 6 of 2023 upheld – Interim order vacated – Inquiry report accepted and returned – No direction for fresh examination or criminal investigation warranted [Paras 18–21].

Criminal Law – Recall of Witness – Section 311 Cr.P.C. / Section 348 BNSS – Petitioners sought recall of PW-1 for further cross-examination – Trial court dismissed application holding no sufficient cause for earlier non-cross-examination – PW-1’s testimony earlier closed with remark “Nil. Opportunity given” when accused were unrepresented – Held: Order resulted in gross injustice warranting interference under inherent jurisdiction [Paras 1, 5–6].

Criminal Procedure – Interlocutory Orders – Bar of Revision – Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. / Section 438(2) BNSS – Dismissal of application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. ordinarily interlocutory and revision barred – Held: Bar on revision does not oust inherent powers where interlocutory order results in gross injustice – High Court duty-bound to invoke inherent powers to prevent miscarriage of justice [Para 4].

Fair Trial – Right to Legal Representation – Accused compelled to cross-examine prosecution witness in absence of counsel – Accused being lay persons unable to conduct effective cross-examination – Held: Denial of legal assistance strikes at the core of fair trial and vitiates trial proceedings – In the name of expeditious trial, fairness cannot be sacrificed [Paras 5, 7–8].

Criminal Courts – Duty of Trial Court – Absence of Defence Counsel – Proper Course – Held: Where accused are unrepresented, trial court should appoint amicus curiae or seek legal aid counsel instead of compelling accused to cross-examine – Trial court may also exercise power to put questions to witness to reach truth – Emphasis on purity and fairness of trial [Paras 6, 8].

Inherent Powers – Ends of Justice – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – High Court set aside impugned order refusing recall of witness – Trial court directed to grant fresh opportunity to accused through counsel to cross-examine PW-1 – Directions issued for systemic compliance and circulation among criminal courts to avoid recurrence [Paras 9–10].

Decision: Petition allowed – Impugned order dated 28.08.2024 set aside – Trial court directed to permit further cross-examination of PW-1 through counsel – Matter remitted for continuation of trial in accordance with law [Paras 9–10].