Criminal Law – Cross-Examination – Statutory Right – Accused facing charges under Sections 376(2)(n), 506 & 392 IPC – Opportunity to cross-examine PW-1 (prosecutrix) and PW-2 (her mother) closed by trial court on first day of their examination as defence counsel was unwell – Subsequent application under Section 311 CrPC for recall of witnesses also rejected – Held: Cross-examination is a vital statutory right under Sections 137 and 138 of the Evidence Act – Denial of such opportunity vitiates fair trial [Paras 1–6, 7–8]

Criminal Procedure – Section 311 CrPC – Recalling Witnesses – Trial court rejected application under Section 311 CrPC without considering that defence counsel was medically indisposed – Held: Section 311 CrPC empowers the court to recall and re-examine any witness if their evidence appears essential for a just decision – Power must be exercised to further the cause of justice – Failure to recall key witnesses in this case amounted to miscarriage of justice [Paras 9–10]

Judicial Discretion – Principles for Recalling Witnesses – Reliance placed on Rajaram Prasad Yadav v. State of Bihar (2013) 14 SCC 461 – Court reiterated that Section 311 CrPC should be used judicially, with fairness to the accused as a paramount consideration – Discretion must aim to ensure a complete and just adjudication of criminal trial [Para 11]

Decision: Petition allowed – Orders dated 03.04.2024 and 10.05.2024 set aside – Trial Court directed to re-summon PW-1 and PW-2 and afford petitioner opportunity to cross-examine them – All pending applications disposed of.

Criminal Law – Attachment Order - Prevention of Money Laundering – Attachment of Property – Flat purchased by respondent through unregistered agreement from a company under winding-up – Tribunal quashed ED's attachment – High Court held that no valid title passed through unregistered agreement – Held: Respondent had no ownership; property continued to vest with United Breweries (Holdings) Ltd – Flat rightly attached as proceeds of crime under Section 2(1)(u), PMLA – Tribunal erred in ignoring legal position on title transfer and statutory scheme under PMLA [Paras 25, 34–40, 42, 46–47]

Winding Up – Void Transactions – Agreement to Sell entered after winding-up petition filed – No leave of Company Court taken – Held: Transaction void under Section 536(2), Companies Act – Official Liquidator’s no objection was not bona fide – Registration of sale deed during pendency of restoration proceedings held invalid [Paras 36–37, 46]

Property Law – Ownership – Unregistered Agreement to Sell – Mere agreement does not confer title – Held: As per Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act and Suraj Lamp case, only registered conveyance creates ownership rights – Buyer at best had a right to seek specific performance – Respondent had no legal interest in property [Paras 38–41]

PMLA – Procedural Compliance – Freezing and Attachment – Provisional attachment by ED was in accordance with Section 5 and confirmed by Adjudicating Authority – High Court reiterated importance of procedural safeguards under PMLA – Cited Opto Circuits (2021) 6 SCC 707 to reaffirm that failure to follow mandatory procedure renders freezing invalid – In present case, ED complied fully [Paras 21–24]

Restoration of Property – Public Sector Banks – Banks holding public funds passed stringent tests under PMLA – Special Court ordered restoration of attached assets to bank consortium – Respondent suppressed facts during sale deed registration – Held: Conduct not bona fide, undermined pending PMLA and winding-up proceedings [Paras 44–45]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Order of Appellate Tribunal quashing attachment set aside – Flat No. 7A held to be validly attached as proceeds of crime – Respondent held to have no title – Sale deed executed during pendency of proceedings declared invalid.

Criminal Law – Abetment of Suicide – Conviction under Section 306 IPC set aside – Trial court convicted appellants based on suicide note and testimonies alleging monetary harassment related to cricket betting – Suicide note recovered a day after incident under suspicious circumstances – Recovery witnesses admitted signatures were obtained at police station and not on-site – No proper sealing or guarding of suicide premises – Recovery not corroborated by independent evidence – Held: Recovery doubtful and not trustworthy [Paras 14–24].

Suicide Note – Authenticity – FSL confirmed signature of deceased only on last page – Handwriting on middle page not verified due to failure to submit comparison documents – Page 2 lacked continuity and showed different handwriting style from pages 1 and 3 – Witnesses claiming handwriting familiarity had been estranged for 15–20 years and lacked credibility – Held: Entire suicide note not proved to be written by deceased – Inference of interpolation justified – Benefit of doubt extended [Paras 24–29].

Witness Testimony – Reliability and Admissibility – Statements of wife (PW-2), relatives (PW-3), and friends (PW-5, PW-8) inconsistent and lacking in material specifics – No proximate instigation or continued course of conduct proven – Witnesses admitted deceased never informed police or filed complaint – Held: Statements insufficient to prove intentional abetment under Sections 107/306 IPC [Paras 31–35].

Criminal Law – Ingredients of Section 306 IPC – Demand for money by itself does not constitute abetment to suicide – No evidence of direct or indirect incitement or mental pressure sufficient to drive deceased to suicide – Cited judgments reiterate proximity, intent, and direct action as necessary to constitute abetment – Held: Even if suicide note taken at face value, offence under Section 306 IPC not made out – Conviction unsustainable [Paras 36–53].

Criminal Trial – Investigative Lapses – No rojnamcha entry showing revisit to site – No seizure of lock or mention of who opened premises where suicide note was recovered – Recovery process unverified and unsubstantiated – Trial Court failed to evaluate these gaps – Held: Conviction based on flawed evidence and improper appreciation of law [Paras 14–23].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Conviction under Section 306 IPC quashed – Accused acquitted – Bail bonds discharged – No need to surrender [Para 55].

Family Law – Hindu Marriage – Divorce – Dismissal – Appeal against rejection of petition for divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) and (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Appellant-husband alleged cruelty and desertion by wife – Family Court held that neither cruelty nor desertion was proved – High Court affirmed the judgment – Held: No perversity in the findings of the Family Court – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1, 5, 42-44]

Cruelty – Allegations of Mental and Physical Cruelty – Demand for fridge and destruction of household items on Chauthari day cited as cruelty – Allegation that wife called appellant impotent – Wife did not cook or discharge household duties – Held: These were vague, unsubstantiated and dated allegations – Allegation regarding impotency not supported with specific instances – Mere dissatisfaction or incompatibility does not amount to cruelty – Family Court rightly disbelieved these allegations [Paras 38-40]

Cruelty – Legal Interpretation – ‘Cruelty’ must be such that causes reasonable apprehension in the petitioner’s mind that it is harmful or injurious to live with the other party – Conduct may be mental or physical, intentional or otherwise – Courts must consider social and cultural context – Vague allegations, absence of contemporaneous evidence or exaggerated claims do not suffice – Reference made to Dr. N.G. Dastane v. Mrs. S. Dastane, (1975) 2 SCC 326; Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi, (1988) 1 SCC 105; V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat, (1994) 1 SCC 337 [Paras 23-30]

Desertion – No Evidence of Voluntary Abandonment – Appellant failed to establish that wife left matrimonial home voluntarily and without reasonable cause – Respondent-wife asserted willingness to resume conjugal life – No legal notice for restitution of conjugal rights or social efforts for reconciliation proved – Allegations of desertion remain unsubstantiated – Family Court rightly concluded desertion not proved [Paras 31, 34, 35, 41]

Desertion – Legal Principles – Requires factum of separation and intention to permanently end cohabitation without consent or reasonable cause – Mere physical absence or temporary estrangement not sufficient – Referenced Lachman Utamchand Kirpalani v. Meena, AIR 1964 SC 40; Debananda Tamuli v. Kakumoni Kataky, (2022) 5 SCC 459 [Paras 31-36]

Perversity – Findings Supported by Evidence – No perversity in the impugned judgment – Family Court considered evidence of both parties in detail – Appellant failed to demonstrate exclusion of relevant material or consideration of irrelevant material – Decision not irrational or against settled principles – Reference made to Arulvelu v. State, (2009) 10 SCC 206 [Paras 22, 43]

Decision – Appeal dismissed – No ground for interference – Divorce rightly denied by Family Court – Pending applications also disposed of [Paras 44-45]

PMLA – Bail – Section 19 Compliance – Twin Conditions under Section 45 – Arrest Valid – Suppression of Material Facts – Bail Rejected – Petitioner alleged mastermind of ₹6210.72 crore laundering scheme through shell companies and benami assets – Arrest preceded by written “reasons to believe” and grounds communicated – Sec. 19(2) compliance delayed but not fatal – Predicate offence not stayed in view of Division Bench order – Petitioner influencing witnesses and operating companies from custody – Held: No violation of statutory safeguards; prima facie material exists; twin conditions not satisfied; bail refused [Paras 14–28].

Predicate Offence – Effect of Stay – PMLA as Stand-alone – Stay by Single Bench stayed by Division Bench – Therefore proceedings under IPC continue – Petitioner’s contention that PMLA proceedings are eclipsed rejected – Suppression of Division Bench stay order held material and deliberate [Paras 15–17].

Arrest under PMLA – Section 19(1) & (2) – Grounds of Arrest & “Reasons to Believe” – Judicial Review Limited – Adequacy of Material Not Justiciable – Grounds supplied immediately; detailed material available; delay of 5 days in forwarding documents to Adjudicating Authority not fatal as Court could verify existence of material – Distinction drawn from Dilbag Singh – Arrest upheld [Paras 18–23].

Economic Offences – Gravity – Shell Companies – Benami Properties – Risk of Tampering – Investigation Ongoing – Large-scale fraud involving 62 shell companies, 34 dummy directors and siphoning of funds – Petitioner in touch with employees, accountants and co-accused from jail – Risk of interference with investigation and further laundering – 444 pending cases – Long custody alone not ground for bail in deep-rooted economic offences [Paras 24–26].

Decision: Bail application dismissed – Petitioner failed to satisfy Section 45 twin conditions – CRM (R) 84 of 2025 disposed of [Paras 27–29].

Telecom Law – Jurisdiction of TDSAT – Dispute Between Service Providers – Plaintiff (a Class 'A' ISP) and Defendant No.1 (a Category 'A' ITSP) entered into an Operational Merger Agreement (OMA) for resource and infrastructure integration – Allegations of breach of contract, disruption of services, and withholding of infrastructure affecting thousands of end consumers – Held: Dispute is between service providers and directly impacts users—Squarely falls within exclusive jurisdiction of TDSAT under Section 14(a)(ii) of TRAI Act—Civil suit not maintainable [Paras 3, 22–26, 38–39]

Civil Procedure – Bar of Jurisdiction – Section 15 of TRAI Act – Civil courts barred from entertaining disputes that TDSAT is competent to adjudicate – Inclusion of individual directors and foreign parent company (non-service providers) does not alter the core nature of the dispute – Allegations against Defendants 2–5 arise from their roles within service provider operations – No distinct cause of action independent of the primary dispute – Civil court lacks jurisdiction [Paras 30–35]

Consumer Impact – Scope of TRAI Act – Plaintiff admitted disruption of service to approx. 19,000 residential and commercial users including hospitals, schools, and government bodies – Held: Where dispute affects a large body of consumers, TDSAT as the expert tribunal must adjudicate – Object of TRAI Act is to ensure consumer protection and orderly growth of telecom sector [Paras 24–26]

Contractual Disputes – Private Agreement Between Telecom Operators – Plaintiff argued dispute arose from a private contractual arrangement unrelated to regulatory functions – Court rejected argument citing binding precedent that even private agreements between service providers fall within TDSAT’s domain if consumer interests are affected or sectoral regulation is implicated [Paras 27–29]

Distinction from Precedents – Cases relied upon by plaintiff (e.g., Amrit Aneja, Hathway Digital) held inapplicable – Those disputes involved non-service providers or employer-employee issues – In contrast, current dispute involves operational failures and service disruptions between two licensed service providers [Paras 36–37]

Decision:Suit held not maintainable – Dispute falls within exclusive jurisdiction of TDSAT under Sections 14 and 15 of the TRAI Act – Civil court barred from entertaining the matter – Plaint rejected – Pending applications disposed of accordingly.

Municipal Employment – Daily Wage Workers – Regularization – Employer-Employee Relationship – Perennial Duties – Labour Contract Society Plea Unsupported – 28 Years of Continuous Service – Application of SC Judgment in Shripal v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad – Award Granting SSR Wages and Regularization Upheld – Writ Appeal Dismissed [Paras 7–10].

Employment Law – Employer-Employee Relationship – Claim of engagement through Labour Contract Society rejected – Absence of any documentary proof of contractor engagement such as tenders, agreements, muster rolls or invoices – Wages paid directly by Municipality and work supervised by municipal officials – Held: Direct relationship established; appellant’s plea unsustainable [Paras 7(ii), 8–17, applied].

Labour Law – Perennial and Permanent Nature of Work – Workers engaged in water-supply operations continuously for 28 years – Work held to be essential, perennial and integral to municipal functioning – Daily-wage label cannot defeat legitimate claims of long-serving workers – Adverse inference permissible when employer withholds records [Paras 7(ii), 9, 8 (SC paras 11–15 referred)].

Regularization – Uma Devi Doctrine – Distinction between illegal and irregular appointments – Where engagement is long-term, work is perennial, and no valid contractor arrangement exists, regularization justified – Uma Devi cannot be used to perpetuate exploitation of daily wagers performing permanent duties – Followed: Shripal v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad [Paras 8 (SC paras 14–17), 9].

Equal Pay for Equal Work – Workers performing same duties as regular staff but paid less – Constitutes unfair labour practice – SSR wages rightly ordered by Industrial Tribunal – Tribunal’s award upheld by Single Judge and affirmed in appeal [Paras 8 (SC para 13), 9].

Industrial Disputes – Award of Industrial Tribunal – Tribunal’s finding that workmen entitled to SSR rates and regularization based on undisputed long service upheld – No perversity or legal infirmity found – High Court declines interference under writ appellate jurisdiction [Paras 7(i), 7(ii), 10].

Judicial Review – Scope of Interference – Well-reasoned order of Single Judge affirming Tribunal’s award – No error of law or fact warranting interference – Writ Appeal dismissed with no costs [Paras 10–12].

Municipal Law – Unauthorized Construction – No Building Permission – Applicant alleged that Respondents No. 1 and 2 raised illegal commercial construction without sanction on House No. 233/42, Nai Sadak, Gwalior – Municipal Corporation confirmed construction was carried out between 2016–2017 without prior approval – Notices issued by Corporation in 2016 and 2017 to stop construction went unheeded – Trial Court rejected application under Section 307(5) of MP Municipal Corporation Act – Held: Order of Trial Court set aside as new construction without permission was established [Paras 1–4, 14, 19–22].

Building Inspection – Report by Municipal Commissioner – Commissioner personally inspected property on Court's direction – Found a three-storey structure used for commercial purposes – Assessed age of building as 7–8 years, constructed without prior municipal approval – Respondents objected but refused scientific testing to determine building age – Held: Refusal to allow testing supports inference of unauthorized construction – Inspection report accepted [Paras 9–12, 14–15].

Evidentiary Value – Photographic Evidence – Photographs filed by applicant of under-construction building matched existing structure – Supported Municipal Commissioner’s findings – Held: Photos establish prima facie case of new unauthorized construction [Para 14].

Binding Nature of Civil Judgments – Earlier Civil Suit Filed by Respondents – Judgment in Civil Suit No. 244A/2017 and R.C.A. No. 205/2019 held that no new construction was raised – Held: Applicant was not a party to those suits – Findings not binding as they were not judgments in rem – Respondents failed to involve applicant despite being aware of his complaints – Findings in those civil proceedings not applicable to applicant [Paras 15–18].

Administrative Law – Duty of Municipal Corporation – Corporation admitted multiple notices issued to stop construction – Failed to enforce stoppage or demolish building despite illegality – Court directed sealing and demolition of entire structure – Compliance mandated within fixed timeline [Paras 19–23].

Procedural Law – Civil Revision – Trial Court failed to consider evidence of unauthorized construction and Commissioner’s findings – Refusal to allow scientific testing weighed against respondents – Held: Trial Court committed material illegality – Civil revision allowed with costs [Paras 21–22].

Decision: Order of Trial Court dated 22/07/2024 rejecting application under Section 307(5) of MP Municipal Corporation Act set aside – Application allowed – Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, directed to seal building immediately and demolish it within one month – Costs of ₹25,000 imposed on Respondents No. 1 and 2 to be deposited within one month – Failure to comply will invite contempt proceedings [Paras 22–24].

Criminal Law – Culpable Homicide – Section 304A IPC – Death by Alleged Stone Pelting – Appellant convicted by Trial Court for causing death through rash and negligent act – On appeal, High Court finds that key witnesses including P.W.3 (complainant), P.W.4 and P.W.6 (injured) admitted inability to identify assailants due to darkness – No torchlight allegedly used by assailants was seized – Medical opinion consistent with accidental fall on hard surface – Held: Identity of accused not proved beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction set aside [Paras 29–39, 45–49, 60–62]

Identification – Evidence in Nighttime Assault – Victim and witnesses admitted inability to identify assailants due to darkness – Torchlight said to have been used not recovered – Independent witnesses (P.W.5, P.W.7, P.W.8, P.W.9, P.W.11) did not implicate appellant – Absence of specific identification renders conviction unsafe [Paras 30–38, 45–58]

Medical Evidence – Contradiction with Ocular Evidence – Doctors (P.W.1 and P.W.2) opined injuries could result from fall on hard or stony surface – No external injuries consistent with targeted stone assault established – Injury reports vague and lacked detail – Held: Medical evidence does not support prosecution narrative of deliberate assault [Paras 41–44, 60–61]

Criminal Procedure – Benefit of Doubt – When key prosecution witnesses fail to identify accused, medical evidence is inconclusive, and investigation lacks corroborative seizure – Held: Prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Accused entitled to benefit of doubt – Conviction and sentence set aside [Paras 62–64]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and order of conviction dated 27.04.1991 passed in Sessions Case No. 17/89 set aside – Appellant acquitted – Bail bonds to be discharged if not wanted in any other case – Appellant to furnish bonds under Section 437A CrPC for six months.