Maintenance – Section 125 Cr.P.C. – Quantum – Concealment of Income – Revision Dismissed – Revisionist-husband, a company director, challenged Family Court order directing payment of ₹20,000/- p.m. each to wife and daughter – He alleged that maintenance was excessive considering his income of ₹2.4 lakh p.a. – Wife alleged concealment of true income and production of manipulated ITRs – Documentary evidence showed deposits exceeding ₹67 lakh in company accounts and assets worth over ₹1 crore – Court found deliberate suppression of income – Held: Revisionist had sufficient means and moral/legal duty to maintain wife and daughter [Paras 15–27].

Wife Living Separately – Justifiable Cause – Evidence showed wife was subjected to cruelty and dowry harassment – Husband failed to cross-examine her on key allegations – Trial court rightly held that she was living separately for sufficient reasons [Paras 10–11].

Wife’s Qualification – Capability to Earn – Effect – Wife, though qualified (B.Com and Interior Design Diploma), left employment at husband’s insistence – Presently unemployed and caring for minor child – Mere capability to work not ground to deny maintenance [Paras 12–14].

Standard of Living – Principle of Parity – Wife entitled to live in similar standard as husband – Husband’s attempt to evade liability by showing reduced income rejected – Maintenance to ensure dignity and prevent destitution – Court reiterated that sustenance implies living consistent with family status [Paras 18–22].

Determination of Quantum – Guiding Principles – Reaffirmed Supreme Court guidelines in Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324 – Maintenance must be reasonable and realistic, neither oppressive nor meagre – Financial capacity, lifestyle, inflation, and dependent obligations to be considered [Para 23].

Presumption – Able-Bodied Husband – Following Chander Prakash Bodhraj v. Shila Rani (AIR 1968 Del 174) – Able-bodied man presumed capable of earning sufficient to maintain wife and child; concealment of income invites adverse inference [Para 28].

Decision: Criminal Revision dismissed – Family Court order upheld – ₹20,000/- per month each to wife and minor daughter affirmed – No interference warranted [Para 30].

Application for regular bail in a case involving grievous assaults stemming from prior enmity and extortion demands – alleged repeated attacks on complainant and his nephew, including within hospital premises – petitioner identified as principal assailant with multiple past criminal involvements.

Succession Law – Proof of Will – Suspicious Circumstances – Appellants/defendants challenged concurrent judgments declaring Will of Late Sh. Satpal Chopra illegal and void – Trial Court and First Appellate Court found Will shrouded by suspicious circumstances – Held: Although attesting witnesses were examined, the burden lies on the propounder to dispel all suspicion – Courts below rightly found anomalies in execution (pre-signed blank paper, uneven handwriting, smooth signature despite trembling hands) – No interference warranted in second appeal [Paras 9–11].

Second Appeal – Scope under Section 41 of Punjab Courts Act – Punjab & Haryana High Court reaffirmed that under Section 41, unlike Section 100 CPC, framing of substantial questions of law is not mandatory – Reliance placed on Pankajakshi (Dead) through LRs v. Chandrika, (2016) 6 SCC 157; Kirodi v. Ram Parkash, (2019) 11 SCC 317; Satender v. Saroj, 2022 (12) Scale 92 [Para 8].

Inheritance – Declaration of Ownership and Joint Possession – Findings of lower Courts declaring respondents’ entitlement to 1/5th share in inheritance of Late Sh. Satpal Chopra upheld – Alleged Will and consequent mutations held null and void – Relief of permanent injunction denied but declaration sustained [Paras 1–6].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Concurrent findings of fact and law upheld – Will declared invalid – Respondents’ 1/5th share in inheritance confirmed – All pending applications disposed of.

Criminal Law – Rash and Negligent Driving – Appeal Against Acquittal – Respondent accused of driving a tanker rashly and hitting a cyclist who died on the spot – Eyewitness accounts (PW5 and PW6) found inconsistent, contradictory, and uncorroborated by physical evidence – No mechanical inspection of the cycle conducted – Tanker inspection showed no fresh damage – No photographs or reliable scene reconstruction adduced – Held: Prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Acquittal justified [Paras 2–6, 13–15, 20–21].

Evidence – Eyewitness Credibility – Contradictions – PW6 claimed to witness the accident from both inside and outside a bus – PW5 admitted he did not see the driver – Statements made under Section 161 CrPC by PW6 contradicted his court deposition – No proof of witness presence at scene through memos or photographs – Held: Testimonies unreliable and insufficient for conviction [Paras 5, 13–14].

Criminal Procedure – Appeal Against Acquittal – Double Presumption of Innocence – Acquittal by Trial Court reinforces presumption of innocence – Appellate court must be cautious in overturning acquittals unless the trial court’s view is wholly unreasonable or perverse – Held: Trial Court’s view was a plausible one based on evidence – No grounds for interference [Paras 17–19].

IPC Section 304A – Requirement of Proof – Essential ingredients include rash or negligent act directly causing death – High speed alone not sufficient to infer rashness – Mere occurrence of accident not proof of negligence – Held: In absence of evidence on speed, traffic conditions, or manner of driving, conviction under Section 304A cannot be sustained [Paras 10–12, 16].

Presumption of Negligence – Res Ipsa Loquitur – Inapplicability – Held: Principle applies only when circumstances unmistakably point to negligence – Not attracted merely because an accident occurred – Criminal negligence must be established through specific evidence, not inference [Para 10].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Acquittal of respondent under Sections 279 and 304A IPC upheld – Court finds prosecution failed to establish rash or negligent act beyond reasonable doubt – Trial Court’s judgment found reasonable, based on lack of credible evidence and inconsistencies in prosecution case – Double presumption of innocence reinforced [Paras 20–21].

Civil Procedure – Amendment of Written Statement – Order 6 Rule 17 CPC – Replication – Scope and Pleadings – Petitioners sought amendment of written statement to rebut new facts introduced in replication filed by plaintiffs – Trial court dismissed the application holding replication not part of pleadings – Held: Replication, when permitted by court, forms part of pleadings; defendants have right to counter new averments – Amendment necessary to avoid multiplicity of litigation and enable full adjudication [Paras 6–12].

Replication – Legal Status – Order VIII Rule 9 CPC – Supreme Court Clarification – Following K. Laxmanan v. Thekkayil Padmini (2009 (1) RAJ 78) and Sheikh Noorul Hassan v. Nahakpam Indrajjit Singh (2024 INSC 391) – Replication permissible with leave of court and may be treated as part of pleadings if allowed – Pleas introduced therein must be specifically controverted, failing which deemed admitted [Paras 8–11].

Amendment at Initial Stage – No Prejudice to Opposite Party – Suit still at preliminary stage and issues not framed – Amendment neither alters nature of defence nor prejudices plaintiffs – Liberal approach warranted to ensure complete justice [Paras 9, 12].

Precedents – Reliance – Salig Ram v. Shiv Shankar, 1971 AIR P&H 437 – Replication forms part of pleadings; uncontroverted averments deemed admitted – Hakam Singh v. Jagir Singh, 1991 (2) RRR 170 – Amendment permissible to clarify existing stand without changing nature of defence [Paras 10–11].

Decision: Civil Revision Allowed – Impugned order dated 24.03.2025 set aside – Application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC read with Section 151 CPC for amendment of written statement allowed – Trial Court directed to accept amended written statement and proceed with trial [Paras 13–14].

Motor Accident Compensation – Quantum Awarded in Excess of Claim – Just Compensation – Tribunal awarded ₹1.3 Crores against claimed ₹82 Lakhs – Insurance Company objected to grant of compensation beyond claim – Held: Under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, courts and tribunals are empowered to grant “just compensation” irrespective of claimed amount – Social welfare legislation permits award above claimed figure to meet ends of justice – No legal embargo on granting compensation more than what is claimed [Paras 42-52] –

Assessment of Income – Guesswork in Absence of Documentary Proof – Permissible – Claimant’s income assessed as ₹20,000/month though no tax returns or formal proof was filed – Tribunal relied on lease agreements, oral testimony, and surrounding circumstances – Held: In motor accident cases, adjudication of income can involve reasonable estimation or guesswork where evidence is credible – Income determined by tribunal based on broad-based judicial approach found justified [Paras 53-61] –

Permanent Disability – Evidence – Medical and Lay Witnesses – Compensation for Future Care – Claimant rendered 100% disabled due to spinal cord injury (C5-C6) – Evidence from 20 witnesses including treating doctors, physiotherapists, hospital administrators, and attendants established permanent incapacitation – Costs of long-term physiotherapy, personal assistants, and medical expenses proved – Tribunal’s award supported by extensive documentary and oral evidence [Paras 17-41] –

Appeal – Scope of Interference – Appellate Court's Deference to Tribunal’s Factual Findings – Insurance Company challenged only two components: compensation exceeding claim and lack of income proof – Tribunal’s findings on all other heads of compensation remained unchallenged – Held: Where tribunal takes a possible view based on evidence, appellate court will not interfere unless findings are perverse or unsupported by record [Paras 62-63] –

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Tribunal’s award of ₹1.3 Crores upheld – Insurance Company and other respondents directed to deposit awarded amount within 2 months – Claimant permitted to withdraw full compensation without security – No costs [Paras 63-64].

Income Tax – TDS Credit – Non-reflection in Form 26AS – Refund entitlement – Petitioner, a cooperative society exempt under Section 80P, sought refund of TDS deducted for A.Y. 2009–10 to 2015–16 – Department refused refund citing mismatch with Form 26AS – Held: Once assessee furnishes Form 16A evidencing deduction, Assessing Officer must verify and grant credit even if TDS is not reflected in Form 26AS – Assessee cannot be denied refund for fault of deductor [Paras 3–5, 8–9].

Tax Administration – CBDT Circular No. 05/2013 – Compliance – CBDT directed that when assessee produces TDS certificate, Assessing Officer must verify payment with deductor and grant due credit – High Court reiterates that AOs are bound to follow the circular and cannot compel taxpayers to suffer delays caused by third parties [Paras 7–8].

Writ Jurisdiction – Mandamus – Refund of wrongly withheld TDS – Court follows Delhi High Court’s Court on Its Motion v. CIT and Allahabad High Court’s Rakesh Kumar Gupta v. UOI – Mandamus issued directing AO to verify petitioner’s documents and pass refund order within four weeks – Assessee entitled to rely on cited precedents and CBDT circular before AO [Paras 4, 6, 9–11].

Decision:

Writ petition disposed of with direction to respondent no.3 to verify Form 16A certificates and issue refund in accordance with law within four weeks.

NDPS Act – Suspension of Sentence – Section 389 CrPC / Section 430 BNSS – Commercial Quantity – Appellant convicted for possession of 25.086 kg ganja and sentenced to RI for 10 years with fine of ₹1,00,000 – Application for suspension of sentence during pendency of appeal – Held: Recovery of commercial quantity attracts rigour of Section 37 NDPS Act – Gravity of offence and societal impact weigh against grant of suspension [Paras 13–15, 22–23].

Evidence – Police Witnesses – Non-Joining of Public Witnesses – Credibility – Non-association of independent witnesses at recovery not fatal – Police testimony consistent and corroborated by seizure memo and FSL report – Reliance placed on State v. Sunil, (2001) 1 SCC 652; Ajmer Singh v. State of Haryana, (2010) 2 SCR 785 – Police witnesses competent and reliable in absence of motive to falsely implicate [Paras 14–15].

Evidence – Non-production of CCTV Footage – Chance Recovery – Effect – Omission to produce CCTV or videography does not vitiate seizure – Recovery occurred at 3 AM; documentation corroborated recovery – Non-production not fatal to prosecution [Para 16].

Parity – Bail to Co-Accused – Not a Ground Post Conviction – Co-accused Mukesh granted bail at pre-conviction stage – Parity argument inapplicable after conviction, as presumption of innocence no longer available [Para 17].

Criminal Procedure – Suspension of Sentence – Tests and Considerations – Suspension not a matter of right – Court to consider gravity of offence, period undergone, and prima facie chance of acquittal – Appellant has undergone only 3 years out of 10-year sentence (<50%) – Not eligible for suspension as per Sonadhar v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 3182 and Saudan Singh v. State of U.P., 2021 SCC OnLine SC 3259 [Paras 19–20].

Judicial Principle – Post-Conviction Presumption – After conviction, presumption of innocence stands erased – Suspension of sentence justified only where conviction appears palpably unsustainable – No such case made out here; no fair chance of acquittal shown [Paras 20–22].

Decision: Sentence not suspended – Application dismissed – Appeal to be heard in due course [Paras 23–25].

Negotiable Instruments – Dishonour of Cheque – Complaint by Struck-off Company – Proceedings Quashed – Complaints under Section 138 of the NI Act filed in 2020 by Raghav Aditya Chits Pvt. Ltd. after the company had already been dissolved on 08.08.2018 under Section 248(5) of the Companies Act – Court held that once a company stands struck off and dissolved, it ceases to exist as a legal person – Cheques issued and complaints filed post-dissolution are void and not legally enforceable – Held: Complaints filed by a non-existent company through unauthorised persons are an abuse of process and not maintainable [Paras 3, 3.3, 4.1, 4.3, 5, 11-14].

Company Law – Dissolution under Section 248(5) of Companies Act – Legal Effect – Dissolution notice published by Registrar has effect of terminating company’s existence under Section 250 – Certificate of Incorporation deemed cancelled – Company cannot operate bank accounts, enter into contracts, or initiate legal proceedings unless restored under Section 252 – Held: Proceedings initiated by ex-directors in the name of such company are without authority and legally untenable [Paras 7-10, 12].

Criminal Procedure – Abuse of Process – Trial Proceedings by Non-Existent Complainant – Quashed under Section 482 CrPC – Trial Court’s refusal to dismiss the complaints despite evidence of dissolution was held to be legally erroneous – Proceedings under Section 138 NI Act cannot be continued when the complainant lacks legal status – Continuation would serve no purpose and violate principles of natural justice – Held: Inherent powers under Article 226/CrPC invoked to prevent miscarriage of justice [Paras 5, 13, 14].

Security Cheques – Allegation of Misuse – Cheques issued as security in 2011 misused post-dissolution – Petitioners alleged cheques were never meant for presentation and were filled in with inflated amounts by ex-directors – Complaint was based on allegedly time-barred claims arising out of transactions between 2011 and 2014 – Held: Even if accepted, the complaints were otherwise non-maintainable due to dissolution of complainant [Paras 3.2, 4.8].

Limited Relief – Liberty Reserved – While complaints were quashed, Court clarified that successors-in-interest of the complainant company may pursue alternate remedies against petitioners if permitted under law – Held: This order does not preclude lawful recovery in other forums, subject to legal viability [Para 15].

Decision: Criminal complaints CC No. 2619/2020 and CC No. 4753/2020 titled “Raghav Aditya Chits Pvt Ltd. vs Space Services (India) Pvt Ltd. & Ors.” quashed – Summoning orders dated 21.12.2020 and 05.10.2021 set aside – Petitions allowed – Trial Court order dated 22.12.2022 set aside [Paras 14, 16].