Criminal Law – Abetment of Suicide – Prima Facie Evidence – Summoning Upheld – Petitioner was summoned as additional accused under Section 319 CrPC in FIR registered under Section 306 IPC for abetting suicide of complainant’s brother – Suicide note and PW-1 testimony alleged continuous harassment and beatings by petitioner due to alleged illicit relationship with deceased’s wife – Held: Material on record, including suicide note and corroborative testimony, sufficient to meet prima facie threshold under Section 319 CrPC – Power rightly exercised – Petition dismissed [Paras 1–14].

Criminal Procedure – Section 319 CrPC – Scope and Threshold – Strong Prima Facie Evidence Required – Reaffirmed that the power under Section 319 CrPC is extraordinary and to be used sparingly – Must be exercised only when strong and cogent evidence appears against a person not already an accused – Evidence must be such that, if unrebutted, it may lead to conviction – Reference made to Hardeep Singh and Sukhpal Singh Khaira decisions on proper procedure and satisfaction standard under Section 319 [Paras 6–8].

Criminal Law – Section 306 IPC – Instigation and Proximate Causation – Ingredients Satisfied – Allegations against petitioner not limited to extra-marital affair but extended to active physical and mental harassment of deceased – Suicide note mentioned repeated beatings and humiliation – Held: These acts created a proximate link to suicide and satisfied ingredients of Section 306 read with Section 107 IPC [Paras 9–11].

Distinguishing Precedents – Petitioner’s Case Found Factually Different – Petitioner’s reliance on Mahendra Aware, Prakash, and Jayedeepsinh rejected – Held: Those cases lacked specific allegations or direct causal connection unlike present case where suicide note and testimony directly implicated petitioner in active harassment [Para 12].

Revisional Jurisdiction – No Interference Without Perversity or Illegality – Citing Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, reiterated that revisional powers must be exercised sparingly and only where there is manifest illegality or perversity – Found none in impugned order summoning petitioner [Para 13].

Decision: Criminal revision petition dismissed – Order dated 05.05.2025 passed by Additional Sessions Judge summoning petitioner under Section 319 CrPC upheld – No infirmity or illegality found – Petitioner to face trial along with co-accused.

Motor Accident Claim – Compensation – Quantum – Pain and Suffering – Modification of Award – Tribunal awarded ₹7,60,000 with 7% interest – Appellant (Insurance Co.) challenged the award as excessive and based on planted vehicle – Claimant filed cross-objection for enhancement – High Court held: ₹5,00,000 awarded for pain and suffering justified in light of 55% disability (pelvic fracture and urethral injury), but ₹2,00,000 awarded for loss of amenities reduced to ₹1,50,000 – Total compensation revised to ₹7,10,000 with 7% interest from date of filing [Paras 10–12].

Motor Accident – Delay in FIR – Not Fatal – Medical Emergency Justified Delay – FIR was lodged with delay showing involvement of unknown vehicle – Insurance Company alleged false implication – Court held that delay due to medical emergency and hospitalisation is not fatal – Tribunal rightly rejected allegation of planting of vehicle – Charge-sheet and testimony of injured supported claim [Paras 7–9].

Motor Accident – Permanent Disability – Functional Disability Rejected – No Loss of Income Granted – Claimant suffered 55% physical disability (spine and hip) but failed to prove functional disability or reduced earning capacity – Tribunal rightly declined compensation for loss of income or promotion denial – High Court upheld [Paras 6, 8A].

Cross-Objection – Enhancement Claim – Rejected for Lack of Evidence – Claimant alleged loss of salary due to reversion from medical category B-1 to C-1 – Tribunal found no evidence of functional impairment or reduced pay – High Court declined to enhance compensation [Para 8A].

Decision:

Appeal partly allowed – Tribunal's award modified – Total compensation reduced from ₹7,60,000 to ₹7,10,000 with interest @7% p.a. from 25.03.2015 till realization – If not paid within 8 weeks, penal interest @9% shall apply – Cross-objection dismissed – No costs.

Criminal Law – Murder – Circumstantial Evidence – Conviction Confirmed – Appellant convicted for the murder of his wife by inflicting a fatal head injury with a hammer – Sole eyewitness (daughter) turned hostile – Statement under Section 164 CrPC not relied upon as substantive evidence – Chain of circumstantial evidence complete and consistent with guilt – Blood-stained hammer and marble cutter recovered from spot – Forensic evidence corroborated injuries – Appellant's presence with deceased in room not disputed – Failure to offer plausible explanation under Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act constituted an additional incriminating circumstance – Held: Conviction under Section 302 IPC proper [Paras 12–33].

Evidence Law – Section 164 CrPC – Hostile Witness – Statement not substantive evidence – PW-5 (daughter) turned hostile and retracted from her statement under Section 164 CrPC – Trial court did not rely on the 164 CrPC statement as substantive evidence – Only used for limited corroboration – Conviction not based on such statement [Paras 12–13].

Criminal Law – Section 309 IPC – Attempt to Commit Suicide – Valid Conviction – Medical evidence confirmed simple incised wound on neck of appellant – Injury consistent with self-infliction – Possibility of use of marble cutter ruled in – Conviction under Section 309 IPC upheld – Section 309 continues to be valid despite prior repeal attempt [Paras 31–32].

Criminal Law – Burden of Proof – Section 106 Evidence Act – Failure to Explain Circumstances – Adverse Inference Drawn – Deceased found dead within four walls of matrimonial home – Appellant failed to offer any acceptable version of events – Defence theory of third-party intrusion found to be improbable – Held: Failure to explain incriminating circumstances warranted conviction [Paras 25–30].

Motive – Suspicion on Wife's Chastity – Frequent Domestic Quarrels – Evidence from family members showed appellant habitually suspected wife’s character – Such motive supported the prosecution’s case and explained intent – Held: Proof of motive reinforced the circumstantial evidence [Paras 20–21, 30].

Decision:

Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 302 and 309 IPC confirmed – No interference warranted by appellate court.

Criminal Law – Economic Offences – Anticipatory Bail – Alleged Ponzi Scheme – Sections 406, 409, 420 IPC and MPID Act – Applicant accused of being part of financial fraud involving over ₹1.13 crore collected through investment scheme – Co-accused (husband and wife, main operators of company) already granted anticipatory bail – Entire amount deposited before Sessions Court for refund to investors – Held: Allegations against applicant limited to disseminating information via laptop – Custodial interrogation not required – Bail granted subject to conditions [Paras 2–8].

Criminal Procedure – Anticipatory Bail – Section 438 CrPC – Scope – Prior anticipatory bail application withdrawn to rectify omission of antecedents – Court found no significant role attributed to applicant and noted that financial loss to investors had been mitigated – Balance of convenience favoured grant of anticipatory bail [Paras 3, 6–8].

Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors Act – Compliance and Refund – Full amount involved in fraudulent investment scheme already deposited in court – No objection from main accused to refund – Investor interest protected – Held: Relevant factor for grant of bail [Paras 5, 8].

Decision: Anticipatory bail granted – Applicant to be released on bail in the event of arrest on furnishing PR bond of ₹1,00,000 with one or two sureties – Conditions imposed including cooperation with investigation, no tampering with evidence or contact with witnesses, and no travel abroad without permission – Application disposed [Para 8–9].

Service Law – Public Employment – Merit-Based Selection – Appointment Denied Arbitrarily – Writ Allowed – Petitioner participated in counselling for post of Constable (General Duty) – Though he ranked higher in merit (sl.no. 1570), he was denied appointment on grounds of exhausting district-wise vacancies – Candidate ranked lower (sl.no. 1592) given appointment in different district – Held: Once State allowed higher-ranked candidates to choose among available districts, it could not deny that option to similarly placed petitioner – Discrimination and arbitrariness in State action – Petition allowed with directions to appoint petitioner [Paras 4–7].

Constitution of India – Articles 14 and 16 – Equality in Public Employment – Violation Established – State failed to maintain fairness by not following uniform criteria for counselling and allocation – Higher merit candidate deprived of opportunity given to lower merit candidate – Held: Action violative of Articles 14 and 16 – Constitutional guarantee of equal treatment breached [Paras 6–7].

Administrative Law – Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation – State Bound by Own Procedure – Once counselling mode was adopted and followed for prior candidates, petitioner acquired legitimate expectation to be treated similarly – State cannot arbitrarily alter stand mid-process without justification – Breach of procedural fairness [Para 6].

Constitutional Remedies – Writ of Mandamus – Issued to Secure Appointment – High Court issued mandamus directing respondents to offer appointment to petitioner in light of his merit and past conduct of State – Delay caused not attributable to petitioner – Directions issued for compliance within two months [Para 8].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Respondents directed to offer appointment to petitioner as Constable (General Duty) within two months – Appointment to be treated as fresh for all purposes – No back wages – Petitioner entitled to continuity for pensionary benefits if otherwise eligible – Pending applications disposed of.

Criminal Law – Religious Conversion – Quashing of FIR – Allegations of mass religious conversions of over 100 persons across 37 Hindu families to Islam through allurement, foreign funding, promises of jobs and housing – FIR registered under multiple sections of IPC, Gujarat Freedom of Religion Act, IT Act and SC/ST Act – Petitioners argued that conversions were voluntary and pre-dated 2021 amendment – Held: Conversion by inducement is a continuing offence – FIR maintainable – Delay in FIR not fatal as punishment exceeds three years [Paras 1.1, 6–7, 19–25].

Constitutional Law – Freedom of Religion and Article 21 – Interim stay by Division Bench on amended provisions of Gujarat Freedom of Religion Act applies only to inter-faith marriages – Present FIR not related to inter-faith marriage – Hence, interim relief inapplicable – Court held petitions are not barred from hearing [Paras 2–3, 20].

Criminal Procedure – Sanction for Prosecution – Section 6 of the Gujarat Freedom of Religion Act – Petitioners contended FIR invalid due to absence of prior sanction – Held: Sanction dated 25/07/2022 granted by District Magistrate – Validity of sanction is to be tested during trial, not in quashing proceedings under Section 482 CrPC [Paras 12.4, 13.5, 15.6, 28–30].

Criminal Law – Absconding Accused – Petition by foreign national (UK resident) accused of funding conversions – Non-cooperation with investigation, declared absconding in separate case – No anticipatory bail sought – Held: Petition dismissed on grounds of conduct and non-cooperation – Liberty granted to approach court after charge-sheet is filed [Paras 13.6–13.9, 35–37].

Criminal Law – Prima Facie Offence – Petitioners alleged to have played varied roles in conversion activities – Some accused claimed to be victims of earlier conversion – Held: Statements, digital evidence and witness testimonies sufficient to establish prima facie offence – Role of each accused to be tested during trial – Quashing not permissible at this stage – Petitions dismissed accordingly [Paras 12, 13, 15–17, 31–32].

Criminal Procedure – Summons under Section 160 CrPC – Applicant advocate challenged summons – State assured no action would be taken against him – Petition dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to re-approach if grievance arises [Para 34].

Decision: Petitions dismissed – Criminal Misc. Application Nos. 13496, 13662, 13667, and Special Criminal Application No. 1225 of 2022 dismissed on merits – Criminal Misc. Application Nos. 309 and 11426 of 2022 dismissed with liberty to apply afresh after charge-sheet – Special Criminal Application No. 66 of 2022 dismissed as withdrawn [Paras 38–39].

Criminal Revision – Scope – Revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 CrPC is supervisory, not appellate – interference permissible only in cases of patent defect, error of jurisdiction, perversity, or non-consideration of material evidence – High Court cannot reappreciate evidence to substitute findings of fact unless perverse  [Paras 13-18].

Section 498A IPC – Cruelty – Frequent beatings and demand of ₹20,000/- proved – corroborated by testimony of victim (PW1), her father (PW6), accused’s brother (PW4), and father (PW8) – medical evidence consistent – contradictions in testimonies were minor, attributable to lapse of memory, not sufficient to discard prosecution case – conviction under Section 498A sustained [Paras 19-42].

Sections 323 & 506 IPC – Assault and criminal intimidation – Evidence of victim and corroborating eyewitnesses proved beatings and threats – conviction upheld [Paras 19, 23-24, 27-29, 42].

Sentence – Trial Court imposed maximum sentence of 3 years under Section 498A without assigning reasons – considering that accused had left matrimonial home about one year prior to incident and danger to victim had reduced, maximum sentence held unjustified – imprisonment reduced from 3 years to 1 year; fine reduced from ₹10,000/- to ₹5,000/- with default sentence maintained – no interference with sentences under Sections 323 & 506 IPC [Para 43-44].

Decision – Revision partly allowed – conviction under Sections 498A, 323, 506 IPC upheld – sentence under Section 498A modified to 1 year SI + ₹5,000/- fine; sentences under Sections 323 & 506 IPC affirmed [Paras 42-44].

Family Law – Divorce – Ex Parte Decree – Special Marriage Act – Decree set aside – Marriage dissolved by Family Court based on unchallenged testimony of husband after wife failed to file written statement and remained absent – Held: Even in absence of contesting party, Family Court must assess evidence on merits and provide reasoned findings – Mere non-appearance or failure to file written statement not sufficient to decree divorce – Trial Court’s reliance solely on absence of wife without independent assessment of cruelty allegations rendered judgment perverse – Judgment set aside and matter remanded for fresh trial [Paras 10-16].

Civil Procedure – Duty of Court in Ex Parte Proceedings – Trial Court must scrutinize pleadings and evidence even when defendant is ex parte – Decree cannot be automatic – Reiterated that evidence must be evaluated independently and findings must be recorded with reasons – Failure to do so amounts to miscarriage of justice [Paras 11-12, 15].

Appellate Intervention – Remand Ordered – Matter restored to original file to allow appellant-wife to file written statement – Both parties granted opportunity to lead and test evidence afresh – Trial Court directed to complete proceedings within nine months [Paras 16-17].

Subsequent Remarriage – No Bar to Appellate Relief – Fact that respondent-husband remarried during pendency of appeal does not prevent appellate court from setting aside a perverse and unreasoned decree – Rule of law must prevail over subsequent developments [Para 18].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Decree of divorce set aside – Matter remanded to Family Court from the stage of written statement – Trial to proceed afresh – No costs [Paras 19-20].

Taxation Law - Goods and Services Tax – Cross-Empowerment – Jurisdiction of CGST Officers – Petitioners assigned to State Tax Authorities challenged issuance of show cause notices by Joint Commissioner, CGST – Held: Section 6(1) of CGST Act provides inherent and automatic cross-empowerment to officers of Centre and States – Notification required only when conditions are imposed – No notification necessary for activation of jurisdiction – Clarified by CBIC circular dated 22.06.2020 and upheld in Armour Security India Ltd. – Objection on jurisdiction rejected [Paras 14–32, 38].

GST – Intelligence-Based Enforcement – Petitioners alleged to have availed fraudulent ITC through paper transactions among 12 firms in a single textile park – Searches conducted and evidence revealed paper turnover without actual supply – Held: Intelligence-based action is valid ground for CGST initiation irrespective of administrative allocation – Central authority not barred from initiating action – Show cause notice upheld [Paras 4–6, 37–42].

CGST – Competence of Joint Commissioner – Petitioners argued that Joint Commissioner could not issue show cause notice for demand < Rs.1 crore – Held: Section 5(2) of CGST Act authorises senior officers to exercise powers of subordinate officers – Circular dated 09.02.2018 merely administrative – Joint Commissioner is competent to issue notice regardless of amount involved [Paras 34–36].

GST – Bunching of Multiple Financial Years – Petitioners challenged issuance of a single show cause notice for five assessment years – Held: No express bar under Section 74 against such bunching – Issue left open for adjudication by authority concerned – No interference at notice stage [Para 33].

GST – Enforcement vs Audit – Distinction clarified – Enforcement actions based on intelligence not restricted by administrative allocation – Dual proceedings not permitted on same subject matter – Intelligence-based proceedings may be initiated by either authority – Reaffirmed through Supreme Court’s ruling in M/S Armour Security India Ltd. v. Commissioner CGST Delhi East, 2025 INSC 982 [Paras 38–41].

Decision: Petitions dismissed – Section 6(1) of CGST Act provides for automatic cross-empowerment – Show cause notices valid and within jurisdiction of CGST authorities – Petitioners free to raise other defences before adjudicating authority – Interpretation of Section 6 conclusively decided; other issues left open [Para 42].