Bail – BNSS Ss. 480 & 483 – Grant of Bail with Stringent Conditions – Petition Allowed – Accused allegedly conspired with co-accused to steal phones, debit card, confine complainant, attempt strangulation, and extort money; already faced multiple arrests in connected crimes in 2024–25 – Held: Considering detention of 67 days, completion of major investigation, examination of 14 witnesses, and fixed residence, bail granted with strict conditions to prevent absconding or witness intimidation [Paras 8–11].

Criminal Procedure – Bail Principles – Court noted that bail cannot be denied as punishment at pre-trial stage; while gravity of offences considered, the period of custody and progress of investigation weighed in favour of bail – Previous dismissal of pre-arrest bail not a bar once investigation substantially complete [Paras 8–10].

IPC & IT Act Offences – Allegations involved conspiracy to administer sedatives, extortion using stolen digital devices and bank cards, and attempt to murder complainant by strangulation; however, custody beyond 67 days not justified when prosecution already examined key witnesses – Custodial interrogation no longer necessary [Paras 2, 8–9].

Bail Conditions – Accused directed to execute bond of ₹25,000 with two sureties; weekly appearance at PS; not to leave Andhra Pradesh without permission; surrender passport; refrain from threats or inducements to witnesses; cooperate with investigation; not to indulge in any future offence – Conditions aimed to balance liberty of accused with integrity of investigation [Para 10].

Decision – Criminal Petition allowed – Petitioner/Accused No.2 enlarged on bail with conditions as specified; non-compliance to entail cancellation of bail [Para 11].

Family Law - Maintenance – Award of ₹21,000 to Wife/Mother – Challenge under Section 438 r/w 442 BNSS – Petitioners (husband and sons of respondent) contended that respondent left matrimonial home voluntarily in 2015 and filed maintenance petition only in 2019 – Petitioners alleged their own lack of income and claimed respondent had sufficient means and was living independently – Family Court awarded ₹21,000/month as maintenance – Held: Order proper and requires no interference – Petitioners failed to show any illegality, impropriety, or abuse of process [Paras 2–6, 9–11].

Social and Legal Duty – Husband and Sons – Court reaffirmed legal and moral duty of husband and sons to maintain wife/mother – Emphasised the vital social role of mothers and moral obligation of children to ensure their dignity in old age – Financial capacity of petitioners not a valid excuse when basic maintenance is concerned [Paras 7–8].

Quantum of Maintenance – Reasonableness – Court held ₹21,000 not excessive or disproportionate given rising living costs – Observed that Section 125 CrPC is a beneficial provision enacted to prevent vagrancy and provide support to dependent wife/mother – No error in Family Court’s determination of amount [Para 9].

Delay in Filing – Not Bar to Maintenance – Delay of four years in filing maintenance petition does not disentitle respondent when entitlement under law is otherwise established – Petitioners failed to establish that respondent was living separately without just cause [Paras 4–5].

No Grounds for Revision – Court found no error, perversity or abuse of process in impugned order – Family Court rightly exercised jurisdiction and applied settled principles – Criminal revision petition dismissed as devoid of merit [Paras 9–12].

Decision: Criminal Revision Petition dismissed – Family Court order upheld – Maintenance of ₹21,000/month to continue – No interference warranted – Miscellaneous petition also dismissed.

Criminal Law – Drugs and Cosmetics Act – Quashing of FIR – FIR registered by police under Section 13 of the D&C Act pursuant to Magistrate’s order under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. – Held: Only authorities specified under Section 32 of D&C Act (Drug Inspector etc.) can initiate prosecution – Police has no jurisdiction to register FIR – FIR under D&C Act quashed as without authority [Paras 40-44, 88]

Criminal Law – IPC Offences – Sections 274 and 275 IPC – Held: Though FIR under IPC is maintainable, ingredients of offences not made out – Allegation of adulteration not supported by material – Joint inspection found product of standard quality at time of dispatch – Adulteration, if any, occurred after delivery to complainant – FIR under IPC also quashed [Paras 45-60, 66-85, 89]

Criminal Procedure – Limitation – FIR registered in 2019 for offences punishable with up to six months – No charge sheet filed within one year – No justification for delay – Bar under Section 468 Cr.P.C. applicable – Investigation continuation amounts to abuse of process – FIR quashed on this ground as well [Paras 86-87, 89]

Drugs Law – Loan Licencee – Manufacturing Responsibility – Petitioner only provided manufacturing facility under Loan Licence to Respondent No. 2 – Held: As per Rules 75A, 69A of D&C Rules and judicial precedents, Loan Licencee (Respondent No. 2) is deemed manufacturer and responsible for drug quality – Petitioners not liable under D&C Act [Paras 64-70]

Commercial Dispute – Civil Nature Given Criminal Colour – Allegations arose from failure of Respondent No. 2 to sell drugs in market – Parties had arbitration agreement – Nil award given holding likely tampering by Respondent – Held: Dispute purely civil/commercial – Criminal proceedings abuse of process [Paras 20-21, 82-84]

Decision:

FIR No. 053/2019 under Sections 274/275 IPC and Section 13 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, registered at PS Okhla Industrial Area, quashed – Observations confined to FIR proceedings only – Petition allowed [Paras 90-91]

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Sale of Waqf Property – Petitioner, as Manager of Mazar-e-Najmi Waqf, executed sale deed of Waqf property allegedly based on forged permission letter – Later cancelled transaction and returned consideration – FIR registered under IPC and PC Act – Petitioner sought quashing citing absence of dishonest intent and lack of locus in complainant – Held: Mere cancellation of sale deed and refund of money does not absolve the act of alleged forgery and criminal misconduct [Paras 1-3, 16].

Waqf Act – Section 52A – Locus of Complainant – Bar under Section 52A(3) applies only to offences under Section 52A – Where FIR involves IPC and PC Act offences, bar does not apply – Police entitled to investigate cognizable offences independent of complaint by Waqf Board – Complainant’s locus upheld [Paras 13-15].

Forgery – Consent Letter – Handwriting Dispute – Allegation that consent letter of Waqf Board used for sale was forged – Waqf Board Administrator denied issuance and authorship – Handwriting samples collected and expert report awaited – Prima facie material for investigation – Petition for quashing rejected [Paras 16, 20].

Scope of Section 528 BNSS (Earlier Section 482 CrPC) – Court reiterates settled law on limited and sparing use of inherent powers – No detailed evaluation of defence at FIR stage – If FIR discloses prima facie offence, continuation of investigation justified – Court not to assess truthfulness of defence plea at pre-trial stage [Paras 17-20].

Public Servant – Misuse of Official Position – As Manager/Mutawalli under Waqf Act, petitioner is public servant under Section 101(2) – Allegation of dishonest misappropriation of property attracts Sections 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of PC Act – Prima facie case disclosed [Paras 11, 13].

Decision: Petition dismissed – FIR not liable to be quashed – Allegations in FIR disclose prima facie offences under IPC and PC Act – Locus of complainant valid – Petitioner free to raise all defences at trial stage – Observations not to affect framing of charge.

Motor Accident Claim – Assessment of Income – Evidence of Mining and Agricultural Activities – Compensation Enhanced – Tribunal treated deceased as unskilled labour earning ₹4,914 per month – High Court held that evidence of statutory mining consents, crane registration, EMI payments of ₹35,170 per month, and agricultural land indicated much higher income – Monthly income assessed at ₹45,000 – Compensation recalculated accordingly [Paras 9-13, 18].

Motor Accident Compensation – Loan Repayment as Proof of Earning Capacity – Reliance on Gurpreet Kaur v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1778 – Regular repayment of heavy EMI reflects higher earning capacity; minimum wage cannot be the sole yardstick where positive evidence exists – Applied to present case [Paras 12-13].

Agricultural Income – Agriculturist not to be Treated as Unskilled Labour – Judicial recognition that agriculture requires skill, knowledge, and scientific input – Hence, deceased’s agricultural income also considered in computing monthly earnings [Paras 14-17].

Consortium – Award under Conventional Head – As per Pranay Sethi and Magma General Insurance, consortium includes spousal, parental, and filial – High Court awarded ₹40,000 each to all dependents (widow, four children, and mother) [Paras 19-20].

Final Computation – Income assessed at ₹45,000 per month; after applying multiplier of 13 and deductions, loss of income ₹65,81,328 – Consortium ₹2,40,000 – Funeral ₹15,000 – Loss of estate ₹15,000 – Total compensation ₹68,51,328 – Enhanced by ₹60,62,636 over Tribunal’s award – Interest @6% p.a. from date of claim petition, rising to 7.5% if delayed beyond two months [Paras 21-22].

Decision:

Appeal partly allowed—Impugned award modified—Compensation enhanced from ₹7,88,692 to ₹68,51,328 with interest—Insurance Company directed to deposit enhanced amount within two months, failing which higher interest rate applies.

Excise Law – Suspension of Licence – Disproportionate Penalty – Petitioner’s licences under various excise categories suspended w.e.f. 16.3.2024 based on alleged seizure of truck-load of liquor without proper documentation – High Court finds contradictions between Inspection Report and FIR regarding whether liquor was bottled at petitioner’s plant – Court observes that penalties were highly disproportionate and offences were compoundable – Suspension cannot be indefinite or tantamount to cancellation – Held: Orders of suspension and rejection of representation quashed; authorities directed to determine compounding fee and decide renewal application [Paras 4–6, 15–16, 23–29, 30, 37–39]

Contradictory Findings – Inspection Report vs FIR – Inspection Report claimed seized liquor appeared bottled at petitioner’s plant – FIR alleged liquor was not bottled at the plant – Court held this contradiction undermines credibility of State’s action – Additionally, allegations regarding missing truck and its recovery with reduced stock absent from Inspection Report but added in FIR, indicating afterthought – Held: FIR appears to have been registered post-facto to cover deficiencies in original inspection [Paras 22–25, 33]

Admission of Guilt – No Admission on Critical Issues – State argued petitioner admitted to offences – Court clarified that responsibility was only taken for minor stock discrepancies, not for alleged illegal liquor – No admission regarding truck-load seizure or Krishan Kumar’s role – Mischaracterization of replies by Financial Commissioner – Held: Impugned orders incorrectly based on supposed admissions not supported by record [Paras 17, 32–33]

Employment Status – Custody of Seized Liquor Given to Unauthorised Person – Seized truck allegedly handed over to Krishan Kumar, who was not named in official employee list and was claimed to be a construction contractor – Court held that even if Krishan Kumar was a supervisor, handing over seized liquor back to same person from whom it was recovered defies logic and legal procedure – Held: Serious procedural lapse undermines validity of entire action [Paras 21–24, 26–27]

Licensing – Renewal of Licence – State contended licence deemed cancelled for non-renewal – Court held that renewal had been delayed in earlier years without adverse consequences – Further, suspension of licence prevented petitioner from applying for renewal – Held: Petitioner could not be faulted for not renewing licence while suspension order was in effect [Paras 34–36, 38]

Excise Regulation – Permissible Wastage – Punjab Distillery Rules permit set-off of excess and deficient wastage across months within defined limits – Court held minor variation in physical stock of spirit and liquor was within acceptable norms and could not justify harsh penalty of suspension [Paras 28–30]

Right to Trade in Intoxicants – Fundamental Right – Court clarified that while no fundamental right exists to trade in intoxicants per se, once licence is granted, licensee acquires a protected right to carry on business subject to law – State cannot act arbitrarily or deny recourse to legal remedies [Para 31]

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Orders dated 15.6.2024 and 9.12.2024 suspending licences quashed – Commissioner (State Taxes and Excise) directed to determine appropriate compounding fee within 15 days and decide application for licence renewal accordingly.

Land Acquisition – Section 28-A – Beneficial Construction – Redetermination Allowed – Landowners who had not sought reference under Section 18 filed applications under Section 28-A within three months of award dated 30.01.2016 granting higher compensation – Held: Applications within limitation; SLAO order dated 17.02.2022 enhancing compensation @ ₹108/sq. mtr. with solatium and interest upheld – KUMS’ objections dismissed [Paras 7.1–7.6, 8(c)-(d)].

Limitation – Computation – Section 28-A – Commences From Specific Award Relied On – Contention that limitation ran from 1990 award unsustainable since that award was set aside; limitation runs from 2016 award relied upon by landowners – Applications filed on 26.04.2016 well within limitation [Paras 7.4–7.6, 8(b)-(c)].

Per Incuriam Precedent – Ramsingbhai vs. Pradeep Kumari – Banwari Clarified Law – Held: Earlier three-Judge Bench in Pradeep Kumari binding; Ramsingbhai per incuriam – Section 28-A to be construed liberally as beneficial legislation [Paras 7.11–7.12].

Hansoli Devi Case – Ineffective Reference – Acceptance of Compensation – Does Not Bar Relief – Even where references under Section 18 were dismissed as time-barred, right under Section 28-A subsists; acceptance of compensation with or without protest does not negate entitlement [Paras 7.13–7.16].

Equal Treatment – Compensation to Similarly Situated Landowners – Mandate of Section 28-A – Doctrine of distributive justice requires equal compensation for lands acquired under same notification – Financial burden on acquiring body no ground to deny statutory right [Paras 7.17–7.22].

Decision – Leading Petition Allowed – Connected KUMS Petitions Dismissed – KUMS directed to comply with SLAO order dated 17.02.2022 and deposit enhanced compensation with benefits within six weeks; failure to comply will attract 12% interest from date of default; landowners entitled to solatium, additional compensation, and statutory interest [Paras 8–9].

Land Acquisition – Redetermination of Compensation – Section 28-A of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Beneficial Construction – Limitation – Award of Enhanced Compensation – Maintainability – Applicability of Banwari v. HSIIDC, 2025 AIR (SC) 165 – Section 28-A is a beneficent provision intended to remove inequality among landowners whose lands were acquired under the same notification – Limitation of three months under Section 28-A begins from the date of the award relied upon and not from any earlier award subsequently set aside – Applications filed within three months from Reference Court’s award dated 30.01.2016 held within limitation – Order of SLAO dated 17.02.2022 granting redetermination at Rs.108/- per sq. mtr. with statutory benefits upheld – KUMS’ plea of limitation and non-maintainability rejected – Reliance placed on Banwari (supra), Union of India v. Pradeep Kumari, and Hansoli Devi – Beneficial interpretation applied [Paras 7.1–7.22, 8(a)–(e)].

Interpretation of Beneficial Legislation – Section 28-A – Purpose and Object – Equality in Compensation – Landowners under same notification entitled to equal treatment – Provision to be construed liberally to extend benefit to inarticulate and poor landowners – Earlier contrary ruling in Ramsingbhai v. State of Gujarat held per incuriam – Pradeep Kumari followed as binding precedent [Paras 7.11–7.13, 7.19–7.22].

Limitation – Commencement – Date of Award Relied Upon – Not from Earlier Set Aside Award – KUMS’ contention that time ran from 1990 award untenable as that award was quashed in appeal – Cause of action arose only upon Reference Court’s 2016 award upheld finally by Supreme Court – Applications filed on 26.04.2016 within limitation [Paras 7.4–7.6].

Interest and Statutory Benefits – Re-determined Compensation – Collector empowered to grant solatium, additional amount, and interest as per Act – No illegality in award of such benefits – Financial burden on public body no ground to deny statutory compensation [Paras 7.9–7.10, 7.18].

Equitable Compensation – Equal Treatment to Similarly Situated Landowners – Constitutional and Statutory Duty of State – Section 28-A to be read in light of Article 31 and principle of distributive justice – Denial of benefit on technical grounds amounts to discrimination [Paras 7.17–7.22].

Decision – Leading Writ Petition Allowed – Connected Petitions by Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Dismissed – SLAO’s Order dated 17.02.2022 Upheld – KUMS directed to deposit enhanced compensation at Rs.108/- per sq. mtr. with solatium, additional compensation, and interest within six weeks – In default, interest at 12% per annum from date of default till payment [Paras 9(i)–(v), 11].

SARFAESI Act – Availability of Statutory Remedy – Maintainability of Writ Petition – Borrower filed writ petition seeking installment facility and return of possession of mortgaged property – Learned Single Judge permitted repayment in installments and ordered return of possession upon part payment – Held: Writ petition not maintainable as borrower had not challenged possession notice under Section 13(4) or moved the DRT under Section 17 – When possession had already been taken, High Court should not have entertained writ petition – Remedy lies before Debts Recovery Tribunal [Paras 1, 12, 15–17]

SARFAESI Act – Direction to Return Possession of Secured Asset – Legality – Learned Single Judge directed Bank to return possession of secured asset upon partial payment of ₹4,00,000/- despite overdue amount being ₹18,06,135/- – Held: Such direction was contrary to statutory scheme under SARFAESI Act – Bank had legally taken possession before writ petition was filed – Order was unsustainable and without jurisdiction [Paras 8–10, 15–17]

Writ Jurisdiction – Scope of Article 226 in Financial and Recovery Matters – Supreme Court in Naveen Mathew Philip (2023) reiterated settled position that High Courts should not entertain petitions under Article 226 in SARFAESI disputes when alternative remedy under Section 17 is available – Writ jurisdiction not to be used to bypass statutory mechanism or to grant equitable indulgence in financial recovery proceedings [Paras 13–14]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of learned Single Judge dated 31.07.2025 in W.P.(C) No. 21496 of 2025 set aside – Writ petition dismissed as not maintainable – Petitioner at liberty to seek appropriate remedy before Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.