Partition – family settlement (13.12.2003) upheld as binding despite missing “original” – adverse inference for non-examined defendant – preliminary decree for partition and injunction granted; appeals allowed

Partition – Family Settlement – Exhibit A1 Treated as Original – Preliminary Decree Passed – Plaintiffs relied on Exh.A1 family settlement dated 13.12.2003 – Though “original” missing, mediator (PW3) testified to handing it over to defendant – all signatures present on last page – Defendants failed to enter witness box; adverse inference drawn – Exh.A1 accepted as genuine; partition preliminary decree granted in tune with A1–A5 sketches/drafts [Paras 12-23, 26-28].

Civil Procedure – Res Judicata & Partial Partition – Suit Maintainable – Earlier partition suit dismissed on basis of alleged will – Present suit based on subsequent family settlement; hence not barred by res judicata – Exclusion of certain properties justified as widow/daughters had no share therein; not bad for partial partition [Paras 11, 19-21].

Evidence – Non-examination of Party – Adverse Inference – 3rd defendant (widow of predeceased son) failed to depose – Held: adverse inference against her plea of fabrication of Exh.A1 – Plea of tampering rejected [Paras 14-15, 23-25].

Injunction – Rights of Co-owners – Permanent Injunction Granted – Plaintiff in O.S.193/2008 sought to restrain interference with quarry operations – In light of binding family settlement and possession of demarcated shares, injunction decree granted; prayer for damages rejected [Paras 27, 29-30].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – Common judgment set aside – O.S.232/2006 decreed; preliminary decree for partition passed in terms of Exh.A1–A5; O.S.193/2008 decreed for permanent injunction (damages denied); parties to bear own costs [Paras 28-30].

Bail – Sexual Assault, Extortion, and Cheating – Sections 318(4), 351(3) BNS, read with Sections 480 & 483 BNSS – Bail Granted – Petitioner accused of fraudulently collecting money, drugging, sexually assaulting complainant, extorting funds, and threatening with photographs – Delay of 14 months in lodging FIR, existence of live-in relationship, and counter-complaint lodged earlier by accused’s family considered – Court noted 68 days of custody and substantial progress of investigation – Bail granted with stringent conditions [Paras 2, 5, 7-10].

Judicial Custody – Bail Considerations – Continued detention not necessary – Custodial interrogation substantially complete – Risk of absconding mitigated by conditions – Bail ordered subject to strict compliance [Paras 8-9].

Conditions of Bail – Accused to execute ₹20,000 bond with sureties – Weekly appearance before police – Not to leave district without permission – No intimidation of witnesses – Passport to be surrendered/affidavit to be filed – Breach of conditions to invite consequences [Para 9].

Decision – Criminal Petition allowed – Petitioner enlarged on bail with conditions [Para 10].

Application 156(3) CrPC against singer – Registration of FIR - Lack of jurisdiction and absence of material details – Revisional application dismissed.

Hate Speech – Application under Section 156(3) CrPC – Registration of FIR - Offences under Sections 153, 153A, 295A, 298 IPC – Petition Dismissed – Petitioner sought FIR against singer for allegedly outraging religious sentiments through live concert speech – Magistrate rejected for want of jurisdiction – High Court upheld rejection noting absence of proof of date, time, or place of concert and that accused had no nexus with jurisdiction of Shyampukur PS [Paras 5-7, 16-17, 27].

Jurisdiction – Powers under Section 156(3) CrPC – Territorial Limits – Magistrate can only direct investigation within territorial jurisdiction – No material linking alleged incident to Shyampukur PS – Order rejecting application held correct [Paras 17, 19-20].

Zero FIR – Section 173 BNSS – Scope Explained – Zero FIR enables prompt registration irrespective of territorial jurisdiction, to be transferred to appropriate PS – However, even Zero FIR requires basic details (date, place) of incident – Mere social media clips without authentication insufficient [Paras 21-24].

Supreme Court Directions – Hate Speech – Shaheen Abdullah v. Union of India (2023) – State authorities must suo motu register FIRs in hate speech cases – In instant case, no suo motu action taken as no concrete incident shown [Para 25].

Decision – Revisional application dismissed – Magistrate’s refusal to direct FIR registration upheld – No illegality, infirmity, or perversity found [Paras 27-28].

Local Body Elections – Ward Formation/Delimitation – Const. Arts. 243-O & 243-ZG – High Court cannot interfere once objections heard and final notification issued – Petitions dismissed; elections to proceed per SC mandate.

Local Body Elections – Ward Formation – Constitutional Bar – Arts. 243-C, 243-K, 243-O, 243-ZG, 329(a) – Delimitation and allotment of seats, once finalized after objections and hearing, immune from writ interference – Only narrow exception: no objections invited/hearing denied – Entertaining challenges would stall elections – Bar strictly applied [Paras 3-12, 18-21].

Elections – Timely Conduct – Supreme Court Order dated 06.05.2025 (Rahul Ramesh Wagh v. State of Maharashtra) – Directed SEC to notify Zilla Parishad elections within 4 months – High Court held bound not to derail process – Petitions seeking to challenge ward notifications rejected [Paras 12-14, 19-21].

Ward Delimitation – Govt. Order dated 12.06.2025 prescribing procedure – Based on 2011 Census, contiguity, natural boundaries, Gram Panchayat integrity, voter convenience – Hearing granted and reasons recorded by Divisional Commissioners – Notifications upheld; no arbitrariness found [Paras 15-18, 23-27].

Jurisdiction under Article 226 – High Court not appellate authority – Cannot decide factual disputes of inclusion/exclusion of villages – Proper forum: election petitions – Precedents followed: State of U.P. v. Pradhan Sangh Kshetra Samiti, Anugrah Narain Singh v. State of U.P., Meghraj Kothari v. Delimitation Commission, Jadhav Shankar Dnyandeo v. Collector, Satara [Paras 4-11, 20].

Delay/Acquiescence – Petitioners who failed to object to draft notification cannot later challenge final ward notification – Belated challenges held impermissible, especially when elections imminent [Paras 11, 21].

Decision – All writ petitions dismissed – Final ward formation notifications upheld – No interference under Article 226; petitioners relegated to remedies under election law [Paras 21-22].

Delay Condonation – Article 227 – Law of Limitation – Delay of Over Three Years – Petition Dismissed – Defendants sought condonation citing Covid-19 and alleged ignorance of decree; Court found they were aware through counsel and execution proceedings; held gross negligence and indolence not excusable – Appellate Court rightly rejected delay condonation – High Court upheld refusal [Paras 8–14].

Specific Performance – Execution of Decree – Sale Deed Registered – Once execution completed, subsequent challenge barred – Defendants’ silence during execution proceedings proved lack of diligence; no ground to reopen concluded decree [Paras 4.1–4.3, 9–10].

Supervisory Jurisdiction – Limits of Article 227 – Court cannot interfere merely because a second view is possible – Interference limited to jurisdictional error; appellate court order well-reasoned – Petition rejected [Para 15].

Decision – Writ Petition Rejected – Impugned Order Confirmed – Rule discharged; no order as to costs [Paras 16–18].

Civil Writ - Illegal Migrant - Foreigners’ Tribunal – Burden of Proof – Section 2(a) of the Foreigners Act, 1946 – Declaration as Foreigner Upheld – Petitioner failed to establish linkage with projected parents through sale deed, jamabandi, and electoral rolls – Tribunal held evidence unreliable and inadmissible – High Court upheld Tribunal’s view, holding petitioner failed to discharge burden of proof of Indian citizenship [Paras 6-7, 21-23].

Reference Procedure – Local Verification Officer’s Report – Validity of Reference – Report indicated petitioner failed to submit documents – Electoral Registration Officer rightly referred matter to Tribunal – Held: No illegality in reference as suspicion of citizenship required adjudication by Tribunal [Paras 16-18].

Reliance on Precedents – Anjana Biswas, Indira Newar, Sona Kha, Md. Rahim Ali – Distinguished – Petitioner’s reliance misplaced as facts differed; here, absence of documents and contradictions in testimony justified reference and adverse finding [Paras 19-22].

Evidentiary Contradictions – Sale deed of 1971 and voter lists of 1985/1989 inconsistent – Petitioner concealed step-mother’s identity and linkage inconsistent – DW2’s voter identity card contradicted claim of relationship – Minor discrepancies held material, undermining credibility [Paras 21-22].

Judicial Review – Scope under Article 226 – High Court cannot re-appreciate evidence but only review procedural lapses – No procedural impropriety found – Petition dismissed [Paras 13, 23].

Decision – Writ petition dismissed – Opinion of Foreigners’ Tribunal declaring petitioner a post-1971 foreigner sustained [Para 23].

Civil Writ - Registration of Deed – Oral Refusal by Sub-Registrar – Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1908 – Illegal – Sub-Registrar cannot orally refuse to receive document for registration – Must receive and either register or pass a reasoned refusal order – Oral refusal set aside [Paras 3-4].

Co-owner’s Right to Alienate – Section 44 of the TP Act, 1882 – Consent of Co-owners Not Required – A co-owner has inherent right to transfer his undivided share in joint property – Sale deed of undivided interest valid even without consent of other co-owners – Executive instructions contrary to statutory law held non-est [Paras 3-4].

Precedents – North East Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2025 (2) Civ. C.C. 220 (AP) – Applied – Sub-Registrar must receive document and cannot reject orally – Damodar Mishra v. State of Odisha, W.P.(C) No.4340/2025 – Applied – Co-owner can transfer undivided share even without consent of others [Para 3].

Decision – Sub-Registrar, Khaira directed to receive and register petitioner’s sale deed concerning undivided interest/share without insisting on co-owners’ consent – If registered, deed to be returned to petitioner within 3 days after compliance with Orissa Registration Rules, 1988 and Notification of IGR, Odisha – Writ petition disposed of with directions [Paras 5-7].

Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – execution of enhanced award – doctrine of merger – 18% interest on enhanced compensation relates back to 2017 District Commission order – unjust enrichment plea rejected – Article 227 petition dismissed.

Consumer Law – Execution of Enhanced Award – Interest on Enhanced Amount – Petition Dismissed – DCDRC awarded compensation with 18% interest (2017); State Commission later enhanced amount (2023) – Held: By doctrine of merger, enhanced amount relates back; interest applies from original award date – Interest not “interest on interest”; statutory and precedential basis affirmed – Petitioners’ plea of unjust enrichment rejected [Paras 32-34].

Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Maintainability – Article 227 – Petition Maintainable but No Interference Warranted – Court clarified against ex parte State Commission orders, remedy lies before National Commission (s.51(5)); otherwise Article 227 can be invoked – In present case, orders of District and State Commissions affirmed as proper; supervisory jurisdiction not exercised [Paras 22-30].

Interest – Reasonableness – High Rate of 18% – Validity – Petitioners argued excessive and contrary to Experion Developers (2022) & Suneja Towers (2023) – Held: Rate awarded by consumer fora intended as deterrent to delay; not compound interest; cannot be interfered with in supervisory review [Paras 13-16, 34].

Decision – Miscellaneous Petition Dismissed – Orders dated 03.10.2023 (DCDRC-II) and 09.11.2023 (SCDRC, Bhopal) affirmed; enhanced compensation with 18% interest payable from 18.01.2017 – No interference warranted [Para 35].

Criminal Law – SC/ST Act – Anticipatory Bail – Maintainability – Where the allegations in FIR do not disclose a prima facie offence under the SC/ST Act, bar under Sections 18 and 18A of the Act does not apply – In such cases, anticipatory bail is maintainable under Section 438 CrPC [now Section 482 BNSS] before the High Court – Held: High Court retains concurrent original jurisdiction in such cases [Paras 22-24, 27].

Criminal Procedure – Jurisdiction of High Court – Despite creation of Special Courts under the SC/ST Act, the High Court retains both original jurisdiction under Section 438 CrPC and appellate jurisdiction under Section 14A of the Act – Special Court gets jurisdiction only when prima facie case under the Act is made out – Where such case is absent, Special Court cannot entertain anticipatory bail applications [Paras 24, 27].

Binding Precedent – Dismissal of SLP without reason – Order dated 31.01.2025 by Supreme Court dismissing SLPs on the forum issue not binding as precedent – Dismissal without reasons is not ratio decidendi and does not override express holdings of constitutionally binding judgments [Paras 24-26].

Supreme Court Precedents – Reaffirmation of legal position in Prathvi Raj Chauhan and Shajan Skaria – No bar on anticipatory bail where no prima facie case under SC/ST Act – Accused in such situations may approach the High Court under Section 438 CrPC [Paras 22-23, 27].

Decision: Reference answered – Held:

(1) When no prima facie case under SC/ST Act is made out, application for anticipatory bail is maintainable before High Court under Section 438 CrPC (now Section 482 BNSS, 2023)

(2) Special/Exclusive Special Courts have no jurisdiction to entertain anticipatory bail in such cases

(3) High Court retains concurrent original jurisdiction under Section 438 CrPC and appellate jurisdiction under Section 14A of the Act [Para 27].