Criminal Procedure – Section 528 BNSS – FIR No. 281/2007 (IPC 323/341/506/34) – Police cancellation prepared in 2007/2009 but not filed – Final report filed and accepted on 22.08.2025 post-petition – Court deprecates 15-year delay; imposes ₹1,00,000 costs (₹25,000 to petitioner; ₹75,000 to Punjab SLSA-DRF); directions for departmental action, compliance affidavit by DGP within 90 days – Petition disposed as grievance redressed [Paras 3-8].

Administrative Lapse – Investigative Delay – Scope of Discretion – While no rigid statutory time-limit for filing final report, discretion must be reasonable and diligent – 15-year delay held antithetical to rule of law; non-application of mind and lack of diligence amount to abdication of statutory/constitutional duty – Court quotes classic exposition of “discretion” (Lord Halsbury) – Institutional accountability emphasized [Paras 5-7].

BNSS, 2023 – Section 528 – Maintainability and Relief – Direction sought to compel presentation of cancellation/status report regarding compromised FIR – State’s affidavit acknowledges missing file; corrective circular No. 30/2025 issued; show cause to then Dy.SP – Since final report filed and accepted on 22.08.2025, substantive grievance stood redressed – Petition disposed with costs and systemic directions [Paras 4, 7-8].

Costs and Deterrence – State Liability and Recovery – ₹1,00,000 costs imposed on State (₹25,000 to petitioner; ₹75,000 to Punjab State Legal Services Authority – Disaster Relief Fund) – Liberty to recover from salaries of delinquent officials per law – Departmental proceedings to be pursued in right earnest and concluded expeditiously; non-compliance may invite punitive consequences [Para 8].

Police Administration – Circular Compliance – DGP’s Circular No. 30 of 15.09.2025 regarding timely preparation, submission, and follow-up of cancellation/untraced reports to be implemented in letter and spirit – Not a paper directive; must be effectuated to achieve intended purpose; DGP to file compliance affidavit with Registrar General within 90 days [Paras 4, 8].

Decision – Final report in FIR accepted on 22.08.2025; petition disposed as redressed; costs of ₹1,00,000 imposed with directions on recovery, departmental action, and compliance affidavit by DGP within 90 days [Para 8].

Hindu Marriage – Divorce – Cruelty and Desertion – Denial of Relief – Husband sought dissolution of marriage under Sections 13(1)(a) and (b) HMA – Alleged cruelty, false accusations, and desertion by wife – Family Court found husband failed to prove cruelty of grave nature – Court also found no animus deserendi by wife – Held: Husband had deserted the wife, continued communication indicated condonation, and evidence of alleged extramarital affair with another woman did not qualify as cruelty or desertion by wife – Divorce rightly denied [Paras 36–43, 82–88].

Matrimonial Finance – Maintenance Pendente Lite – Quantum – Section 24 HMA – Wife sought enhancement of interim maintenance citing husband’s high salary – Husband opposed citing prior maintenance orders and wife’s alleged income – Court upheld Family Court’s discretion – Directed continued payment of Rs. 2,00,000/month to wife considering standard of living and ongoing litigation – Held: No interference warranted with maintenance order [Paras 23–28, 44(ii)].

Matrimonial Property – Jointly Held Property – Share in Sale Proceeds – Section 27 HMA and Section 14 HSA – Dispute over Rs. 1.09 crore from sale of jointly held flat – Wife claimed 50% as stridhan – Husband claimed exclusive ownership based on his financial contribution – Held: Title was joint and contribution irrelevant under Section 4 of the Benami Act – Wife entitled to 50% share – Registrar directed to release withheld 50% to wife [Paras 29–35, 44(i)].

Benami Transactions – Bar to Real Ownership Claim – Section 4 Benami Act – Husband’s plea that he alone funded the property held jointly was rejected – Held: Benami prohibition bars claim of real ownership against titleholder – Presumption of joint ownership applies when spouses jointly hold property, even if consideration is paid by one [Paras 32–34].

Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage – No Relief by High Court – Though Court acknowledged irretrievable breakdown of marriage due to long separation and litigation since 2006 – Held: Only Supreme Court has power under Article 142 to grant divorce on this ground – High Court cannot dissolve marriage solely on this basis [Paras 36, 80].

Section 23 HMA – Taking Advantage of Own Wrong – Husband had pre-decided to divorce wife, left matrimonial home first, and later alleged desertion – Conduct indicated intent to force separation and blame wife – Held: He could not take advantage of his own wrong under Section 23(1)(a) HMA [Paras 37–39, 43].

Condonation – Effect of Continued Cohabitation – Husband and wife continued to meet, dine, and interact after filing divorce – Court applied principle from Dastane v. Dastane – Found acts of alleged cruelty, if any, had been condoned – Condonation inferred from post-filing conduct [Paras 40, 56–57].

Decision:

Appeal for divorce (MAT.APP.(F.C.) 38/2019) dismissed – Judgment of Family Court upheld

Appeal for release of 50% property proceeds (MAT.APP.(F.C.) 217/2017) allowed – Amount to be released to wife within two months

Appeals on maintenance (MAT.APP.(F.C.) 102/2018 and 20/2018) disposed of – Interim maintenance of Rs. 2,00,000/month to continue

Divorce Petition – Amendment of Pleadings – Order VI Rule 17 CPC – Amendment sought after framing of issues – Not barred if facts arose subsequently or due diligence shown – No new cause of action; only elaboration of cruelty ground – Amendment rightly allowed – Petition dismissed [Paras 12-19].

Amendment of Pleadings – Trial commencement – Mere framing of issues not commencement of trial – Trial begins when evidence starts – Amendment permissible if sought before evidence or if new facts arise subsequently – SC precedents applied [Paras 12-13].

Hindu Marriage Act – Multiple grounds of divorce – No bar to include additional grounds by amendment – Filing successive petitions permissible; hence, taking additional ground in same petition avoids multiplicity – Res judicata does not apply between separate grounds under s.13 HMA [Para 17].

Cruelty – Allegations of immoral conduct with colleague – Amendment introducing subsequent incidents of misconduct and threats – Considered elaboration of cruelty already pleaded, not new cause of action – Properly allowed [Paras 15, 18].

Decision – Family Court order allowing amendment upheld – Petition dismissed; Family Court directed to conclude divorce proceedings expeditiously as per s.21-B HMA [Paras 19-20].

Chandigarh Housing Board Allotment – Transfer before expiry of 10 years and without conveyance deed – Invalid – Will unproved – Parties held entitled as co-heirs – Appeals partly allowed and disposed of [Paras 16–27].

Property Dispute – Allotment under Chandigarh Housing Board – Clause 12 – Transfer of house to daughter prior to completion of 10-year period or execution of conveyance deed – Transfer invalid – Relaxation under Regulation 50 requires written reasons, absent in this case – Held: Transfer in favour of respondent Pushpa Devi contrary to allotment conditions – Possession claim unsustainable [Paras 16–19].

Will – Proof and Effect – Registered Will dated 14.07.1999 relied upon by Pushpa Devi not produced in original – Beneficiary failed to depose fully or prove due execution – Earlier judgments in collateral litigation held Will unproved – Held: No benefit can accrue from unproved Will – Claim of sole ownership by Pushpa Devi rejected [Paras 20–24].

Ownership Rights – Chandigarh Housing Board – In absence of conveyance deed, allottee remains holder of allotment rights – On death of allottee Kaushalya Devi, all legal heirs including appellant and respondent entitled equally – Neither party can claim exclusive ownership – Directions issued to have property transferred in equal shares as per rules [Para 26].

Scope of Second Appeal – Section 100 CPC – Substantial question of law arises where lower appellate court’s findings based on misinterpretation of allotment conditions – High Court interferes, restores trial court’s dismissal of Pushpa Devi’s suit while clarifying parties’ joint entitlement [Paras 15–19, 25–27].

Decision – RSA No.1022/2012 filed by Bhushan Sehgal allowed – Suit of Pushpa Devi for possession and mesne profits dismissed – RSA No.1583/2012 partly allowed – Bhushan Sehgal not declared sole owner, but both parties held entitled to equal shares as heirs – Appeals disposed of accordingly [Paras 25–27].

Bail – MPID Act Offence – ₹377 crore fraud – Bail Rejected – Applicant, a Director of A.S. Agri & Aqua LLP, allegedly induced gullible investors with promises of doubled returns and crores of rupees per year – Investigation revealed siphoning of deposits, seizure of incriminating records, and similar antecedents – Court held gravity of offence, scale of fraud, and applicant’s role outweigh bail considerations – Bail application dismissed [Paras 18–22].

Arrest Grounds – Section 50 CrPC and Article 22(1) – Compliance sufficient if grounds conveyed – Applicant argued violation for want of written arrest grounds – Held: Since arrest was prior to SC ruling in Pankaj Bansal (03.10.2023), requirement of written grounds not mandatory – Communication through remand report and diary entries adequate – No demonstrable prejudice shown – Argument rejected [Paras 13–17].

Parity – Bail to Co-accused – Principle not Applicable – Applicant sought bail citing co-accused released by Trial Court – State has challenged their bail orders – Court held scale of fraud and applicant’s antecedents make parity inapplicable – Rejection sustained [Para 20].

MPID Act – Objective – Protection of Depositors – Court observed the scheme was not a genuine business venture but a unilateral promise of fixed returns – Precisely the mischief MPID Act intends to prevent – Bail denied in larger public interest [Paras 19, 21].

Decision – Bail Application No. 4116/2024 rejected – No case for exercise of discretion under Section 439 CrPC – Applicant to remain in custody pending trial [Para 22].

Succession Law – Letters of Administration – Second Grant on basis of Forged Will – Fraud on Court – Revocation Allowed – Probate of Will dated 4th April 1993 in favour of Dr. Feroze Duggan attained finality up to Supreme Court – Respondent suppressed material facts and obtained second Letters of Administration in 2022 on alleged Will dated 6th April 1993 – Held: Law does not permit successive grants over same estate; grant obtained by fraud and suppression of heirs is void ab initio – Letters of Administration dated 03.06.2022 and Deed of Transfer dated 17.06.2022 annulled – Exemplary costs imposed; suo motu contempt and criminal proceedings directed [Paras 86–89, 112].

Fraud on Court – Effect – Any proceeding obtained by deliberate deception stands vitiated – Court reaffirmed that “fraud unravels everything” – Principle of finality cannot shield fraudulent grants – Fraudulent averments in Petition and false affidavit constitute abuse of process; Court duty-bound to set aside such grant [Paras 88, 108–110].

Caveatable Interest – Locus of Executors and Legal Heirs – Section 213 Succession Act – Petitioners as executors and Class II heirs of Dr. Feroze Duggan held to have locus to seek revocation – Even persons acquiring interest after testator’s death entitled to move revocation – Challenge to locus by Respondent and alleged wife of Dr. Feroze Duggan rejected [Paras 90–91, 99–101].

Suspicious Circumstances – Forged Will – Unnatural Conduct – Respondent relied on alleged Will dated 6th April 1993 with vague language, unidentified attesting witnesses, contradictory explanations of delay, and unproved mortgage deed – Held: Improbable that testatrix who executed valid Will on 4th April 1993 with eminent witnesses would execute contradictory Will two days later – Delay of 29 years fatal – Circumstances establish fabrication [Paras 92–97, 102–103].

Abuse of Process – Suppression of Material Facts – Misrepresentation – Respondent falsely averred absence of legal heirs despite acknowledging grandchildren – Misleading averments treated Petition as uncontested – Court condemned suppression as deliberate fraud; initiated action under Section 340 CrPC equivalent provisions of BNS/BNSn – Exemplary costs imposed to deter frivolous litigation [Paras 35–38, 110–112].

Decision:

Petition allowed – Letters of Administration dated 03.06.2022 and Deed of Transfer dated 17.06.2022 cancelled – Registrar of Sub-Assurances directed to rectify records – Respondent saddled with costs of ₹25 lakhs – Suo motu contempt notice issued for breach of court orders – Prothonotary directed to lodge complaint for offences under BNS 2023 – Compliance to be reported every three months [Paras 112–113].

Lease Agreement – COVID-19 – Force Majeure Clause – Appeal Dismissed – Rent partially waived for lockdown period – Liquidated damages and penal rent claims rejected due to lack of actual loss – Amendment to Section 10 of Specific Relief Act held inapplicable to pre-2018 contracts [Paras 26-27, 44-46, 60-68].

Force Majeure – Lease Interpretation – Clause 12 invoked during COVID-19 – Pandemic held to be covered under “Act of God” and “Embargo” – Court upheld that the conditions in Clause 12 were illustrative, not exhaustive – Held: Lockdown restrictions justified non-payment of rent for April and May 2020 [Paras 26-27, 46-48].

Penalty Clauses – Clauses 14.2 and 7.2 – Claim for six months’ additional rent and double rent rejected – Held: No breach committed by lessee, and liquidated damages require proof of actual loss under Sections 73 & 74 of Contract Act – Contractual amount is upper limit; reasonable compensation necessary – Penal rent not awarded [Paras 39-46, 54-58].

Specific Relief – Retrospective Application – Amended Section 10 of Specific Relief Act not applicable to contracts executed before 01.10.2018 – Held: Court’s discretion in granting relief retained under pre-amendment law – SC decisions in Katta Sujatha Reddy and Daivasigamani relied upon [Paras 60-71].

Equitable Apportionment – Shared Burden of Pandemic – Court awarded 50% rent for April–May 2020 – Justified on ground that both lessor and lessee suffered economic hardship – Held: Equitable solution in absence of rent waiver agreement [Paras 52-53].

Summary Judgment – Maintainability – Application under Order XIII-A filed by appellant – Appellant estopped from arguing that suit required trial – Court justified in granting limited relief and rejecting exaggerated claims without trial [Para 74].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Force majeure clause rightly applied – No penal or double rent awarded – Rent granted at 50% for April–May 2020 and full rent from June 2020 to December 2020 – Interest and GST arrears also awarded – Decree of Single Judge upheld in entirety [Paras 51, 73, 75-76].

Tenancy Law - Eviction – Non-user – Section 12(1)(d), M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 – Decree of eviction affirmed – Shop found unused for over six months immediately preceding the suit – Electricity meter card and bills reflecting negligible/zero consumption coupled with witnesses’ testimony established non-use – Tenant failed to produce contemporaneous business records to show actual use – Held: Findings of First Appellate Court neither illegal nor perverse – Second appeal dismissed [Paras 20–29].

Second Appeal – Scope under Section 100 CPC – Interference with first appellate findings – Limited to substantial question of law – Where appreciation of evidence by First Appellate Court is plausible and supported by record, High Court will not reappreciate facts – No perversity shown – No interference warranted – Appeal dismissed [Paras 2–5, 20, 28–29].

Burden of Proof – Non-user ground – Initial onus on landlord to show non-use – Discharged through documentary and oral evidence – Onus then shifts to tenant to prove reasonable cause or actual use – Absence of invoices, licences, or electricity consumption showing business activity during relevant period is fatal to tenant’s defence – Adverse inference sustained [Paras 21, 23–27].

Electricity Consumption as Corroborative Evidence – Meter reading card noting “shop closed/no consumption” and bills showing only 10–11 units per month – Held indicative of no commercial activity – Supported by witness admissions and tenant’s own cross-examination acknowledging only average billing and lack of licence for “mawa” business – Non-user established [Paras 23–25].

Additional Evidence – Order 41 Rule 27 CPC – Earlier High Court remand and allowance set aside by Supreme Court – Direction to decide on existing record – High Court proceeds accordingly and evaluates only the materials already on record – No scope to re-open proof of additional documents [Paras 3–5].

Precedents – Applicability – Nilesh Laxmichand v. Shantaben (2019) 6 SCC 542 and Vora Rahimbhai (1985) 4 SCC 551 – Principles reiterated – Continuous non-use without reasonable cause for six months before suit is sufficient ground – Documentary proof of actual use expected from tenant – Applied to uphold eviction [Paras 18, 26–28].

Decision – Second appeal dismissed – First Appellate Court’s decree for eviction under Section 12(1)(d) confirmed – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 28–30].

Bail – NDPS Act – Recovery of 1.056 kg Charas – Section 37 NDPS – Bail Denied – The petitioner sought regular bail, contending he was merely a passenger in the car from which 1.056 kg of charas was recovered and had no knowledge of contraband – Prosecution opposed bail relying on Section 37, citing recovery of commercial quantity, petitioner’s links with co-accused through CDRs, and conscious possession – Held: Section 37 imposes twin conditions; court must be satisfied that accused is not guilty and not likely to reoffend – Recovery from vehicle, petitioner’s association with co-accused, and precedents (Madan Lal v. State of H.P., 2003) show prima facie conscious possession – No material to satisfy twin conditions – Bail refused [Paras 10–17].

Interpretation of Section 37 NDPS – “Reasonable Grounds” – Court reiterated that “reasonable grounds” means something more than prima facie grounds; requires credible, plausible grounds to believe accused is not guilty – Bail under NDPS Act not to be granted casually; societal interest in curbing drug menace overrides liberal bail principles [Paras 13–16].

Bail Jurisprudence – Supreme Court Precedents – Referred to Pinki v. State of U.P. (2025), State of Kerala v. Rajesh (2020), UOI v. Niyazuddin (2018), Mohd. Nawaz Khan (2021), and Narcotics Control Bureau v. Mohit Aggarwal (2022) – Held: liberal approach not permissible in NDPS cases involving commercial quantity; stringent satisfaction required for bail [Paras 8–16].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Bail denied – Petitioner failed to satisfy twin conditions of Section 37 NDPS Act [Para 19].