Anticipatory Bail – Sections 364, 384, 388, 342, 120B of IPC - Rejection on Grounds of Absconding – Section 482 BNSS – Custodial Interrogation Required – The applicant, a police officer, sought anticipatory bail after being accused of kidnapping, extortion and corruption – The Court observed the applicant was evading arrest since registration of FIR and was declared proclaimed offender – Held: Granting anticipatory bail in such circumstances would hamper investigation – Application rejected [Paras 1-11, 19].

Police Officer Misconduct – Breach of Duty – Higher Scrutiny Applied – Serious Offences Involving Public Trust – The Court emphasized that police officers are duty-bound to protect citizens, and any involvement in grave offences like abduction and extortion violates public trust – Held: Considering the nature and gravity of offences and the material evidence collected, anticipatory bail was not permissible [Paras 10-11].

Abscondence and Defiance of Court Orders – Proclaimed Offender Proceedings – Court found that despite initiation of warrant and proclamation proceedings under Sections 70 and 82 CrPC, the applicant continued evading law – Such conduct disentitled him from discretionary relief under Section 482 BNSS [Paras 11-13].

No Exceptional Circumstance – Anticipatory Bail Denied in Serious Economic and Corruption Offences – The Court relied on multiple Supreme Court judgments highlighting that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy reserved for exceptional cases – Held: Present case involves serious offences impacting societal interest, thus no ground to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 BNSS [Paras 14-18].

Final Decision – Application for Anticipatory Bail Rejected – Considering the conduct of the applicant, gravity of accusations, and the necessity of custodial interrogation, anticipatory bail application was dismissed with liberty to not influence the main trial [Paras 19-20].

Civil Law - Partition Suit – Married Daughter’s Succession Right – Hindu Succession Act Prevails – 1/3rd Share Granted - The appellant, daughter of the original propositus, filed a suit for partition claiming 1/3rd share in properties granted as occupancy rights – Trial Court dismissed the suit stating married daughter not a member of family under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act – Held: Succession is governed by Hindu Succession Act, not KLR Act – Plaintiff entitled to 1/3rd share – Purchasers from co-sharer held to be entitled only to vendor's limited share – Appeal partly allowed and decree of partition passed [Paras 1, 22-34].

Partition and Succession – Right of Married Daughter – Hindu Succession Act Overrides KLR Act – 1/3rd Share Decreed - Trial Court erred in holding that plaintiff was not entitled to share in agricultural land due to exclusion from “family” under Section 2(12) of KLR Act – Held: Hindu Succession Act governs intestate succession and overrides restrictive definition under KLR Act – Married daughter has equal right to inherit ancestral property – Plaintiff entitled to 1/3rd share [Paras 22-30].

Adoption – Validity of Adoption Deed – Adoption of Defendant No.1 by Propositus Upheld - Adoption of Defendant No.1 by the propositus Basagouda supported by registered deed and oral evidence – Court accepted adoption as valid – Defendant No.1 held entitled to 1/3rd share as adopted son [Paras 31-32].

Joint Family Property – Grant of Occupancy Rights – Devolution Among Legal Heirs - Agricultural land granted under KLR Act in favour of father continues to be joint family property unless otherwise provided – All Class I legal heirs including daughters inherit equally – Held: Right of partition survives in favour of married daughter [Paras 25-28].

Bonafide Purchaser – Sale of 1/3rd Share by Adopted Son – Rights of Purchasers Protected - Defendants who purchased property from Defendant No.1 admitted they bought only 1/3rd share – Held: Purchasers are bonafide purchasers of co-sharer’s limited right – Cannot affect rights of other heirs – Their remedy lies against vendor alone [Paras 33-34].

Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – Judgment and Decree Set Aside - Judgment and decree of Trial Court dismissing suit set aside – Plaintiff granted 1/3rd share in suit schedule properties – Purchasers from co-sharer directed to work out remedy without affecting partition – No costs awarded [Para 34].

Criminal Law - Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Non-Compliance of Summons – Section 174 IPC vs. Section 117 Customs Act – Complaint Quashed – The petitioner challenged the criminal complaint and Non-Bailable Warrants issued against him for non-compliance of a summons under Section 108 Customs Act – Held: The Customs Act is a complete code providing a specific penalty under Section 117 for such contravention, hence prosecution under Section 174 IPC is legally impermissible – Court quashed the complaint and proceedings as an abuse of the legal process [Paras 39-51, 57].

Supremacy of Special Legislation – Priority of Customs Act over General IPC Provisions – Special Law to Prevail – The Court reiterated that under Sections 4 and 5 Cr.P.C., special laws prevail over general criminal law – In cases of violation of Section 108 Customs Act, penalty must be imposed under Section 117 of the Act and not under IPC – Complaints invoking Section 174 IPC held not maintainable [Paras 42-51].

Abuse of Process – Mechanical Initiation of Criminal Action – Personal Liberty Safeguarded – The Court noted petitioner’s continued cooperation in investigation except for one instance and observed issuance of multiple complaints under IPC for the same conduct amounts to harassment – Held: Continuation of proceedings would result in grave abuse of judicial process and arbitrary deprivation of liberty – Complaint quashed [Paras 52-55].

Principle of Alternate Remedy – Customs Act Provides Complete Mechanism – Appropriate Course Specified – The Court clarified that notwithstanding quashing of IPC complaint, respondents retain liberty to proceed under Customs Act in accordance with law, thus balancing enforcement interests with individual rights [Para 57].

Decision – Petition Allowed – Complaint and Warrants Quashed – Court exercised inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of process and protect personal liberty, affirming that recourse to IPC in cases governed by special statutes is impermissible – Petition allowed, complaint and Non-Bailable Warrants quashed [Paras 56-57].

Civil Law - Section 2, 3 and 17 of the Indian Stamp Act  - Stamp Duty – Valuation Date – Market Value on Date of Sale Deed Relevant – Divergence Resolved – The Division Bench answered the reference on the issue of stamp duty valuation under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 – Held that for purposes of determining the stamp duty on a conveyance/sale deed, the relevant market value is that prevailing on the date of execution of the sale deed, and not the date of agreement to sell – Judgment in Harvinder Pal Singla’s case held not good law – Reference answered accordingly [Paras 1, 10-12].

Interpretation – Charging Section vs. Transaction – Stamp Duty Payable on Instrument, Not Transaction – Section 3 of the 1899 Act makes stamp duty chargeable on the “instrument” and not on the underlying transaction – The nature of transaction may be relevant only for determining the type of instrument, but the charge is on the instrument itself [Para 5].

Binding Precedents – Harvinder Pal Singla Overruled – Judgment in Residents’ Welfare Association’s Case Distinguished – The Court held that the view taken in Harvinder Pal Singla’s case is not valid since it relied on a precedent that was inapplicable to conveyance deeds – Held: Judgment in Residents’ Welfare Association's case pertained to assignment of lease, not conveyance of ownership [Paras 7-9, 11].

Supreme Court Authority – Khandaka Jain Jewellers Followed – Prevailing Market Rate at Time of Sale Deed Controls – The Division Bench relied upon the judgment in State of Rajasthan v. Khandaka Jain Jewellers, where the Supreme Court held that stamp duty is to be computed on the basis of market value as on date of execution of sale deed – Also followed Shanti Bhushan v. State of U.P. reaffirming this position [Paras 6, 10].

Final Decision – Reference Answered – Market Value on Date of Execution Relevant – Division Bench held that the correct legal position is that market rate applicable at the time of execution of the sale deed governs the stamp duty – Reference disposed of accordingly [Para 12].

Anticipatory Bail – Maintainability under NDPS Act – Rigour of Section 37 Applicable – Applicant sought anticipatory bail in connection with offences under Sections 8(c), 21(b), 27, 29 of the NDPS Act – Prosecution objected to maintainability citing Supreme Court decisions emphasizing stringent conditions under Section 37 – Held: Anticipatory bail not maintainable where prima facie involvement in drug trafficking is revealed—custodial interrogation necessary—Section 37’s embargo applies despite applicant’s contention of being charged under Section 27 only [Paras 7-9, 14].

NDPS Act – Prima Facie Evidence of Involvement in Trafficking – Application Rejected – Investigation revealed multiple financial transactions between applicant and main accused dealing in contraband, as well as call data records and independent witness statements – Despite applicant’s claim of transactions relating to firecracker business, Court held prima facie material indicating complicity in illicit trafficking—custodial interrogation required to unearth wider conspiracy [Paras 8-9].

Offence under Section 27 NDPS – Bailable or Non-Bailable – Controversy Pending Before Larger Bench – Applicant argued Section 27 offence is bailable citing Stefan Mueller’s case – Court held pending reference before Larger Bench in Karishma Prakash’s case, and in view of Rhea Chakraborty and Constitutional Bench decision in Baldev Singh, offences under NDPS Act including Section 27 to be treated as cognizable and non-bailable—Held: Applicant’s reliance on Stefan Mueller misplaced [Paras 10, 13].

NDPS Bail Jurisprudence – Custodial Interrogation Essential in Trafficking Cases – Court reaffirmed principle from Supreme Court decisions in Muraleedharan and Ram Samujh that custodial interrogation is vital in drug trafficking cases to dismantle networks and prevent continued illicit activity—Held: Applicant’s custodial interrogation justified despite filing of charge sheet [Paras 7, 9].

Decision – Anticipatory Bail Application Rejected – Held: Given serious allegations, prima facie involvement, and pending investigation on financial trail, applicant not entitled to anticipatory bail – Liberty granted to apply for regular bail before trial court [Paras 14-16].

Criminal Law – Appeal Against Acquittal  – Cheque Dishonour Acquittal – Section 138 NI Act – Appeal Transferred to Sessions Court – The appellant sought leave to appeal under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. against acquittal in a dishonoured cheque complaint – High Court relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in M/s. Celestium Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc., 2025(3) RCR (Criminal) 208, which clarified that a victim under Section 138 NI Act has an unqualified right to appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. before the Sessions Court without seeking leave from the High Court – Held: The present application under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. is to be treated as an appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C., and matter transferred to Sessions Court for disposal on merits [Paras 3, 5].

Prospective Overruling – Applicability of Judgments – Right to Appeal Clarified – Supreme Court’s ruling in Directorate of Revenue Intelligence vs. Raj Kumar Arora, Crl. A. No. 1319 of 2013, decided on 17.04.2025 applied the doctrine of prospective overruling and reiterated that judicial pronouncements on interpretation of law have retrospective effect unless specified otherwise – Held: Interpretation of Sections 372 and 378 Cr.P.C. by Supreme Court applies retrospectively, entitling the complainant to appeal before Sessions Court [Paras 4-5].

Victim’s Right of Appeal – Distinction Between Victim and Complainant – The Court emphasised the enhanced right of appeal conferred upon victims by the Proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C., distinguishing it from the limited rights under Section 378(4) – Held: A payee or holder of cheque under Section 138 NI Act qualifies as ‘victim’ under Section 2(wa) Cr.P.C., entitled to file appeal directly before Sessions Court [Paras 3, 5].

Decision – Matter Transferred to Sessions Court – Leave Application Treated as Appeal – The High Court directed that the appeal be treated under Section 372 Cr.P.C. and entrusted to Sessions Judge, Ambala for adjudication on merits – Complete record directed to be transferred to Sessions Court [Paras 5-6].

Criminal Law - Murder – Conviction under Section 302 IPC – Conviction Upheld – Appeal arose from conviction of the appellant for triple murder of his parents and married sister – Multiple prosecution witnesses including relatives, neighbours, and medical personnel testified to extra-judicial confessions made by the appellant – Post-mortem findings corroborated the confessions – The convict failed to offer any plausible explanation under Section 313 CrPC regarding injuries sustained or circumstances of the crime – Held: Prosecution established guilt of the convict beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction under Section 302 IPC upheld [Paras 1-45].

Death Sentence – Rarest of Rare Doctrine – Death Sentence Commuted – Though Trial Court awarded death penalty considering aggravating circumstances, the High Court re-assessed on the touchstone of the ‘rarest of rare’ principle – No prior criminal antecedents, age of convict (41 years), reputation as a private tutor, and absence of evidence indicating beyond reformation considered as mitigating factors – Held: Death sentence not warranted – Sentence commuted to life imprisonment [Paras 46-52].

Extra-Judicial Confession – Reliability and Corroboration – Extra-judicial confessions made to multiple persons including P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.6, P.W.7, and P.W.10 were consistent, corroborated each other, and aligned with medical and post-mortem evidence – Convict did not deny making such confessions under Section 313 CrPC – Held: Extra-judicial confessions found credible and admissible, forming a significant part of the conviction [Paras 39-44].

Burden under Section 106 of Evidence Act – Failure to Explain Circumstances – Convict was found at crime scene with self-inflicted injuries alongside deceased family members – Convict failed to discharge burden under Section 106 Evidence Act to explain incriminating circumstances especially being present at crime scene – Held: Adverse inference drawn against the convict in absence of plausible explanation [Paras 41, 44].

Investigation Lapses – No Benefit to Defence – Defence highlighted lapses such as absence of recovery of weapons under Section 27 Evidence Act, no forensic tests, and faulty sketch map – Held: Such lapses did not dilute overwhelming direct and corroborative evidence proving the charge beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction not vitiated on account of these lapses [Paras 2-8, 36].

Sentencing Principles – Reformative Approach – Following Supreme Court decision in Manoj & Ors. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2023) 2 SCC 353, Court held that life sentence is appropriate where possibility of reformation exists – Convict directed to undergo life imprisonment with set-off of pre-trial custody period under Section 428 CrPC [Paras 46-53].

Decision – Conviction Affirmed, Death Sentence Commuted – Conviction under Section 302 IPC upheld – Death penalty commuted to life imprisonment – Time already served to be set-off – Death reference and appeal disposed of accordingly [Paras 54-55].

Criminal Law - Section 138 of the – Cheque Bounce - Expert Evidence – Request for Second Expert Opinion after Adverse Private Report – Petition Dismissed – Petitioner sought to refer signatures on the cheque to a Government Forensic Expert after already examining a private forensic expert whose opinion was discarded by the trial court – Court held that when the petitioner has already led forensic evidence and the report is on record, seeking a second expert opinion amounts to misuse of process – Held: Petition dismissed, no necessity to obtain further opinion once expert opinion already forms part of record [Paras 1-7, 13].

Fair Trial – Repeated Reference to Forensic Examination – Principle against Endless Litigation – Citing precedents including R. Bhaskar Reddy v. Chinni and Santhosh K.S. v. State of Kerala, the Court held that accused cannot repeatedly seek expert opinion after obtaining an adverse report—Right to fair trial does not extend to unending delay tactics—Held: Trial court correctly exercised discretion rejecting fresh application under Section 45 of Evidence Act [Paras 6-7, 12-13].

Court’s Power to Question Witnesses – Trial Court Not a Mute Spectator – The Court upheld trial judge’s authority to pose questions to witnesses for eliciting truth—Referring to State of M.P. v. Balveer Singh and Munna Pandey v. State of Bihar, it reiterated that judicial intervention through questions is valid and ensures fair trial [Paras 9-10].

Misuse of Court Process – Accusation of Bias against Trial Court – Mala Fide Intent – Court found the petitioner’s application driven by allegations of bias rather than genuine grievance—Held: Application was not bona fide, intended to delay trial, hence rightly dismissed [Paras 11, 13].

Final Decision – Petition Dismissed – The Court dismissed the petition challenging order dated 16.06.2025 and upheld trial court’s refusal to refer matter to fresh forensic examination—Observations confined to petition disposal with no bearing on final trial outcome [Paras 13-14].

Criminal Procedure – Proclamation and Attachment – Validity – The petitioner challenged the order of the trial court declaring him a proclaimed person and issuing a notice under Section 83 Cr.P.C. for the attachment of his property. The petitioner contended that the trial court conducted the proceedings in haste and did not adhere to the prescribed procedures under Section 82 Cr.P.C.​​.

Exemption from Personal Appearance – The petitioner had moved applications for exemption from personal appearance, which were initially allowed but later declined, leading to the issuance of warrants of arrest and subsequently proclamation warrants. The petitioner argued that he was never served with the said warrant as he was not residing at the address, and the issuance of the warrant was furnished to an unrelated person​​.

Issuance of Proclamation – The court emphasized that the proclamation process must strictly adhere to the procedures laid down in Section 82 Cr.P.C., which include public reading, affixation to the person's house, and publication in a local newspaper. The trial court's reliance on information from an unknown person without verifying the petitioner's current address was deemed insufficient​​.

Decision: The order dated 30.05.2024 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gurugram, in case No. NACT/77022/2023, was found to be flawed and not in compliance with Section 82 Cr.P.C. The order was quashed, and the petition was allowed​​.