Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Dismissal in Default – Singular Default – Complaint dismissed in default by ACJM, Shimla on 08.04.2025 for non-appearance of complainant and her counsel — Appellant-complainant submitted unavoidable circumstances prevented appearance and counsel was expected to seek adjournment — Matter repeatedly called throughout the day but neither complainant nor counsel appeared — Held: Trial court ought not to have straightway dismissed complaint; a single default in appearance does not justify dismissal with its serious consequence of acquittal — Appeal allowed; complaint restored [Paras 4, 11–13].

"Section 279 BNSS — Discretion Must be Exercised Judicially" – Section 279 of BNSS (erstwhile Section 256 CrPC) confers discretion on Magistrate to either acquit accused or adjourn the matter — Magistrate may also dispense with personal attendance where complainant is represented by advocate — Dismissal and consequent acquittal under Section 279 BNSS becomes final in view of Section 403 BNSS which bars courts from altering signed judgments — Held: Power under Section 279 BNSS must be exercised judicially and fairly; court could have issued fresh notice, adjourned, or proceeded on the basis of evidence already on record [Paras 5–6, 11].

"One Default Not Enough — Complainant's Track Record Relevant" – No prior default in prosecution of complaint shown on record — Held: Where complainant has no history of default, a single absence does not justify axing the complaint; court should adjourn to do substantial justice — Ratio of Associated Cement Co. Ltd., Mohd. Azeem, S. Anand and N.K. Sharma applied [Paras 7–11].

Decision: Appeal allowed — Order dated 08.04.2025 quashed and set aside — Criminal Complaint No.1351/2023 restored to its original number — Trial court directed to proceed from the stage at which complaint was dismissed — Parties directed to appear before trial court on 06.05.2026.

Dowry Death — Section 319 Cr.P.C. — Summoning of Additional Accused — Unmarried Sisters of Husband — Vague Allegations — Revision Allowed — Petitioners-revisionists (petitioner nos. 3 to 5), unmarried sisters of accused Pradeep, were summoned as additional accused by the trial court in a Sessions Trial arising out of a dowry death case under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC — F.I.R. contained no specific allegations of dowry demand against them — Dying declaration of the deceased implicated only accused Munesh (mother-in-law) — Charge sheet filed against Pradeep and Munesh only after investigation exonerated petitioners — Held: Impugned order suffers from grave illegality and is set aside qua petitioner nos. 3 to 5 [Paras 2, 7, 8, 9].

Section 319 Cr.P.C. — Scope and Limitations — Extraordinary Power — Cannot Be Exercised on Pre-Trial Material — Section 319 Cr.P.C. confers extraordinary jurisdiction upon the trial court to summon persons not before it, but such power must be exercised only on the strength of evidence adduced during trial — Trial court erred in relying upon the F.I.R. allegations and statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as the foundation for summoning petitioners — Material so relied upon was already before the court at the time of cognizance and charge framing, yet no order was passed at that stage — Held: Invocation of Section 319 Cr.P.C. on the basis of pre-trial material is a serious error of law [Paras 6, 7, 8].

Evidence — Testimonies of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 — No New Evidence Emerging During Trial — Dowry demand attributed by P.W.-1 (Mainpal, complainant) and P.W.-2 (Neeraj Kumar) to accused Pradeep, who had telephonically demanded cash and a motorcycle — Depositions of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 merely reiterated the version in the F.I.R., which had already been considered by the Investigating Officer while exonerating petitioners — Held: Such testimony cannot constitute new evidence emerging during trial so as to justify exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. against petitioners [Paras 2, 7].

Revision — Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 — Rendered Infructuous — Petitioner nos. 1 and 2 (Rishipal, father-in-law, and another) were directed to associate with the trial during pendency of the revision — Main trial concluded in acquittal of all accused vide judgment dated 29.3.2012 — Revision petition qua petitioner nos. 1 and 2 held infructuous in view of their acquittal [Para 5].

Decision: Revision petition allowed qua petitioner nos. 3 to 5 (Renu, Nidhi @ Chinu, and Ritu) — Impugned order dated 3.3.2011 set aside qua them — Revision petition dismissed as infructuous qua petitioner nos. 1 and 2 in view of acquittal recorded on 29.3.2012.

Criminal Law - SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Section 3(1)(r) – Proof of Victim's Caste – Sine Qua Non – Appellants convicted under Section 3(1)(r) for allegedly abusing complainant knowing him to belong to Harijan/Scheduled Caste community – Prosecution relied on a temporary, undated caste certificate (Ex. P/2) issued by Tahsildar – Held: Tahsildar is not a competent authority to issue caste certificate as per the Supreme Court's dictum in Ku. Madhuri Patil – Temporary undated certificate valid for six months from issuance has no evidentiary value – Oral assertion by complainant of belonging to Harijan caste insufficient – Filing and proving a valid caste certificate issued by competent authority is sine qua non for establishing offence under the Act – Prosecution failed to prove caste of victim – Conviction under Section 3(1)(r) set aside [Paras 15-21].

SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Section 3(1)(r) – Intent to Humiliate on Caste Basis – Even if caste were proved, offence under Section 3(1)(r) requires that the insult or intimidation be committed with intent to humiliate the victim on the ground of caste identity, linked to practices of untouchability and caste-based discrimination – Mere knowledge that victim belongs to SC/ST insufficient – Prosecution also failed to establish that appellants abused complainant knowing him to belong to Scheduled Caste with requisite intent – Following Shajan Skaria vs. State of Kerala [Paras 20-21].

Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 294 – Obscenity – Proof – Appellants abused victim using filthy language of a sexual and lustful character in a public place – Evidence of PW/1 and PW/3 corroborated the incident without effective cross-examination – Held: Prosecution proved offence under Section 294 beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction upheld – However, considering lapse of over 21 years since the incident, appellant No. 1 now aged 73 years and appellant No. 2 now aged 43 years, sentence of six months reduced to period already undergone (one day) with fine enhanced from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 2,000/- each – Difference of Rs. 1,500/- to be deposited by each appellant as victim compensation under Section 357 Cr.P.C. within eight weeks [Paras 22-26].

Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 506(2) – Criminal Intimidation – Essential Ingredients – Conviction of appellant No. 1 for criminal intimidation challenged – Held: Essential ingredients of Section 503 IPC require proof of a threat made with specific intent to cause alarm or to compel doing/omitting an act – Complainant's evidence did not disclose any such intent on the part of appellants – Mere utterance of words without proven intent to cause alarm insufficient – Following Parminder Kaur vs. State of Punjab and Sharif Ahmed vs. State of U.P. – Conviction under Section 506(2) set aside [Paras 27-29].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Conviction and sentence of appellants under Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 506(2) IPC set aside – Appellants acquitted of those charges – Conviction under Section 294 IPC affirmed – Sentence reduced to period already undergone with fine enhanced to Rs. 2,000/- each; difference of Rs. 1,500/- each to be deposited as victim compensation within eight weeks – Bail bonds to continue for six months.

Criminal Law - Personal Liberty — Illegal Arrest — De Facto Custody — 24-Hour Mandate — Section 58 BNSS / Article 22(2) — Petition Allowed — Petitioner, a partner of pharmaceutical firm M/s Digital Vision, was allegedly involved in illegal inter-state diversion of psychotropic medicines — NCB conducted search of petitioner's premises on 31.10.2025 at about 10:45 P.M., served notice under Section 67 NDPS Act, and the petitioner travelled to Chandigarh in the NCB vehicle, remaining continuously with NCB officials from about 10:45 P.M. on 31.10.2025 — Formal arrest recorded only at 9:00 P.M. on 01.11.2025 — Petitioner produced before Magistrate at 2:00 P.M. on 02.11.2025 — Held: Petitioner was in coercive NCB custody from approximately 10:45/11:00 P.M. on 31.10.2025; formal arrest memo was a mere paper transaction; total period of detention exceeded 24 hours; arrest/detention is illegal [Paras 3, 13, 14].

Arrest — Definition and Commencement — De Facto vs. De Jure Arrest — Term 'Arrest' Not Defined in Cr.P.C./BNSS — The term 'arrest' is a term of art denoting a state of apprehension, restraint or total deprivation of liberty — Whether a person is arrested does not depend on the nomenclature assigned by the investigating agency such as "detention for questioning" or "custody for inquiry" but on the factual deprivation of personal liberty to move where he pleases — The moment police surveillance and restriction on the movement of the individual commences, the clock of liberty begins — Entry in the arrest memo is merely declaratory and not conclusive proof of actual time of arrest — Held: The terminus a quo for computing 24-hour period is the moment of actual physical deprivation of liberty, not the time noted in the formal arrest memo [Paras 11, 11.1, 11.2, 12].

Section 57 Cr.P.C. / Section 58 BNSS / Article 22(2) — Constitutional Safeguard — Dual Purpose — Violation Cannot Be Cured by Remand Order — The mandate of producing an arrested person before the nearest Magistrate within 24 hours serves a dual sacrosanct purpose: (i) to verify the legality of arrest, and (ii) to subject the necessity of further detention to judicial scrutiny — This constitutional command is not a surplusage of legal prose but a peremptory command — Violation thereof cannot be cured by the subsequent passing of a remand order — Held: Once violation of Articles 21 and 22 is established, the arrest itself stands vitiated and the individual deserves to be enlarged on bail [Paras 11, 11.3].

Magistrate — Duty on Production of Arrestee — Proactive Judicial Scrutiny — The duty of a Magistrate before whom an arrestee is produced is not a mere ministerial act of recording presence but a solemn judicial interrogation of the arresting authority's narrative — The Magistrate must pierce the veil of documentation and identify the actual terminus a quo of detention by examining the factual substratum of arrest, stripping away any administrative curtain the investigating agency may have drawn — The Magistrate is duty-bound to inquire into the where, when and how of the capture so that a twilight zone of illegal detention is not regularized through sanitized police records [Para 11.4].

Investigative Powers — Distinction Between Lawful Summoning and Coercive Detention — A clear distinction must be drawn between coercive subsumption of volition and genuine investigative functions such as summoning for joining investigation, production of documents or recording of statements — Where no palpable fetter exists upon the individual's ambulatory freedom and he retains unhindered access to communicate with the world and is free to depart, the 24-hour clock does not commence — However, where a person is detained overnight in the police/agency office, compelled to eat and sleep there, and restricted from leaving, such restraint constitutes an arrest in law regardless of its label — No universal exhaustive guidelines can be laid down as each case has its own unique factual conspectus [Para 11.2].

Decision: Petition allowed — Petitioner held to have been arrested/detained by NCB beyond the prescribed 24-hour period without requisite judicial order — Petitioner directed to be released from jail, if not required in any other case, upon furnishing requisite bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned Trial Court/CJM/Duty Magistrate — Observations not to affect merits of the trial.

Criminal Law – Quashment – Section 498-A RPC – Omnibus and Vague Allegations – Matrimonial Dispute – Complainant-wife alleged mental and physical harassment, dowry demand, and illicit relations of husband with co-petitioner Arti Devi – Charges framed under Sections 498-A and 506 RPC – Held: Where allegations of cruelty, harassment, and dowry demand are wholesale, omnibus, and lacking in specific particulars as to time, date, place, or manner of occurrence, continuation of criminal proceedings is not sustainable and amounts to abuse of process of law – FIR, chargesheet, and charge-framing order quashed [Paras 15, 21-26].

Section 498-A RPC – Misuse – Counter-Blast Proceedings – Growing tendency to invoke Section 498-A as a tool for personal vendetta against husband and his family noted – Husband had prior in time filed petition for annulment of marriage under Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act and a complaint under Sections 420/506 RPC against the complainant-wife – Present criminal proceedings found to be manifestly attended with mala fide and instituted with ulterior motive to wreak vengeance – Such tendency required to be dealt with firmly [Paras 16, 22, 25].

Definition of "Relative" – Section 498-A RPC – Co-Petitioner Arti Devi – Held: A girlfriend or concubine does not fall within the definition of "relative" under Section 498-A RPC – The status of "relative" must be conferred by blood, marriage, or adoption – Arti Devi, who was neither a relative of the husband nor residing in the matrimonial home, could not be charged under Sections 498-A and 506 RPC [Paras 17-20].

Inherent Jurisdiction – Parameters for Quashment – Section 561-A Cr.P.C. – Power under Section 561-A Cr.P.C. (corresponding to Section 482 Cr.P.C.) can be exercised where allegations in the FIR are absurd and inherently improbable, or where criminal proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fide and instituted with ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance – Both conditions satisfied in the present case [Paras 23-25].

Decision: Petitions allowed – FIR No. 49/2017 dated 15.11.2017, chargesheet dated 02.02.2018, and order dated 14.08.2018 framing charges under Sections 498-A and 506 RPC quashed.

Civil Law – Res Judicata – Dismissal of Connected Appeal for Non-Prosecution – Finality of Decree – Suits for possession of room measuring 18' x 12' situated on suit land — Trial court and appellate court concurrently held revenue entries in favour of plaintiffs, defendants to be mere trespassers, and suit decreed for vacant possession — Co-defendant Avtar Chand filed RSA No. 368 of 2006 before High Court; dismissed for non-prosecution on 22.12.2008 — Remaining defendants' appeals (RSA Nos. 365 and 366 of 2006) pending — Held: Dismissal of RSA No. 368 of 2006 rendered decree for vacant possession final; adjudicating present appeals could produce conflicting decrees — Present appeals barred by res judicata and dismissed [Paras 19–23].

"Order 41 Rule 4 CPC — Not Available Where Appeal Already Filed Jointly by All Defendants" – Appellants sought to sustain present appeals by invoking Order 41 Rule 4 CPC, contending that one co-defendant could obtain reversal of whole decree on a ground common to all — Held: Order 41 Rule 4 applies at the stage of filing an appeal and enables one plaintiff or defendant to file appeal against whole decree; once all defendants file jointly, Rule 4 is unavailable — Furthermore, where decree has attained finality against one co-defendant due to dismissal of his appeal, surviving appellants cannot revive that finality through Rule 4 — Ratio of Rameshwar Prasad vs. Shyam Beharilal Jagannath applied [Paras 15–18].

"Dismissal for Non-Prosecution Operates as Res Judicata" – Dismissal of RSA No. 368 of 2006 for non-prosecution resulted in finality of decree for vacant possession in favour of plaintiffs as against Avtar Chand — Adjudicating present appeals and potentially dismissing the suit would create conflicting decrees — Held: Dismissal of appeal even for non-prosecution amounts to res judicata and bars re-agitation of the same matter — Ratio of Prem Raj Sharma vs. Baldev Verma and Asha Devi vs. Dau Dayal applied [Paras 19–21].

Decision: Both appeals dismissed — Substantial Questions of Law Nos. 1 to 3 held redundant — Pending applications disposed of — Records of courts below to be returned forthwith.

Probate — Will — Suspicious Circumstances — Petition Dismissed — Petitioner (daughter-in-law of testatrix) sought probate of Will dated 08.08.2012, purportedly executed by Late Smt. Suraksha Sud, bequeathing GK Property in equal shares to petitioner and respondent No. 2 (husband), and other properties to granddaughters — Testatrix died on 25.08.2012, a mere seventeen days after the alleged execution — Will allegedly discovered in May 2018, nearly six years after death, from a leatherette bag in the testatrix's room — Sole surviving attesting witness (PW-7) turned hostile and categorically denied ever having met the testatrix or witnessed her sign the Will — Forensic expert (DW-2) opined that testatrix's signatures were forged and deceased attesting witness's signature was traced from his passport — Held: Petitioner failed to prove due and valid execution of the Will; petition dismissed [Paras 24, 34, 35].

Will — Standard of Proof — Suspicious Circumstances — Doctrine Restated — Burden on Propounder — The standard of proof for a Will is not proof beyond reasonable doubt but proof on preponderance of probabilities satisfying the judicial conscience — The propounder must establish testamentary capacity, due execution and attestation in accordance with Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, and knowledge and approval of contents — Where suspicious circumstances surround the Will, the burden on the propounder becomes heavier and the propounder must remove all legitimate suspicion by cogent, convincing and reliable evidence — Suspicious circumstances must be assessed holistically and not piecemeal; individually explicable circumstances may in totality create an overwhelming cumulative effect disentitling the propounder from probate [Paras 15–18, 22, 23].

Section 63, Indian Succession Act — Attestation — Mandatory Requirement — Hostile Attesting Witness — Section 63(c) requires that the attesting witness must have seen the testator sign the Will — Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act requires examination of at least one attesting witness as a condition precedent to grant of probate — Mere identification by the attesting witness of his own signature on the Will is insufficient to satisfy the statutory requirement; what is needed is that he witnessed the testator sign in his presence — Where the sole surviving attesting witness (PW-7) categorically denied ever having met the testatrix or witnessed her sign the Will, and such denial was positive, unequivocal and unshaken, the mandatory requirements of Section 63 are not satisfied — Evidence of Notary Public (PW-4) cannot substitute for evidence of an attesting witness [Paras 16, 19, 21, 30, 31, 32].

Suspicious Circumstances — Five Categories Identified — (I) Execution in proximity to death — Will executed only four days before testatrix fell gravely ill and seventeen days before her death; no medical evidence of sound testamentary capacity on date of execution — (II) Inordinate delay and conspicuous silence — Petitioner instituted at least five proceedings including FIR for forgery of a Will, Settlement Deed, DV complaint and civil suits over six years without a single reference to the alleged Will — conduct wholly inconsistent with a genuine beneficiary — (III) Inherently improbable discovery narrative — Original Will allegedly discovered in a leatherette bag containing daily jewellery, expired passports and debit card, left undisturbed for six years in the testatrix's room in the same premises where the petitioner resided — wholly incredible — (IV) Failure of attesting witness — discussed above — (V) Forensic evidence of forgery — Expert opined signatures of testatrix were forged and deceased attesting witness's signature traced from passport [Paras 25–33].

Hostile Witness — Probate Proceedings — Partial Reliance — While testimony of a hostile witness is not to be entirely discarded, only the credible portions may be relied upon — In the context of probate, portions of hostile attesting witness's testimony that are positive, consistent and unshaken, including categorical denial of having seen the testator sign the Will, are binding on the Court and cannot be ignored in favour of mere formal identification of the witness's own signature [Para 32].

Decision: Petition dismissed — Probate of Will dated 08.08.2012 refused — No order as to costs.

Criminal Law – Murder – Acquittal – Section 302 IPC – Appellant convicted by the Trial Court for allegedly pouring kerosene oil on the deceased and pushing her onto a burning stove, causing 90% burns from which she died the following morning – Conviction based on two dying declarations and circumstantial evidence, as all three purported eye witnesses turned hostile – High Court finds dying declarations unreliable, mutually contradictory and not corroborated by circumstantial evidence – Held: Prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt; appellant entitled to benefit of doubt – Conviction and sentence set aside; appellant acquitted [Paras 39, 54, 59].

Dying Declaration – Reliability – MLC Entry as Dying Declaration – First purported dying declaration contained in MLC (Ex.PW-13/A) recorded by PW-13/Dr. Upender Sharma described appellant as "her new lover" – Expression appears to be personal observation of the doctor and not the deceased's own words – Doctor admitted that the word "kerosene" was written on the basis of smell noticed by him and not on account of the deceased uttering it – Word "Informant" appearing misaligned in the MLC raises doubt whether the narration was given by the deceased or by her neighbour PW-2/Nirmala – Absence of deceased's signature or thumb impression further undermines its evidentiary value – Held: Document cannot be regarded as a reliable dying declaration [Paras 44, 45].

Dying Declaration – Second Declaration – Procedural Infirmities – Second dying declaration (Ex.PW-15/C) recorded by Investigating Officer PW-15/S.I. Vijay Singh contained unusually detailed particulars including precise parentage and address of appellant, rendering it inherently improbable for a person with 90% burns – No cogent evidence of deceased being in fit condition to make the statement; certificate of medical fitness not proved; SDM or doctor not involved during recording – Held: Veracity of the said statement is highly doubtful [Para 46].

Dying Declaration – Mutual Inconsistency – Three Conflicting Versions – MLC records that appellant poured oil from the stove onto the deceased while she was pouring kerosene; Ex.PW-15/C records that appellant poured kerosene from a can and pushed her towards the burning stove; Brief Facts (Ex.PW-15/DA) recorded by the same Investigating Officer states that deceased fell on the stove during a scuffle and appellant got burnt while trying to save her – Three materially inconsistent versions not only cast doubt on the manner of occurrence but also on the veracity of both dying declarations – Third alleged dying declaration before PW-4/Ran Singh not mentioned in his Section 161 statement and held to be hearsay [Paras 47, 48, 50].

Circumstantial Evidence – Incomplete Chain – Presence of Appellant at Spot Insufficient – Defence of appellant attempting to save the deceased corroborated by burn injuries on his person, Brief Facts recorded by the Investigating Officer, statements of eye witnesses who turned hostile, and defence witnesses – Motive attributed not supported by substantive evidence – Unaccounted matchbox found in sealed pullanda not reflected in seizure memo; liquor bottle not mentioned in site plan; hospital documents from Meerut not traced – Held: Circumstances do not form a complete chain consistent only with guilt of the appellant; mere suspicion cannot substitute proof [Paras 51, 52, 53].

Dying Declaration – Legal Principles Restated – Dying declaration if voluntary, truthful and made in fit state of mind can form sole basis of conviction without corroboration – Court must first satisfy itself that the declaration is reliable and truthful – Where dying declaration suffers from inconsistencies, procedural infirmities and improbabilities, Court must exercise caution – Multiple dying declarations: Court to assess which is believable – Physical and mental fitness of declarant to be established from evidence on record; medical certification aids but is not always indispensable – Recording by Judicial Magistrate adds credence but dying declarations recorded by police are not inadmissible per se – Relied upon: Irfan v. State of Uttar Pradesh; Sanjay Kumar Sharma v. State of Bihar [Paras 41, 42, 55, 56].

Service Law – Notional Seniority – Wrongful Exclusion from Appointment – Same Selection Process – Respondent applied for the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) Grade-II under RBA Category and secured 59.54 points, more than the last selected candidate who obtained 58.34 points – Despite higher merit, respondent was not selected on erroneous grounds relating to category certificate – Court directed appointment in 2014, while similarly situated candidates were appointed w.e.f. 22.08.2009 – Tribunal directed notional appointment w.e.f. 22.08.2009 with consequential seniority and benefits – Held: A candidate wrongly excluded from appointment due to arbitrary action of the appointing authority in the same selection process is entitled to notional seniority from the date similarly situated persons were appointed – Penalizing such a candidate for the appointing authority's lapse would violate Article 14 of the Constitution [Paras 14-19].

Old Pension Scheme – Notional Appointment – Necessary Consequence – Once the respondent is held entitled to notional appointment w.e.f. 22.08.2009, the necessary corollary is that he would be governed under the Old Pension Scheme which was in vogue at that date, and not under the New Pension Scheme which came into effect w.e.f. 01.01.2010 – Respondent also entitled to refund of monthly deductions of 10% made from his salary [Paras 13, 20].

Equitable Exception to Seniority Rules – Rule 24 of J&K Civil Services Rules – While seniority is ordinarily determined from the date of substantive appointment under Rule 24, notional fixation of seniority is an equitable exception where delay in appointment is attributable solely to the appointing authority, so as to preserve the integrity of the common select list and safeguard the right to equality [Para 18].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Impugned order of the Central Administrative Tribunal upheld – Connected CMPs also dismissed.