Criminal Law - Murder – Appeal Against Conviction - Circumstantial Evidence – Standard of Proof Not Met – Acquittal Granted - Appellant convicted for murder of his partner based on last seen evidence and bloodstains on clothing – High Court held prosecution failed to prove a complete chain of circumstances linking appellant to crime – Evidence of last seen was found shaky and inconclusive; no reliable motive established [Paras 1–3, 12–13, 16–22].

Section 106 Evidence Act – Inapplicability Where Chain Incomplete – Failure to Explain Not Sufficient - Conviction was primarily based on appellant’s failure to explain circumstances under Section 106 – Court clarified that where prosecution fails to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, the burden does not shift to the accused – Section 106 can only serve as an additional link, not primary basis [Paras 13–16, 21].

Last Seen Theory – Witness Testimony Unreliable – Witness could not confirm when appellant and deceased returned from market prior to death – Evidence did not establish proximity of accused with deceased at time of incident – Held: No safe conviction can rest on this evidence [Paras 9–13].

Forensic Evidence – CA Report Not Conclusive – Prosecution Failed to Establish Chain - Blood stains on appellant’s clothes matched deceased’s blood group, but chain of custody and time of seizure not clearly proved – Report failed to conclusively link appellant to murder [Paras 18–20].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Conviction and Sentence Set Aside – Appellant Acquitted of Offence Under Section 302 IPC – Released forthwith if not required in any other case – Fine to be refunded [Paras 23–24].

Civil Writ - Habeas Corpus – Custody of Minor Children – Jurisdiction under Article 226 – Writ Not Maintainable – The petitioner-father sought a writ of Habeas Corpus against his wife, who took their minor children to the U.S.A. during the pendency of custody proceedings – Held: Petitioner has an effective alternative remedy under the Guardians and Wards Act by filing execution of the Family Court order granting him custody – Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be invoked in absence of illegal detention or willful flouting of Court orders [Paras 1-5, 8].

Alternative Remedy – Execution of Custody Order – Remedy before Family Court Available – Petition Dismissed – The Family Court had passed an ex parte order granting permanent custody of the children to the petitioner – No steps were taken by the petitioner to enforce this order – Held: The petitioner ought to have filed execution proceedings in the Family Court instead of filing writ petition after delay of four months [Paras 3-5, 9].

Foreign Jurisdiction – Children Taken Abroad – No Illegal Detention Established – Respondent Mother Residing in USA – The respondent-mother took the children to USA without violating any court order – Held: Absence of breach of any judicial directive negates claim of illegal detention – Writ of Habeas Corpus cannot lie in such circumstances [Paras 6, 8].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – No Costs – The High Court found no maintainability in the writ petition under Habeas Corpus jurisdiction and dismissed the same, while leaving it open to the petitioner to pursue proper remedy before Family Court [Paras 9-10].

Service Law - Review – Maintainability by Non-Party – Review Application Allowed - Deputy Registrar of CAT, though not a party to the original writ petition, was held entitled to maintain review application as the order affected the statutory powers of the CAT Chairman under Section 5(6) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 – Held: "Any person aggrieved" includes non-party if substantive right is affected [Paras 2, 13, 16–17, 42].

Administrative Tribunal – Jurisdiction of Single Member – CAT Chairman Empowered - Notifications of 2016 and 2021 issued under Section 5(6) authorized Single Member Benches, including Administrative Members, to decide cases involving minor penalties – Held: Order under review failed to consider these valid statutory instruments and misapplied precedent [Paras 23–27, 36–37].

L. Chandra Kumar – Interpretation Clarified – Bench Constitution Must Reflect Nature of Case - Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar upheld Section 5(6) and permitted Single Member Benches except when constitutional interpretation is involved – Calcutta HC recognized it had incorrectly applied coordinate Bench decisions inconsistent with this precedent [Paras 30–33, 39].

Error Apparent – Grounds for Review – Principles from BCCI v. Netaji Cricket Club Applied - Held: Review lies not only for patent error but also for correction of misconception of fact or law – Misunderstanding of legal provisions and non-consideration of binding precedent warranted recall [Paras 40–41].

Decision – Review Allowed – Judgment dated 11/11/2024 Recalled – W.P.C.T 221 of 2024 restored to file and listed for final hearing in April 2025 – Review Application disposed without costs [Paras 41–43].
 

Bail - Dowry Death – Suicide at Parental Home – Section 304B IPC – Bail Denied - Accused sought bail on grounds that the deceased committed suicide at her parental home and not matrimonial home, and that no harassment occurred “soon before” her death – Court held: Location of suicide irrelevant for Section 304B IPC—what matters is ongoing matrimonial relationship and harassment – Prima facie material exists for trial to proceed [Paras 6–8, 9].

Interpretation of “Soon Before Death” – Not Synonymous with “Immediately Before” – Relative Expression - Court cited Satbir Singh v. State of Haryana and Kans Raj v. State of Punjab to emphasize that “soon before” is a flexible term depending on context – Continued telephonic contact, judicial separation proceedings, and a final long call days before suicide suggested a live link between harassment and death [Paras 8.1–8.3].

Case Law Distinguished – Bail Jurisprudence – Delay in Trial Not Sole Ground - Cited SC ruling in Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra was held inapplicable, as trial had already commenced and six of forty witnesses examined – Bail in dowry death cases demands stricter scrutiny due to grave societal impact [Paras 4–5].

Judicial Caution in Dowry Deaths – Strong Message from Judiciary – Citing Shabeen Ahmad v. State of U.P., Supreme Court - Court reiterated that judicial approach in dowry death cases must be sensitive to societal impact and reflect seriousness of the crime – Releasing prime accused on bail at early stage may undermine justice and public trust [Paras 5, 8.3].

Decision – Bail Application Dismissed – Court held it is not a fit case for grant of bail considering nature of allegations, ongoing trial, and societal implications – Trial court directed to continue independently [Para 10].

Labour Law - Industrial Disputes – Delay in Raising Dispute – Reinstatement Set Aside – Compensation Granted – Labour Court awarded reinstatement with continuity and back wages after delay of 13 years in reference – Held: Though termination violated Section 25(F), unexplained inordinate delay in raising the dispute cannot be ignored – Labour Court should have granted monetary compensation instead – Reinstatement order modified to lump sum compensation [Paras 1-13].

Labour Remedy – No Limitation under Section 10 – Delay Still Material – Even though no statutory limitation applies for raising an industrial dispute, unexplained delay must be considered during adjudication – Courts cannot ignore the prejudice caused to the employer by prolonged delay in seeking remedy [Paras 6-8].

Reinstatement – Temporary Employees – No Right to Post – Workmen were not appointed against permanent posts – Held: Reinstatement cannot be ordered after 19 years when no vacancy exists and workmen held no statutory right to reinstatement – Replaced with compensation [Paras 11-12].

Compensation – Quantum Based on Years of Service – Benchmark of ₹50,000 per Year Applied – Court followed precedents and awarded ₹50,000 per completed year of service to workmen – Directed compensation to be paid within 8 weeks, failing which 8% interest per annum shall apply [Paras 14-15].

*Decision – Reinstatement Orders Modified – Compensation Directed – Reinstatement and back wages set aside – Workmen awarded compensation between ₹1,00,000 to ₹3,00,000 depending on service duration – Payment to be made within 8 weeks with 8% p.a. interest on delay [Paras 15-16].

Civil Law - Partition Suit – Ancestral Property -  Daughters and Their Heirs Entitled to Share – Ancestral Property – Decree Affirmed - Trial court held that plaintiffs (daughters and heirs of Late Sayanna) were entitled to 1/6th share in the ancestral property despite prior alienation to defendant – High Court upheld decree, applying amended Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act giving coparcenary rights to daughters [Paras 8–11, 17–18].

Applicability of 2005 Amendment – Retrospective Benefit to Daughters – Vineeta Sharma Case Applied - Despite daughter Yadamma predeceasing father Sayanna, Court held that her children (plaintiffs) were entitled to share under amended law—Alienation in 2008 not protected as it was post-2005 amendment—Sale without daughters' consent invalid for their share [Paras 13, 17–18].

Mutation and Possession – Not Conclusive of Title – No Registered Partition Proven - Appellant argued partition and mutation among male heirs occurred in 1989—Court held mere revenue mutation or oral arrangement cannot override inheritance rights without registered partition deed—Constructive possession held in favour of all Class-I heirs [Paras 6–7, 18].

Court Fee – Section 34(2) – Constructive Possession Sufficient – Objection Overruled - Though appellant argued plaintiffs not in possession and court fee insufficient, Court held that in cases of joint family property, co-owners are deemed in constructive possession—Court fee paid correctly [Paras 9, 12].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Decree for Partition and Allotment of 1/6th Share Each to Plaintiffs and Legal Heirs Affirmed – Sale in Favour of Defendant No.6 Not Binding Beyond Vendor's Share – No Costs [Para 19].
 

Criminal Law - Civil Dispute – Not Criminal – Petition for FIR Quashed – No Case for Cheating - Petitioner sought action against uncles who allegedly sold property in Solan despite prior relinquishment in family settlement – Court found the dispute to be civil in nature, not amounting to criminal fraud or misrepresentation – Held: No ingredients of Section 415 IPC made out [Paras 3, 17, 19–20].

Unregistered Family Settlement – Inadmissible in Law – No Evidentiary Value - Agreement dated 23.09.1987 was unregistered and never acted upon by mutation in revenue records – Court held unregistered document inadmissible under Section 49 of Registration Act and cannot be basis for asserting criminal intent [Paras 14–16].

Jurisdiction – Section 482 CrPC After Rejection in Revision – Permissible in Exceptional Cases Only - Petition filed after dismissal of revision petition – Court reiterated inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC must be sparingly used – No miscarriage of justice found to warrant interference [Paras 8–13].

Fraud Allegation – Co-owner Sale Not Cheating – Only Purchaser Can Complain - Following Jit Vinayak Arolkar v. State of Goa, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 31, Court held that sale of joint property by co-owner without title does not constitute fraud against other co-owners – Complaint, if any, lies with the purchaser [Para 17].

Final Decision – Petition Dismissed – Civil Remedy Available - High Court upheld orders of Trial Court and Revisional Court – Directed complainant to pursue civil suit if aggrieved – No direction for FIR or criminal proceedings [Paras 19–21].

Criminal Law - Maintainability of Complaint – Complaint by Mother-in-law under DV Act – Legally Permissible - The applicants argued that a mother-in-law is not competent to file an application under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act – Held: An aggrieved woman includes any woman in a domestic relationship, and a mother-in-law can file complaint if she has lived in a shared household and suffered domestic violence – Argument of non-maintainability rejected [Paras 9–12].

Prima Facie Satisfaction – Validity of Summoning Order – Summons Upheld - The summoning order dated 13.09.2024 was based on material available on record and the complaint filed by the mother-in-law – Held: Trial court rightly issued process after recording satisfaction of a prima facie case – No interference warranted under Section 482 Cr.P.C. [Paras 7–8, 13].

Defensive Pleas at Preliminary Stage – Scope of 482 Cr.P.C. – Relief Denied - Applicants argued that the complaint was a counterblast to an FIR filed under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act – Held: Defensive arguments relating to counter-allegations and pending Section 125 Cr.P.C. application are matters for trial – Such defences do not warrant quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. [Paras 5–6, 8].

Interpretation – Beneficial Legislation – Liberal Interpretation of Domestic Violence Act - The Court emphasised the need to interpret the Domestic Violence Act as a beneficial statute – Held: Definitions under the Act are to be liberally construed to advance its object of protecting women from violence in domestic settings [Paras 10–11].

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR - Criminal Proceedings in Matrimonial Disputes – General Omnibus Allegations – Proceedings Quashed in Part – Supreme Court precedents reiterated that vague, sweeping allegations lacking specifics against distant relatives cannot sustain criminal charges – FIR and charge sheet quashed against Petitioner No.4 (a distant relative) for lack of necessary ingredients under Sections 504 and 506 IPC – Proceedings to continue against husband (Petitioner No.1) and sister-in-law (Petitioner No.3) based on detailed factual narrative [Paras 22–27, 30–33, 37].

Scope of Section 482 CrPC – Abuse of Process Prevention – Petition Partially Allowed – High Court invoked its inherent powers to prevent abuse of judicial process – Emphasized that courts should not allow criminal trials to continue on vague and unsubstantiated claims, particularly where specific criminal intent or intimidation is not alleged or evident [Paras 7–21, 26–28].

Role of Trial Court – Appreciation of Evidence – Left Open – Observed that once the charge sheet is filed, the trial court should be allowed to consider discharge under Section 227 CrPC based on full materials—High Court limited its scrutiny to maintainability of proceedings qua each petitioner [Paras 35–36].

Final Decision – FIR Quashed as Against Petitioner No.4 – Proceedings Against Petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 to Continue – Petition partly allowed – No opinion expressed on merits of pending trial [Paras 37–39].