Criminal Law - Prevention of Corruption Act – Section 17A – Validity of Approval – Writ Dismissed – The petitioners challenged the government’s approval for inquiry under Section 17A of the P.C. Act, contending lack of incriminating evidence, malafides, and violation of procedural safeguards – Held: The approval complied with statutory requirements, was based on preliminary material, and was not vitiated by non-application of mind – Judicial review limited to ensuring legality of approval, not probing merits of allegations – Writ petitions dismissed [Paras 11-21, 25-31].

Criminal Procedure – FIR and Investigation – Role of Section 17A – Compliance Affirmed – Petitioners argued that approval under Section 17A cannot substitute procedural requirements for registering FIRs and conducting investigation – Held: Section 17A protects bona fide decisions by public servants but does not bar investigation where cognizable offences are disclosed – Material supported initiation of proceedings against petitioners as public servants during tenure at Corporation [Paras 14-20, 33].

Judicial Review – Scope and Limits – No Interference – Petitioners alleged selective targeting by authorities – Held: Allegations of selective action do not invalidate the legality of approvals; approval orders were detailed and reflected application of mind – Court refrained from substituting its judgment for that of the executive [Paras 28-32].

Decision: The writ petitions were dismissed. The court upheld the approvals granted under Section 17A of the P.C. Act for initiating inquiry and investigation into allegations of corruption and mismanagement during the petitioners’ tenure at the Karnataka Bhovi Development Corporation.
 

Execution of Will – Proof and Attestation – Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act – Will Upheld – The appellant challenged the Will (Ext.B2), alleging irregularities and suspicious circumstances – Held: The Will’s execution and attestation were duly proved by the attestor, satisfying legal requirements – The registration of the Will lends credence, though not conclusive proof – No material discrediting the attestor’s testimony was presented [Paras 9-14].

Suspicious Circumstances – Burden of Proof – Genuineness Established – The appellant argued that the Will excluded certain heirs without justifiable reasons and was fabricated – Held: Evidence confirmed the testator’s sound mind and deliberate exclusion of certain branches due to proximity and care received from other heirs – Appellant failed to substantiate claims of fabrication or undue influence [Paras 12-15].

Handwriting Expert and Fingerprint Analysis – Limited Weight – The appellant relied on expert opinions to dispute the testator’s signature – Held: Variations in signature over decades are natural and not conclusive; contemporaneous evidence was lacking – Fingerprint analysis affirmed the authenticity of the Will, bolstering its validity [Paras 16-17].

Exclusion of Heirs – Testamentary Intent – Not Suspicious – The exclusion of the appellant and her branch was contested as unjustifiable – Held: A Will’s purpose is to alter natural succession; exclusion of certain heirs, when supported by credible reasons, does not make the Will suspicious [Paras 18-19].

Decision: The appeal was dismissed. The trial court’s decision upholding the validity of the Will (Ext.B2) and dismissing the partition suit was affirmed.

Contract Law – Pledge of Shares – Dispute Over Invocation Notice – Status Quo Ordered – Appeal Disposed Of – The appellant challenged the Trial Court’s interim order directing maintenance of status quo on the pledged shares, claiming contractual rights for invocation – Held: The Trial Court’s order was not on the merits of the applications but to preserve rights until the applications are decided – Direction issued for prompt disposal of applications [Paras 3-5, 12-15].

Jurisdictional Issues – Commercial Court Jurisdiction Contested – Pending Resolution – The appellant argued lack of jurisdiction under the Civil Court due to the commercial nature of the dispute – Held: Jurisdictional challenge under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC pending before the Trial Court, to be addressed without premature adjudication [Paras 16-17].

Application of Contract Principles – Pledgee's Rights – Highlighted – Referring to Sections 176 of the Contract Act and precedents on pledgee's rights, the appellant emphasized the right to sell pledged shares in case of default – Court deferred substantial adjudication to Trial Court [Paras 8-9, 14-15].

Decision:

The appeal was disposed of with the following directions:

Status quo on the pledged shares to be maintained for 15 days from the date of the order.

NDPS Act – Commercial Quantity and Statutory Compliance – Bail Granted – Petitioner was apprehended with 38 vials of intoxicant ONREX syrup and 250 Carisoprodol tablets, both falling under the category of commercial quantity – Court observed the absence of criminal antecedents and prolonged custody as factors warranting bail, while emphasizing the conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act [Paras 16-20].

Statutory Provisions – Non-compliance Alleged – Prima Facie Analysis – Petitioner argued non-compliance with Section 42 of the NDPS Act regarding recording of information prior to the search – The Court noted that procedural lapses, if any, would be determined during trial and do not preclude bail at this stage [Paras 11-13].

Clean Antecedents – Benefit of Prolonged Custody – Bail Granted – Petitioner demonstrated no prior criminal involvement – Noted that custody exceeded one year and further incarceration would cause irreparable harm without expediting justice [Paras 18-21].

Conditions Imposed – Protection of Evidence and Society – Bail granted with stringent conditions, including prohibition on tampering with evidence, cooperation with trial, and surrendering firearms to ensure public safety and fair trial progress [Paras 23-24].

Decision: The Court granted bail to the petitioner under strict conditions, emphasizing adherence to trial procedures and community safety measures. All pending applications were disposed of.

Criminal Proceedings – Mischaracterization of Civil Dispute – Section 482 of Cr.P.C. – Cognizance Quashed – The petitioners challenged criminal proceedings initiated against them for alleged forgery and fraud in a property sale involving Waqf land – The respondents alleged the sale deed was based on a forged Waqf Board authorization letter – The petitioners argued that the funds were credited to the Waqf account and the dispute was purely civil – Held: As civil suits on the property and alleged forgery were pending, the criminal case was deemed premature and an abuse of process – Criminal proceedings quashed, with liberty to revive criminal remedies upon resolution of civil suits [Paras 18-22].

Eviction – Admission of Notice to Quit – Judgment on Admission Upheld – The Trial Court passed an eviction decree under Order XII Rule 6 CPC based on the defendant’s written statement admitting receipt of a notice to quit dated January 17, 2019 – Held: The admission regarding receipt of notice was unambiguous, satisfying the conditions for granting eviction under Order XII Rule 6 – The Trial Court’s decree on this aspect was affirmed [Paras 8-10, 13].

Eviction and Arrear Rent – Segregability of Claims – Eviction Decree Modified – The Trial Court erred in postponing eviction till final adjudication of arrear rent claims – Held: Entitlement to arrear rent is independent of the right to eviction, and the plaintiff is not required to await adjudication of rent arrears to enforce the eviction decree – Immediate eviction ordered [Paras 20-21].

Effect of Subsequent Notice – Waiver of Prior Notice – Unfounded – The defendant argued waiver of a prior notice dated September 22, 2018 due to service of a subsequent notice dated January 17, 2019 – Held: While service of subsequent notice may imply waiver of earlier notice, the admitted receipt of the latter was sufficient for eviction under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act [Paras 14-16].

Decision:

FAT 194 of 2020 was dismissed, affirming the Trial Court’s judgment directing the defendant to vacate the suit premises.

FAT 191 of 2020 was allowed, modifying the Trial Court’s decree to direct immediate eviction without waiting for final adjudication of arrear rents.

Adoption under Muslim Personal Law – Non-Recognition of Adoption – Petition dismissed – Petitioners, a Muslim couple, sought registration of an adoption deed under the Registration Act, 1908 – Court held that Mohammedan Law does not recognize adoption as a mode of filiation – Adoption, where valid, must adhere to regulations under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 – Adoption deed not compulsorily registerable under the Registration Act [Paras 11–18].

Registration of Adoption Deed – Lack of Legal Sanctity – Petition denied – Registration of adoption deed not recognized under any governing law – Held: Registration of such a deed does not confer legal validity or rights and is a futile exercise – Direction sought by petitioners cannot be granted [Paras 16–18].

Juvenile Justice Act – Enabling Provisions for Adoption – Applicability to Muslims – Adoption permissible under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, regardless of personal law – Court advised petitioners to pursue adoption under Adoption Regulations, 2017 [Paras 13–15, 19].

Directions to Registrar – Restraint on Registration – Circular to be Issued – Court directed the Inspector General of Registration to issue a circular restraining registration of adoption deeds unless mandated under governing enactments – Held: Registration authorities cannot register adoption deeds that bypass procedural mandates [Para 20].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Petitioners directed to comply with the Adoption Regulations, 2017, under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 – Inspector General of Registration instructed to issue a circular restraining registration of adoption deeds without adherence to respective enactments [Paras 19–20].

Hindu Succession Law – Rights of Daughters Prior to 1956 – Inheritance Excluded – The court held that under the Hindu Women’s Rights to Property Act, 1937, inheritance rights to daughters were excluded if the father died before 1956 leaving behind a widow – The 1937 Act granted limited ownership only to the widow; daughters were not included in inheritance under this framework [Paras 9, 20, 33].

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Retrospective Application – Rejected – The appellants contended for retrospective application of the 1956 Act to cases where inheritance opened before 1956 – Held: Provisions of the 1956 Act, including the 2005 Amendment, apply prospectively; pre-1956 cases are governed by existing laws of that time [Paras 10, 29, 30].

Jurisprudence – Reconsideration of Precedents – Limited Rights Confirmed – The court clarified conflicts in earlier decisions regarding the inheritance rights of daughters prior to 1956 and concluded that inheritance rights to daughters emerged only after the 1956 Act, further strengthened by the 2005 Amendment [Paras 10, 31].

Historical Context – Widow as Sole Heir Pre-1956 – Under Mitakshara law and the 1937 Act, widows were equated to sons for inheritance purposes; daughters were recognized only upon the widow's absence – The legal framework emphasized patriarchal structures limiting inheritance rights for daughters in cases preceding the 1956 Act [Paras 9, 20, 30].

Decision: The appeals were decided in favor of the respondents, holding that a daughter does not acquire inheritance rights in the property of her deceased father who died prior to 1956 if a widow survives.

Criminal Law - 498-A IPC – Cruelty Against Wife – Conviction Affirmed – The accused (husband and in-laws) were convicted under Section 498-A IPC for continuous harassment of the informant, including dowry demands and physical assaults – The court rejected the plea of double jeopardy, holding that prior compromise and acquittal under similar allegations in an earlier case did not bar prosecution for subsequent acts of cruelty – Evidence from the informant and witnesses corroborated the allegations despite minor inconsistencies – Conviction upheld [Paras 28-38].

Double Jeopardy – Section 300 CrPC – Inapplicability – The accused argued that the present case was barred under Section 300 CrPC due to acquittal in a prior case on similar allegations – Held: The earlier case ended in compromise without adjudication on merits, and subsequent acts of cruelty constituted a fresh offence, making Section 300 inapplicable [Paras 29-37].

Sentencing Policy – Modification of Sentence – In-laws and Husband – Considering the age of the in-laws and the suffering of the informant with her children, the sentence was reduced with enhanced fines to provide victim compensation – The father-in-law and mother-in-law were sentenced to one year RI and fined ₹50,000 each, while the husband’s sentence was reduced to 1.5 years RI with a fine of ₹2,00,000, payable to the informant [Paras 40-48].

Decision:

The revision petitions were partly allowed with modification in sentences:

The father-in-law (Abdul Hanan) and mother-in-law (Razia Khatoon) were sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment and fined ₹50,000 each, failing which the original sentence would apply.

The husband (Md. Nasiruddin) was sentenced to 1.5 years rigorous imprisonment and fined ₹2,00,000, failing which the original sentence would apply.

The fines are to be remitted to the informant (victim) for her and her children’s welfare.