Criminal Law - Summoning of additional accused - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 319 - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 - Section 348 - Petitioners were named in FIR but found innocent during investigation and kept in Column No 2 of the challan - Trial Court allowed application for summoning them as additional accused following deposition of PW1 complainant who attributed specific overt acts and weapons to each petitioner - Petitioners contended that summoning was improper as two petitioners were Army and Airforce personnel on duty at distant locations - High Court observed that power under Section 319 CrPC is to be exercised when strong and cogent evidence exists which is more than a prima facie case but short of absolute satisfaction of conviction - Inquiry report from SP Kaithal indicated petitioners mobile phone locations were at the scene of crime suggesting alibi certificates were false - Held - Veracity of alibi plea and innocence cannot be tested at the threshold of summoning and must be adjudicated during trial - Complainant testimony in court categorically supporting FIR version constitutes sufficient evidence for summoning - Petition dismissed - [Paras 1-12].

Evidence Law - Plea of Alibi - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 3 - Burden of Proof - Petitioners produced certificates from Ministry of Defence and Airforce to prove presence at duty stations far from the place of occurrence - Complainant produced RTI inquiry report showing petitioners cell locations at the spot - Held - Alibi is a plea in the nature of evidence and the burden to establish it rests on the accused - Such plea cannot be treated as conclusive at the threshold of Section 319 proceedings and its truthfulness can only be verified upon appreciation of full evidence led by both parties - [Paras 10-11].

Criminal Law - Definition of Evidence for Summoning - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 319 - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 3 - Scope - Petitioners argued that testimony of complainant was mere reiteration of previous police statements - Held - Evidence under Section 319 means evidence as made before the Court in relation to statements and as produced in relation to documents - Court is not restricted to material collected during investigation and must decide based on evidence tendered during trial - Testimony of PW1 which specifically attributes overt acts and weapons to petitioners is more than prima facie evidence justifying summoning - [Paras 9-12].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Orders of the Judicial Magistrate First Class and Additional Sessions Judge Kaithal summoning the petitioners as additional accused to face trial are affirmed.

Commercial Courts Act – Jurisdiction – Section 2(1)(c)(vii) – Immovable Property Used Exclusively in Trade or Commerce – Plaintiff permitted defendant (his elder brother) to use commercial/industrial shed at Okhla Industrial Area for running business activities without consideration – Trial Court returned plaint holding the dispute to be a commercial dispute under Section 2(1)(c)(vii) – Held: The suit property is admittedly a commercial/industrial shed and as per the plaint itself, the defendant was permitted to use it for running business activities – The arrangement has a commercial character and concerns immovable property used for commercial purposes – Alleged permissive gratuitous use does not render the agreement non-commercial for the purpose of applicability of the Commercial Courts Act [Paras 8, 11].

Gratuitous Licence – Commercial Character – Section 52, Indian Easements Act – Payment of licence fee or consideration is not an essential attribute for the subsistence of a licence under Section 52 of the Indian Easements Act – A licensor can permit a person to enter property without any consideration – Gratuitous licence is legally valid – However, the issue in the present case is not the validity of a gratuitous licence but whether the arrangement possesses the commercial character contemplated under Section 2(1)(c)(vii) of the Commercial Courts Act – Gratuitous nature of the arrangement does not negate its commercial character [Paras 10–11].

Return of Plaint vs. Transfer – Section 24 CPC – Section 12-A Compliance – Where a suit filed prior to the Supreme Court's declaration of prospective applicability in Patil Automation (P) Ltd. vs. Rakheja Engineers (P) Ltd. ought to have been filed as a commercial suit, the abrupt remedy of return of plaint under Order VII Rule 10 CPC is not the appropriate course – In order to avoid loss of all proceedings before the earlier court, recourse to Section 24 CPC empowering transfer to the competent court is a more appropriate remedy – Section 24 CPC is not amended by the Schedule to the Commercial Courts Act and continues to apply in full force – Question of Section 12-A compliance is kept open for the transferee court [Paras 13–16, 18].

Commercial Dispute – Definition – Strict Construction – The expression "used exclusively in trade or commerce" in Section 2(1)(c)(vii) refers to property actually being used for commercial purposes and not property merely ready for use or likely to be used in future – Strict construction of the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act is required, as any liberal interpretation would defeat the object of speedy disposal of high-value commercial disputes – For a dispute to qualify as a commercial dispute, the transaction must carry a commercial flavour encompassing elements of trade and business [Paras 8–9].

Decision: Appeal disposed of – Impugned order returning the plaint set aside – Suit transferred in exercise of powers under Section 24 CPC to be listed before the concerned Principal District and Sessions Judge on 06.07.2026 for directions – Question of compliance of Section 12-A kept open for the transferee court to decide in accordance with law [Paras 17–19].

Family Law – Contempt – Child Custody – Visitation – Wilful Disobedience of Family Court Orders – Petitioner alleged non-compliance with multiple orders dated 02.12.2022 to 25.07.2023 passed by Family Court, North-West, Rohini in GP No. 109/2022 directing visitation rights in favour of the father qua minor daughter – During pendency of contempt petition, Family Court vide order dated 21.03.2025 transferred interim custody to the father, noting that the mother had repeatedly shifted between countries, failed to provide stability, had no record of the child's schooling, had previously lived in UK as a refugee, and had consistently violated court orders – High Court directed that all Family Court orders, including the custody order dated 21.03.2025, shall be immediately enforceable and enforced under supervision of the Family Court [Paras 1–5, 13–14].

Interim Visitation Arrangement – Child Counsellor's Report – Orders dated 15.04.2026 and 06.05.2026 passed by the High Court with consent of parties directed interim visitation on alternate days as an arrangement to avoid abrupt implementation of the custody order – Subsequently modified to visitation once in every three days with exemption on examination days – Child Counsellor's report dated 25.05.2026 noted initial resistance from child towards father but observed gradual improvement and willingness to interact during later sessions – Said interim arrangement held to have served its purpose and discontinued [Paras 6–11].

Review Petition – Scope of Contempt Orders – Review petitioner objected that directions in orders dated 15.04.2026 and 06.05.2026 went beyond the scope of the orders of which contempt was alleged – Held: Review petition disposed of in terms of discontinuation of the interim visitation arrangement — necessary implication being that all Family Court orders become immediately enforceable [Paras 10–12].

Contempt – Enforcement – Family Court's Duty – Family Court directed to ensure immediate compliance and enforcement of its subsisting orders without any delay – Mere pendency of applications shall not afford justification for continued wilful disobedience – In case of non-compliance by either party, Family Court entitled to make appropriate reference for action under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 [Paras 14–16].

Decision: Contempt petition and Review Petition No. 220/2026 disposed of – Interim visitation arrangement under orders dated 15.04.2026 and 06.05.2026 discontinued – All subsisting Family Court orders including custody order dated 21.03.2025 declared immediately enforceable and directed to be enforced under supervision of Family Court – All rights and remedies of parties reserved [Paras 12–17].

Criminal Law – Murder – Circumstantial Evidence – Conviction Upheld – Appellant Kuldeep convicted for murder of Constable Rambir Singh whose body was found near Rajokri Pahari with firearm injuries – Prosecution case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence comprising: recovery of appellant's election ID card from the scene of crime; recovery of deceased's scooter, country-made pistol and blood-stained shirt at appellant's instance from the house of co-accused Ishwar; and ballistic report linking recovered pistol to empty cartridge found at the spot – Held: Circumstances form a complete and consistent chain pointing only to the guilt of appellant Kuldeep – No other reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence – Conviction and sentence under Sections 302/201 IPC affirmed [Paras 49, 71–72, 78].

Circumstantial Evidence – Principles – Chain Must Be Complete – In cases resting entirely on circumstantial evidence, the chain of circumstances must be so complete as to exclude every hypothesis consistent with innocence and point irresistibly to the guilt of the accused – Each circumstance must be proved with certainty – Where circumstances cumulatively form an unbroken chain, absence of motive alone is not sufficient for acquittal [Paras 50, 68–69].

Recovery of Election ID Card – Section 27 Evidence Act – Planting Allegation Rejected – Election ID card of appellant Kuldeep recovered approximately five feet from the dead body – Factum of recovery recorded in the Rukka prepared at the spot before arrest of the accused – Absence of photograph of the ID card at the spot does not render the recovery doubtful where earliest documentary record corroborates recovery – Accused offered no satisfactory explanation under Section 313 CrPC – Recovery held proved [Paras 51–55].

Recovery at Instance of Accused – Section 27 Evidence Act – Admissibility – Country-made pistol, deceased's scooter and blood-stained shirt recovered at the instance of appellant Kuldeep pursuant to disclosure statement – Scooter bore Delhi Police logo and deceased's name – Recovery of weapon connected to empty cartridge at scene by ballistic report – Absence of independent public witnesses not fatal where police testimony is consistent and trustworthy – Recoveries proved [Paras 56–67, 64].

Motive – Circumstantial Evidence – Secondary Importance – Motive remained embedded only in the inadmissible disclosure statement and no independent evidence was led to prove it – Held: Where other incriminating circumstances form a complete and unbroken chain, absence of motive is of no consequence – Strong motive does not by itself result in conviction; equally, absence of motive does not by itself result in acquittal where circumstances are convincing [Paras 68–69].

Harbouring – Section 212 IPC – Ingredients – Accused Ishwar convicted by Trial Court under Section 212 IPC for harbouring co-accused persons – Held: Ingredients of Section 212 IPC require proof that accused harboured or concealed a person whom he knew or had reason to believe had committed the offence with intention to screen him from legal punishment – No evidence that accused Ishwar harboured the co-accused in his house; accused persons were not arrested from his house; no neighbourhood witnesses examined; only evidence of harbouring appeared in inadmissible disclosure statement – Conviction under Section 212 IPC set aside [Paras 73–77].

Section 201 IPC – No Charge Framed – Although conduct of accused Ishwar in permitting concealment of scooter, weapon and blood-stained clothes in his house may have attracted Section 201 IPC, no charge under Section 201 IPC was framed against him and he cannot be convicted for an offence for which he was not charged [Para 77].

Decision: CRL.A. 528/2004 (Kuldeep @ Kallu) dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 302/201 IPC affirmed – Appellant Kuldeep directed to surrender before Jail Superintendent within one week – CRL.A. 502/2003 (Ishwar) allowed – Conviction under Section 212 IPC and order on sentence set aside [Paras 78–80].

Criminal Law - Quashing of FIR - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Sections 498A and 304B - Petitioner sought quashing of proceedings arising from FIR No. 30/2019 - Initial investigation by police found evidence only against husband and mother-in-law - Superintendent of Police (SP) Alwar found initial probe unsatisfactory and directed Additional SP to conduct further investigation - Petitioner contended that SP had no authority to order further investigation and that the process amounted to prohibited re-investigation - High Court observed that investigation against petitioner was still pending under Section 173(8) CrPC - Court held that fairness in investigation is a fundamental right under Article 21 - Court found that Section 36 CrPC empowers superior officers with same powers as officer-in-charge - Held - SP is competent to direct further investigation to ensure integrity and quality of probe - permission from Court is not a prerequisite if charge-sheet has not yet been filed - petition dismissed with liberty to petitioner to submit representation before investigating officer - [Paras 1-29].

Criminal Law - Powers of Superior Police Officers - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 36 - Scope of Authority - Petitioner argued that only Courts possess power to order further investigation - Court analyzed legislative intent of Section 36 - Held - All superior rank police officers including the Superintendent of Police are empowered to involve themselves in supervising and conducting investigation - Superior officers can take over investigation suo motu or direct subordinates to conduct further investigation to ensure a fair trial - [Paras 18-22].

Criminal Law - Further Investigation vs Re-investigation - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 173(8) - Requirement of Judicial Permission - Dispute over whether SP requires Court's leave to order further investigation - Court distinguished between pre-cognizance and post-cognizance stages - Held - If the original charge-sheet has not been submitted to the Magistrate - a superior officer has the authority to direct further investigation without seeking permission from the Court - irregularity if any is rectified once the Magistrate takes cognizance on the final reports - [Paras 23-27].

Constitutional Law - Right to Fair Investigation - Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 21 - Petitioner alleged harassment through repeated recording of witness statements - Court emphasized that fair investigation is a facet of Article 21 and a natural right - Held - Both the accused and the victim are entitled to an investigation that is not tainted - The Rule of Law requires the State to ensure every citizen has access to free and fair justice - [Paras 14-16].

Decision: Petition disposed of – Order of Superintendent of Police for further investigation upheld – Petitioner granted liberty to submit representation before Additional SP for consideration during ongoing investigation.

Criminal Law - Rash and Negligent Driving - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Sections 279, 337 and 338 - Petitioner bus driver was convicted for hitting a motorcycle while overtaking another vehicle on a narrow road resulting in grievous injuries to the informant and simple injuries to the pillion rider - Trial Court sentenced him to six months imprisonment which was affirmed by the Sessions Judge - Petitioner argued that the informant was a minor driving without a license and that independent witnesses were withheld - High Court noted that the bus was on the wrong side of the road at the time of impact as per the site plan - Held - High Court found no reason to interfere with concurrent findings of fact as the proximate cause was the petitioner’s negligence in overtaking without ensuring a clear path - conviction upheld - [Paras 1-53].

Criminal Law - Revisional Jurisdiction - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Sections 397 and 401 - Scope and Parameters - High Court's power in revision is supervisory to correct patent defects or errors of law - Reappreciation of evidence is not permissible unless findings are perverse or unreasonable - Held - Revisional court will not reverse findings of fact merely because another view is possible when the lower courts have carefully considered the material on record - [Paras 13-18].

Evidence Law - Negligence - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Section 279 - Absence of Driving License - Victim was a minor driving the motorcycle without a valid license - Petitioner claimed this established negligence on the victim's part - Held - There is no presumption in law that a person without a license does not know how to drive or is inherently negligent - absence of a license by the victim does not furnish a defense for the rash and negligent conduct of the accused driver - [Paras 19-21].

Evidence Law - Injured Witness - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 3 - Evidentiary Value - Testimony of informant and pillion rider - Held - Testimony of an injured witness is extremely valuable as they would not normally allow the real culprit to escape - presence at the scene cannot be doubted in the absence of material contradictions - [Paras 26-29].

Evidence Law - Adverse Inference - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 114 Illustration g - Non-examination of witnesses - Petitioner sought adverse inference for the prosecution's failure to examine all cited witnesses - Held - Prosecution is not required to multiply witnesses or examine everyone listed if the quality of available evidence is satisfactory - non-examination of a repetitive witness does not vitiate the prosecution case - [Paras 30-36].

Criminal Law - Traffic Regulations - Rules of the Road Regulations 1989 - Rules 2 and 6 - Statutory Negligence - Bus driver hit oncoming traffic while overtaking - Held - Drivers must keep as close to the left as possible and should not overtake unless they have a clear signal and path - breach of statutory road regulations resulting in an accident establishes rashness and negligence - [Paras 37-44].

Criminal Law - Sentencing - Probation of Offenders Act 1958 - Section 4 - Road Accident Offences - Petitioner prayed for benefit of probation - Held - Benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act cannot be granted to persons convicted of rash and negligent driving under the IPC due to the galloping trend of road accidents and the necessity of deterrence - [Paras 45-48].

Decision: Revision dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 279, 337, and 338 IPC affirmed – Petitioner to undergo the sentence as imposed by the Trial Court.

Civil Law - Declaration of Title - Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act 1972 - Sections 104 and 112 - Plaintiff sought declaration of ownership and permanent injunction against defendants challenging a revenue order passed by Naib Tehsildar - Defendants claimed ownership through auction and alleged the suit was barred under the Land Reforms Act - Trial Court and First Appellate Court concurrently found that the revenue entry in favor of the defendant was a stray entry not connected to the suit land - High Court examined the validity of the order passed by Assistant Collector 2nd Grade regarding correction of revenue entries - Held - Concurrent findings of fact establishing plaintiff's possession and title based on revenue records should not be disturbed in second appeal - [Paras 1-20].

Civil Law - Jurisdiction of Civil Court - Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act 1972 - Section 112 - Competence of Revenue Officer - Rule 29 of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Rules 1975 provides that only Assistant Collector 1st Grade is empowered as Land Reforms Officer to confer proprietary rights or determine tenancy disputes - Order challenged was passed by Assistant Collector 2nd Grade who lacked inherent jurisdiction - Held - An order passed by an officer not empowered under the Act is void ab initio and does not bar the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to determine rights - [Paras 14-16].

Civil Law - Identity of Property - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 100 - Res Judicata - Appellants contended that a previous judgment between the parties regarding an abadi construction created a bar or contradiction - High Court observed that the previous suit involved different Khasra numbers and distinct land areas - Held - Findings recorded in proceedings concerning one parcel of land have no bearing on the adjudication of rights over a different parcel of land - [Paras 17-18].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgments and decrees passed by the Trial Court and First Appellate Court affirmed – Records to be sent down.

Civil Law - Customary Law - Adoption and Inheritance - Kangra Customary Law - Questions 76 and 77 - Appellant challenged the declaration that he was not the heir of his natural father Dullo on the ground that no ceremonies of adoption into Rupa's family were proved - Evidence established that appellant had previously claimed Rupa's estate as his adopted son in earlier litigation and was recorded as such in school and revenue records - Customary law of Kangra District specified that no formal ceremonies were required for a valid adoption among Brahmins of Nurpur - Custom further dictated that an adopted son is divested of the right to succeed to his natural father - Held - Concurrent findings of lower courts that appellant was the adopted son of Rupa and thus disentitled from inheriting his natural father's estate were based on sound evidence and customary law - [Paras 15-22].

Civil Law - Limitation - Declaration of Title - Limitation Act 1963 - Article 58 - Right to sue - Appellant contended that the suit filed in 1996 was barred as the mutation in his favor was attested in 1960 - Court examined the commencement of limitation for declaratory suits - Settled law establishes that a mere adverse entry in revenue records does not constitute a cause of action - Limitation under Article 58 begins only when there is a clear and unequivocal threat to infringe the right asserted in the suit - Right to sue accrues when the plaintiff's possession is actually threatened or an overt act jeopardizes their title - Held - Suit was within limitation as no prior overt act of the defendant effectively threatened the plaintiff's title before the period immediately preceding the suit - [Paras 23-31].

Evidence Law - Admissions - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 17 and 21 - Evidentiary value of prior statements - Appellant had described himself as the adopted son of Rupa in a memorandum of appeal and a sale deed prior to the current dispute - Rupa's Will also recorded the appellant as his adopted son - Held - Admissions made by a party in previous proceedings or documents are admissible and constitute strong evidence against the maker unless explained - Cumulative effect of these admissions and records proved the status of adoption - [Paras 15-16].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree of the lower courts affirmed – No interference warranted in the concurrent findings regarding adoption and limitation.

Criminal Law - Cheque Dishonour - Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 - Section 138 - Revision against conviction - Complainant advanced friendly loan of Rs. 1,50,000 and Rs. 2,20,000 for medical expenses of petitioner wife and newborn child - Cheque for Rs. 3,70,000 dishonoured for insufficient funds - Petitioner-accused claimed cheque was blank security document issued during employment at complainant shop and alleged unproven settlement of Rs. 1,00,000 - JMFC Sirsa convicted petitioner on 25.07.2022 and ASJ Sirsa dismissed appeal on 10.03.2025 - High Court noted petitioner admitted signatures on cheque and written agreement Ex.C-3 acknowledging liability - Held - Scope of interference in revision against concurrent findings is extremely limited to jurisdictional error or perversity - High Court does not re-appreciate evidence as an appellate court - Mere bald assertions regarding security cheque or settlement without cogent evidence fail to rebut statutory presumption under Section 139 - Revision dismissed - [Paras 1-12].

Evidence Law - Statutory Presumptions - Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 - Sections 118 and 139 - Presumption of consideration and discharge of liability - Accused admitted signatures on cheque but denied filling particulars and receiving legal notice - Argued agreement was executed on blank papers - Held - Once signature on cheque is admitted the law presumes it was issued in discharge of legal liability - Onus shifts to accused to lead evidence to the contrary - Voluntary signing and handing over a blank cheque allows the payee to fill particulars and does not invalidate the instrument - Failure to put suggestions of forgery or settlement to complainant during cross-examination is fatal to the defense - Testimony of advocate appearing as witness for limited purpose of proving notice cannot be relied upon to prove a settlement not mentioned in examination-in-chief - [Paras 2.4-11].

Decision: Revision petition dismissed – Judgment of conviction and order of sentence affirmed – All pending applications disposed of.