Criminal Procedure – Quashment of FIR – Scope of Section 528 BNSS (Old Section 482 CrPC) – Inherent powers to be exercised sparingly – FIR cannot be quashed at threshold when allegations, taken at face value, disclose commission of cognizable offences – High Court cannot conduct mini-trial or evaluate defence material at investigation stage [Paras 6–11].

Dowry Harassment – Cruelty by Husband and In-laws – FIR Allegations – Specific allegations of demand of ₹30 lakhs, ₹50 lakhs, jewellery, physical assault, threats to life and misappropriation of stridhan – Allegations disclose continuing offence – Prima facie case made out – Quashing declined [Paras 2, 4, 11].

Criminal Investigation – Stage of Interference – Investigation Pending – Charge-sheet not filed – Courts should ordinarily refrain from interfering during investigation unless FIR discloses no offence at all – Reliance placed on Neeharika Infrastructure principles – FIR not an encyclopaedia [Paras 9–11].

Section 188 CrPC – Offences Allegedly Committed Outside India – Sanction of Central Government – Sanction not required at stage of registration of FIR or investigation – Requirement arises at stage of cognizance/trial – Allegations disclose commission of offences partly in India as well – FIR not liable to be quashed on this ground [Paras 12–13].

Inherent Jurisdiction – Defence Pleas – Delay in FIR – Alleged Omnibus Allegations – Foreign Residence – Defence contentions regarding photographs, mediation, notices, travel history and alleged extortion – Held: Disputed questions of fact – Matters for trial – Not grounds for quashing FIR [Paras 3–4, 14].

Maintainability – Section 528 BNSS – Quashing of FIR – Petition sought quashing of FIR alone without placing charge-sheet or cognizance order on record – As per Supreme Court in Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni v. State of Maharashtra – Once cognizance is taken, FIR can be quashed under Section 528 BNSS only if charge-sheet and cognizance order are specifically assailed – Petition held not maintainable [Paras 15–17].

Suppression of Material Facts – Conduct of Petitioners – Respondents alleged suppression of proceedings under Domestic Violence Act and divorce petition – Court noted lack of bona fides but primarily declined relief on merits and maintainability [Para 4.1].

Decision: Petition dismissed – FIR No.198/2025 not quashed – Investigation to proceed in accordance with law – Observations not to influence trial Court.

SARFAESI Act – Parallel Proceedings – Constructive Res Judicata – Petitioners challenged SARFAESI actions under Sections 13(2), 13(4), and 14 after having unsuccessfully litigated in earlier writ petitions and appeals up to the Supreme Court – Held: Present writ petition barred by constructive res judicata – Petitioners impermissibly sought to relitigate issues already adjudicated finally in earlier proceedings [Paras 24-25].

Res Judicata – Fragmented Litigation – Abuse of Process – Petitioners’ attempt to question the validity of SARFAESI proceedings afresh without disclosing full litigation history amounted to strategic fragmentation – Held: Parties must place all claims and defences in one proceeding – Piecemeal litigation burdens the judicial system and is legally barred under the Henderson Principle and Explanation VII to Section 11 CPC [Paras 24-25].

Judicial Discipline – Finality of Adjudication – Prior Dismissal by Apex Court – Petitioners had already pursued writ petitions, writ appeals, review petitions, and SLP before the Supreme Court which were all dismissed – Held: Judicial discipline demands that concluded controversies not be reopened under the guise of new technical challenges [Para 4].

Writ Appeal – Non-Prosecution – Appeal Dismissed – Despite multiple opportunities and adjournments, appellants repeatedly failed to appear and prosecute the appeal – Final hearing saw no representation – Held: Appeal dismissed for non-prosecution – Application to implead legal heirs also dismissed [Paras 10-11].

Decision: Writ Appeal dismissed for non-prosecution – I.A. No. 1 of 2025 (for impleading legal heirs of deceased appellant) also dismissed – Judgment of learned Single Judge dated 28.07.2025 upheld [Para 11].

Declaration of Title – Gift Deed – Prior Partition – Second Appeal – Trial Court dismissed suit holding that donor had no title due to earlier family partition of 1958 – First Appellate Court reversed decree relying on revenue records and gift deed – High Court examining divergent findings – Held: First Appellate Court erred in ignoring categorical admissions regarding earlier partition – Trial Court judgment restored [Paras 1–2, 20–22].

Gift Deed – Competence of Donor – Effect of Earlier Partition – Registered gift deed dated 19.03.1992 executed by Narasimhaiah in favour of plaintiff – Evidence revealed that property in Sy.No.11 had already been partitioned orally in 1958 between Thimmaiah and Kariyanna – Donor retained name in revenue records only as senior family member – Held: Mere continuance of revenue entries does not confer exclusive title – Donor lacked absolute right to gift suit property [Paras 5, 15, 20–21].

Partition – Oral/Palupatti Partition – Admissions – Plaintiff (P.W.1) and witness (P.W.2) admitted existence of family partition of 1958 and separate enjoyment of northern and southern portions divided by bund – Such admissions constitute substantive evidence – Held: Admissions conclusively establish earlier partition acted upon, notwithstanding absence of registered deed or mutation [Paras 15–16, 20–21].

Evidence – Revenue Records versus Admissions – RTCs and mutation entries continuing in donor’s name relied upon by First Appellate Court – However, oral evidence and admissions showed actual division and enjoyment – Held: Admissions override presumptive value of revenue records – First Appellate Court committed perversity in ignoring material evidence [Paras 17, 20–21].

Encroachment and Injunction – Consequence of Failure to Prove Title – Relief of recovery of possession and mandatory injunction granted by First Appellate Court based on invalid gift deed – Held: When title itself is not proved, consequential reliefs cannot be granted [Paras 2, 21].

Second Appeal – Scope under Section 100 CPC – Substantial Question of Law – Whether First Appellate Court justified in upholding gift deed ignoring admissions and earlier partition – High Court held reversal to be contrary to evidence and perverse – Interference warranted [Paras 10, 14, 21].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court dated 21.03.2023 in R.A.No.4/2015 set aside – Judgment and decree of the Trial Court dated 28.11.2014 in O.S.No.37/2008 restored.

Criminal Law - Sections 8(c), 21, 25, 27-A, 28 and 29 NDPS Act – Appeal Against Acquittal – Scope of Interference – Presumption of Innocence – Trial Court Acquittal – Held: Appellate court can interfere only if findings are perverse or based on misreading of evidence – Where trial court view is a possible and plausible view, acquittal cannot be reversed merely because another view is possible [Paras 15–16, 18].

Search and Seizure – Sections 42 and 43 NDPS Act – Public Place Search – Alleged seizure at toll plaza – Prosecution contended applicability of Section 43 – Trial court held non-compliance of Section 42 – Evidence disclosed receipt of prior information and procedural lapses – Held: Trial court justified in holding violation of mandatory safeguards – Entire proceedings vitiated [Paras 17–24, 36].

Confessional Statement – Section 67 NDPS Act – Voluntariness – Accused allegedly confined overnight and kept under restraint – Statement containing technical legal terminology – Held: Statement not voluntary and hit by Section 36 of Evidence Act – No evidentiary value could be attached to such statement [Paras 25–26, 31–32].

Independent Witnesses – Panch Witnesses Turning Hostile – Non-examination of Material Witness – Driver of vehicle not examined – Complainant not examined despite opportunity – Held: Serious infirmities in prosecution case – Adverse inference rightly drawn by trial court [Paras 17, 27, 31].

Possession of Contraband – Exclusive Possession – Prosecution failed to establish conscious and exclusive possession of 5.800 kg heroin – Contradictions in evidence of official witnesses – Independent corroboration absent – Held: Presumption under Sections 35 and 54 NDPS Act not attracted [Paras 27, 31, 37].

Criminal Conspiracy – Sections 27-A and 29 NDPS Act – Evidence Against Co-accused – Case against A2 to A4 based solely on alleged statement of co-accused – Retraction of confession – Delay in arraying accused – Held: No reliable evidence of conspiracy or role of co-accused – Acquittal justified [Paras 33–35].

Compliance with NDPS Safeguards – Sections 50, 52, 55 and 57 – Custody and sealing procedures – Failure to hand over seal to independent witnesses – Non-production before nearest police station – Held: Procedural safeguards not complied with – Prosecution case rendered doubtful [Paras 30–31].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment of acquittal dated 14.10.2011 passed in Spl. Case No. 46/2005 by the Principal Sessions Judge & Special Judge (NDPS), Tumkur affirmed – No interference warranted.

Criminal Law – Section 319 CrPC – Summoning of Additional Accused – Repeated Applications – Judicial Discipline – Revisionists, though named in FIR, were exculpated during investigation and not charge-sheeted – Multiple applications for summoning under Section 319 CrPC rejected at different stages including cognizance stage and after committal – Subsequent application allowed by Sessions Court in alleged haste – Held: Repeated invocation of Section 319 CrPC on the same material requires strict scrutiny and adherence to settled parameters [Paras 2–7, 15].

Section 319 CrPC – Effect of Earlier Rejection Orders – Requirement of Fresh and Strong Evidence – Earlier rejection of application under Section 319 CrPC, affirmed on merits, could not be lightly brushed aside – Evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 found to be identical to their Section 161 CrPC statements – No new incriminating material emerging from examination-in-chief or cross-examination – Power under Section 319 CrPC being extraordinary, could not be exercised casually [Paras 15, 28–31].

Section 319 CrPC – Cross-Examination – Mandatory Consideration – Supreme Court precedents mandate consideration of cross-examination where available – Sessions Court made only cursory reference to cross-examination without analysing contradictions and omissions – Held: Ignoring cross-examination vitiates satisfaction required under Section 319 CrPC [Paras 28–30].

Section 149 IPC – Unlawful Assembly – Limited Application at Section 319 Stage – Mere invocation of Section 149 IPC does not dilute the requirement of strong and cogent evidence against proposed accused – Presence and role of revisionists not established by independent or reliable evidence – Independent witnesses had denied their presence at the spot [Paras 15, 31].

Effect of Supreme Court Order – Clarificatory Dismissal of SLP – Supreme Court dismissed SLP against High Court’s remand order but expressly clarified that dismissal shall not be treated as expression on merits or alleged role of revisionists – Sessions Court failed to consider or await the Supreme Court’s order despite being informed – Held: Sessions Court acted in undue haste and in violation of judicial propriety [Paras 18–27].

Judicial Propriety – Undue Haste – Fair Trial – Sessions Court rushed to decide application on the last day of time limit fixed by High Court, despite being informed of Supreme Court’s order uploaded later the same day – Held: Time limit fixed by High Court could not justify hurried disposal ignoring higher judicial clarification – Such approach erodes faith in judicial process [Paras 24–27].

Remand – Fresh Consideration by Different Presiding Officer – In view of procedural impropriety and failure to consider entire material including cross-examination and Supreme Court clarification – Matter remanded for fresh decision by another Sessions Judge in accordance with law [Paras 32–34].

Decision: Criminal Revision allowed – Order dated 17.08.2024 summoning revisionists under Section 319 CrPC set aside – Sessions Court directed to reconsider the applications afresh, after hearing all parties, uninfluenced by earlier orders, and to pass a reasoned order on or before 31.03.2026.

Service Law – Transfer of Bank Officer – Mid-term and Frequent Transfers – Judicial Review – Petitioner, a specialised officer (Senior Manager (Law), Scale-III), transferred thrice within a short span including transfer within two months from Bahraich to Salem, Tamil Nadu – Despite normal tenure of three years prescribed under Bank’s Transfer Policy – Court examined repeated transfers in light of policy provisions and administrative exigency – Held: Frequent mid-term transfers without justifiable exigency violate the Bank’s own transfer policy and warrant interference [Paras 14–16].

Service Law – Transfer Policy – Binding Nature – Bank having framed an exhaustive Transfer Policy is bound to adhere to it – Clauses prescribing normal tenure and endeavour to complete transfers by 30th June cannot be ignored casually – Transfer in July 2025 without demonstrated exigency held contrary to policy – Authorities failed to justify deviation from prescribed norms [Paras 15, 17].

Service Law – Specialised Officers – Misuse of Specialisation – Petitioner transferred on the ground of being a specialised Law Manager – Court held that specialisation cannot be used as a tool for harassment – Frequent transfers of specialists impair efficiency and defeat institutional interest – Balance between administrative interest and humane working conditions emphasised [Para 16].

Service Law – Grievance Redressal – Non-application of Mind – Rejection of petitioner’s grievance and appeal found to be mere reiteration of earlier reasons – Bank failed to consider petitioner’s case afresh despite repeated directions of the High Court – Orders passed by Grievance Redressal and Appellate Authorities vitiated for non-consideration of relevant policy clauses [Paras 17–18].

Service Law – Scope of Interference in Transfer Matters – While transfer is an incident of service under Regulation 47 of the 1979 Regulations, Court can interfere where transfer is frequent, arbitrary or violative of policy – Case distinguished from general principle of non-interference laid down by Supreme Court – Interference justified in peculiar facts [Paras 13, 15–18].

Decision: Impugned order dated 10.11.2025 and consequential orders quashed – Petitioner permitted to submit fresh representation within fifteen days – Competent authority directed to decide the same within six weeks strictly in accordance with law – Operation of transfer order dated 18.07.2025 stayed meanwhile – Writ petition allowed [Paras 18–22].

Criminal Law - Electricity Act, 2003 – Theft of Electric Lines – Conviction – Accused convicted for theft of copper wires from 66 K.V. electricity transmission line under Section 136 of Electricity Act read with Section 379 IPC – Prosecution proved interruption of supply, theft of 800 meters of copper wire and recovery of stolen material at the instance of accused – Conviction upheld [Paras 2, 18–21].

Criminal Trial – Appreciation of Evidence – Recovery at Instance of Accused – Evidence of complainant (Junior Engineer, KPTCL), Assistant Lineman and Investigating Officer found cogent and reliable – Recovery of stolen copper wires and tools from Tata Sumo vehicle and forest area proved through seizure and spot mahazars – Hostility of some recovery witnesses does not demolish prosecution case when official and corroborative evidence inspires confidence [Paras 10–15, 18–20].

Hostile Witnesses – Effect – Independent witnesses to recovery mahazar (PWs.6 to 8) turned hostile – Held: Prosecution case does not fail merely because panch witnesses turned hostile when recovery is otherwise proved through trustworthy evidence of Investigating Officer and other witnesses [Paras 15–20].

Section 136 Electricity Act – Ingredients – Proof – Prosecution established dishonest intention, unauthorised removal of electric property, identification of stolen wires belonging to KPTCL and lack of consent of owner/licensee – Essential ingredients of offence proved beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 8, 18–20].

Probation of Offenders Act – Applicability – Benefit of probation declined considering nature of offence involving organised theft of public utility property and gravity of economic loss caused to State electricity infrastructure [Para 5].

Criminal Procedure – Set-off – Section 428 Cr.P.C. – Accused arrested on 25.09.2010 and remained in custody till release on bail on 13.09.2012 – Having already undergone one year, eleven months and eighteen days of sentence out of two years imposed – Held: Entitled to set-off of period of detention under Section 428 Cr.P.C. [Paras 22–27].

Sentence – Modification – Conviction confirmed – Sentence modified by granting set-off for period already undergone – No useful purpose in remanding accused to custody for remaining few days [Paras 26–27].

Decision – Appeals partly allowed – Conviction under Section 136 Electricity Act and Section 379 IPC confirmed – Sentence modified by granting benefit of set-off – Appellants directed to be set at liberty if not required in any other case – Bail bonds cancelled [Order].

Death Penalty – Post-Mercy Judicial Review – Article 21 – Even after confirmation of death sentence and rejection of mercy petitions under Articles 72 and 161, the fundamental right to life and human dignity continues to subsist – Constitutional Courts are empowered to examine supervening circumstances affecting fairness, humanity and constitutionality of execution – Scope of judicial review confined to post-conviction events without reopening guilt [Paras 25–27, 52].

Solitary Confinement – Illegal Segregation Prior to Finality of Sentence – Appellants kept in separate cells from 21.12.2006 to 2009 before exhaustion of judicial and constitutional remedies – Such segregation held illegal and violative of Article 21 – Section 30(2) of Prisons Act applicable only when death sentence becomes final, conclusive and executable – Reliance on Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration – Illegal solitary confinement itself a valid ground for commutation [Paras 28–33, 39–43, 53(i)].

Punjab Jail Manual – Statutory Segregation – Constitutional Limits – Provisions permitting confinement “apart from other prisoners” cannot be enforced to impose complete social and sensory isolation – Jail authorities lack power to add punitive solitary confinement beyond judicial sentence – Any segregation resulting in denial of sight and communication with fellow prisoners held unconstitutional [Paras 29–31, 43].

Delay in Disposal of Mercy Petitions – Executive Apathy – Mental Torture – Unreasonable and unexplained delay of more than four years attributable to State authorities at multiple stages – Failure to inform appellants of right to file mercy petitions and denial of legal aid post dismissal of review – Misrouting of mercy petitions, prolonged inaction despite repeated reminders by MHA, erroneous reliance on Sriharan judgment, and one-year delay in communicating rejection by Governor – Held: Delay caused severe mental agony and violated Article 21 [Paras 34–37, 44–49, 53(ii)].

Mercy Petition – Procedural Safeguards – Mandatory Compliance – MHA guidelines requiring immediate intimation to convicts and legal assistance for preparation of mercy petitions are binding – Non-compliance vitiates post-conviction process – Making convicts sign multiple mercy petitions without legal aid held impermissible – Procedural lapses constitute relevant supervening factor for commutation [Paras 44–50].

Gravity of Crime – Irrelevance in Post-Mercy Proceedings – Heinous nature of offence and brutality involved cannot be considered at post-mercy stage – Focus confined to delay, prison conditions, dignity, and fairness – Reliance on Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India [Paras 11, 36, 52].

Long Incarceration on Death Row – ‘Death Row Phenomenon’ – Appellants incarcerated for over twenty years under constant threat of execution – Prolonged uncertainty and psychological trauma recognised as infringement of Article 21 – Mental suffering outweighs relevance of physical health alone [Paras 35–37, 51, 53(iii)].

Maintainability – Letters Patent Appeal – Writ Based on Mercy Delay – Proceedings challenging delay in mercy petitions are independent of original conviction – Intra-court appeal maintainable against dismissal of such writ petitions – Supreme Court remand settled maintainability issue [Paras 7–8].

Sentence – Commutation – Life Imprisonment for Remainder of Natural Life – Cumulative effect of illegal solitary confinement, inordinate delay, prolonged incarceration and procedural lapses warranted commutation – Death sentence substituted with life imprisonment for remainder of natural life – No remission or premature release permissible – Balance struck between constitutional rights of convicts and societal interests [Paras 22, 54].

Decision: Letters Patent Appeals partly allowed – Death sentence commuted to life imprisonment for remainder of natural life – Impugned judgment of Single Judge modified accordingly.

Civil Procedure – Written Statement – Condonation of Delay – Confusion due to Wrong Advocate Entry – Defendant’s request to file written statement rejected by Trial Court citing delay – Trial Court relied on records incorrectly showing Advocate Sapna Rachure as having appeared for defendant – Held: Entry of advocate’s name was due to clerical error from court office carried over from unrelated proceedings – Defendant had never engaged said advocate and had no knowledge of the proceedings – Rejection of written statement on such basis erroneous and unsustainable [Paras 9-13, 18].

Service of Summons – Disputed Signature – Bailiff Report – Trial Court relied on service report dated 28 October 2009 to presume service on defendant – Defendant contested authenticity of signature on report – Prima facie discrepancy noted by High Court – Held: Presumption of service not justified without verification – Cannot deny opportunity to defend on such contested basis [Para 16].

Access to Justice – Opportunity to Defend – Serious Nature of Defamation Suit – Court emphasized that defamation proceedings have serious reputational consequences – Fair opportunity must be given to defend – Rejection of written statement undermines justice – Permission granted to file written statement within 8 weeks [Para 18].

Judicial Error – Litigant Not to Suffer – Clerical Mistake by Court Registry – The clerical error of court registry in reflecting incorrect advocate cannot be attributed to defendant – Held: Litigants should not suffer due to mistakes of court’s administrative office – No negligence attributable to defendant – Request to impose costs rejected [Paras 13, 19].

Family Disputes – Sibling Litigation – Judicial Observation – Court expressed anguish over rising litigation between siblings over family property – Described such disputes as a misuse of judicial resources and urged for amicable resolution – Recalled spirit of festivals like Raksha Bandhan and Bhaubeej highlighting brother-sister bond [Paras 3-5, 21-22].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned order rejecting written statement set aside – Defendant permitted to file written statement within 8 weeks – Trial Court directed to proceed with suit in regular course without priority – No costs imposed [Paras 18, 23-24].