Family Law - Domestic Violence – Interim Residence Order – Shared Household – Alternate Accommodation – Validity – Wife sought exclusive residence in shared household; Magistrate declined eviction of husband but directed him to provide rented alternate accommodation with equivalent amenities—Sessions Court upheld—Held: Interim orders are meant to maintain equilibrium pending trial; cohabitation under one roof proved unworkable due to violence and acrimony; direction to provide alternate accommodation is reasonable, equitable, and legally sound – No interference warranted [Paras 5–7].

Criminal Revision – Scope – Evidence appreciation not permissible – Documents on alleged illicit relationship (against wife) or alternate properties (against husband) irrelevant at interim stage – Such contentions to be examined only in trial of main Domestic Violence petition – Revisions dismissed [Para 7].

Decision – Both revision petitions (Crl.R.P. 16/2025 and 1212/2024) dismissed – Orders of Magistrate and Sessions Judge upheld – Interim arrangement of alternate accommodation for wife stands [Para 12].

Civil Law - Ex Parte Proceedings – Application to Set Aside – Order 9 Rule 7 CPC – Trial Court imposed condition of Rs.25,000/- for permitting cross-examination of PW1 – Defendants failed to comply, application dismissed – Held: Conditional costs excessive – Opportunity must be given to defend case – Conditional order modified to Rs.5,000/- [Paras 5-9].

Supervisory Jurisdiction – Article 227 of Constitution – Scope – High Court intervened where Trial Court exercised discretion arbitrarily in fixing disproportionate costs – Held: Supervisory power rightly invoked to secure ends of justice [Paras 7-10].

Decision – Impugned order dated 04.07.2025 in I.A.No.3 of 2025 set aside – Defendants directed to pay Rs.5,000/- to plaintiff on or before 12.09.2025 – Civil Revision Petition allowed – Matter posted for reporting compliance [Paras 9-10].

Bail – Allegations of theft of gold and attempt to run over police vehicle while escaping – Accused No. 1 facing 81 adverse antecedents – Bail refused having regard to gravity of offence and criminal history – Petition dismissed as against Accused No. 1 [Paras 6-7].

Bail – Accused No. 2, son of Accused No. 3 and relative of Accused No. 1 – Detained for 61 days in judicial custody – Considering nature of allegations against him and period of incarceration, Court inclined to grant bail – Bail granted subject to stringent conditions of bond, weekly reporting, restriction on travel, cooperation with investigation, and non-tampering with witnesses [Paras 8-9].

Decision – Criminal petition partly allowed – Bail rejected for Accused No. 1; Bail granted to Accused No. 2 with conditions [Para 9].

NDPS Act – Sampling Procedure – Section 52A(2) – Mandatory Compliance – Accused found with Buprenorphine and Diazepam injections – Samples drawn by detecting officer at spot without moving application to Magistrate – Held: As per Union of India v. Mohanlal (2016) and Simranjit Singh v. State of Punjab (2023), samples must be drawn in presence and under supervision of Magistrate; failure vitiates prosecution – Prosecution case not free from suspicion – Benefit of doubt to accused [Paras 12-15].

Criminal Trial – Evidence Recording – Sections 273 & 276 Cr.P.C. – Invalid Chief Affidavits – Trial court accepted affidavits of PWs 1 & 4 as chief-examination, contrary to Section 276 Cr.P.C. requiring recording in court in presence of accused – Violated accused’s right to object to leading questions – Prejudice caused – Conviction unsustainable [Paras 8-11].

Benefit of Doubt – Doubts in Procedure – Absence of statutory compliance in sampling and defective recording of witness testimony cumulatively rendered prosecution unreliable – Acquittal directed [Paras 16].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Accused acquitted and directed to be released forthwith unless required in another case. Acquittal [Para 16].

Murder  – Section 302/149 IPC – Eyewitness Testimony and Medical Evidence – Benefit of Doubt – Prosecution alleged deceased Charan Singh was shot dead while ploughing a field; FIR lodged promptly—Trial Court convicted appellants—On appeal, contradictions noted: direction of gunshot injuries inconsistent with claim that deceased was seated on tractor, unexplained incised injuries, absence of upward trajectory wounds, no empty cartridges recovered, no marks of firing on tractor—Conduct of eyewitnesses (all close relatives) in not touching body found unnatural—Held: Presence of eyewitnesses doubtful, corroboration lacking, and possibility of alternative assailants (enmity with one Mohan Lal earlier convicted for father’s murder) cannot be ruled out—Prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt—Conviction set aside; appellant acquitted [Paras 31-46].

Eyewitness Testimony – Related/Interested Witness – Judicial Approach – Court reiterated that evidence of related witnesses cannot be discarded merely for being partisan; requires cautious scrutiny—However, in present case, inconsistencies between ocular and medical evidence, doubtful presence at scene, and unnatural conduct of witnesses made their testimony unreliable—Outcome: Evidence insufficient to sustain conviction [Paras 30-35].

Recovery of Weapon – Absence of Forensic Support – No firearms recovered from accused, no empty cartridges from scene, no blood trail corroborating prosecution version—These omissions further weakened prosecution case—Benefit of doubt extended to appellant [Paras 36, 40].

Defence Version – Alternative Hypothesis of Guilt – Evidence showed deceased had old enmity with family of Mohan Lal (convicted for father’s murder, later released)—Court held possibility that offence committed by others could not be ruled out—Strengthened appellant’s defence [Paras 45-46].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Conviction and sentence of surviving appellant Suresh under Sections 302/149 and 148 IPC set aside—Acquitted giving benefit of doubt—If on bail, need not surrender; bail bonds cancelled, sureties discharged [Paras 47-49].

Specific Performance – Registered 1977 Agreement – Money-lending backdrop – Section 20 Specific Relief Act & Section 52 TPA – Decree Set Aside – Parties litigated over an alleged agreement to sell ancestral land in favour of deceased Ankush; Trial Court held the document was a sham/security for loans, First Appellate Court reversed – Held: On a holistic view of contemporaneous loan suits, decrees and receipts, the agreement operated as security and not a genuine sale agreement; appellate reversal ignored Trial Court’s reasoning and vital evidence – Decree for specific performance set aside; Trial Court decree restored [Paras 20-26, 32-34, 45-46].

Specific Relief – Discretion under Section 20 – Ancestral joint family property – Need to prove legal necessity/authority of manager – Discretion improperly exercised – First Appellate Court failed to frame/decide the issue of equitable discretion despite admitting the property was ancestral; no proof of legal necessity or authority to bind co-sharers – Grant of specific performance vitiated for want of proper application of Section 20 – Appeal allowed [Paras 27-29, 35, 45-46].

Evidence – Non-examination of principal and effect – Power-of-attorney testimony limited – Adverse inference – Plaintiff No.1, who signed on behalf of Ankush and allegedly made the payments, did not enter the witness box – Applying Vidyadhar and Man Kaur, adverse inference drawn; PA holder’s evidence could not substitute for principal’s personal knowledge – Appellate Court erred in overlooking this [Paras 30-33].

Appellate Practice – First appeal reversing facts – Duty to engage with Trial Court’s reasons – Santosh Hazari applied – Reversal cannot rest on defendant’s weaknesses or registration alone; appellate court must confront and displace trial reasons with cogent analysis – Failure here rendered the decree unsustainable [Paras 22, 25-26, 32-33].

Lis Pendens – Section 52 TPA – Registered cancellation deed by Class-I heirs during pendency – Not hit by Section 52 – Where Class-I heirs (widow/children of Ankush) executed a registered cancellation in 2020, they validly relinquished the right to seek specific performance; being a Class-II heir, the father alone could not sustain the decree – Exhibit X1 is admissible and operative inter partes and does not offend lis pendens; decree cannot survive only for Plaintiff No.1 – Suit agreement unenforceable – Appeal allowed [Paras 38-44, 46].

Decision – Second appeal allowed – First Appellate Court’s decree dated 24/08/1993 quashed; Trial Court’s dismissal dated 28/09/1987 restored; suit dismissed; no order as to costs [Para 46].

Criminal Revision – Revisional Jurisdiction – Sections 397 & 401 CrPC – Scope of interference is extremely limited – Revisional Court cannot act as appellate forum or reappreciate evidence – Interference only if order of trial court is grossly erroneous, perverse, or without material – Framing of charge is an interlocutory/intermediate order not to be quashed except in rare cases [Paras 7–11, 15].

Framing of Charge – Prima facie case – Sections 227 & 228 CrPC – At discharge stage, court assumes prosecution material to be true – If grave suspicion arises, charges to be framed – Defence contentions and contradictions in witness statements cannot be considered at this stage – No mini trial permissible [Paras 7–12, 17].

Municipal and Fire Officers – Liability for Illegal Omission – Sections 33, 36, 304, 308, 337, 338 IPC – Town Planning and Fire Officers aware of unauthorized TRP Game Zone construction without Fire NOC – Despite notices under Section 260 GPMC Act and earlier fire incident, failed to act – Their omissions and dereliction facilitated circumstances leading to fire causing 27 deaths – Prima facie case for culpable homicide not amounting to murder and allied offences made out [Paras 4.2–4.4, 12–16].

Forgery & Conspiracy – Sections 464, 465, 466, 471, 474, 201, 120B IPC – Allegations of backdating, falsifying, and destroying official registers in Town Planning Office to cover up illegal construction – Witness statements under Section 161 CrPC indicate connivance of officials – Sufficient prima facie material to frame charges for forgery, fabrication of records, destruction of evidence and criminal conspiracy [Paras 1.9–1.11, 13–15].

Contentions of Applicants – Innocence and lack of nexus – Applicants (Assistant Engineer, Town Planning and Fire Station Officer) contended that duties were limited, higher officials responsible, no direct nexus with deaths, and at most Section 304A attracted – Held: At charge stage, defence and probative value of evidence cannot be assessed; material discloses grave suspicion sufficient for trial [Paras 1.2–1.8, 1.12–1.13, 16–17].

Decision – Both Criminal Revision Applications (Nos.1216 & 1365 of 2025) dismissed – Orders framing charges in Sessions Case No.169 of 2024 upheld – No interference warranted in revisional jurisdiction – Trial to proceed [Para 18–19].

Bail – Anti-National Facebook Post – Sections 152, 192, 197(1), 353(2) BNS – Bail Rejected – Applicant posted provocative and derogatory content including insult to Indian National Flag and slogans glorifying Pakistan – Cyber investigation traced posts to applicant's verified IP and mobile – Court found conduct detrimental to national integrity and social harmony – No grounds for bail [Paras 2–10].

Cyber Crime – Electronic Evidence – Facebook Post Verified Through IP and Mobile Linking – Meta data and cyber report confirmed the posts were made from applicant's mobile using his SIM and devices – Forensic collection upheld as credible prima facie evidence linking accused to offense [Paras 6(i)-(ii), 8].

National Flag – Insult to National Honour – Bail Denied – Photograph showing dog sitting on Indian Flag uploaded by applicant was termed as deliberate act of dishonour – Court reaffirmed importance of safeguarding national symbols and noted that such acts were punishable and socially corrosive [Paras 7, 9].

Criminal Antecedents – Previous Involvement in Arms Act and Attempt to Murder Cases – Considered in Bail Rejection – Two prior cases including one under Section 307 IPC weighed against applicant's plea for liberty [Para 6(vi)].

Social Media Responsibility – Posts Capable of Inciting Communal Disharmony – Court observed that the content uploaded was capable of disturbing public peace and order – Bail denied due to possibility of larger societal impact [Para 8].

Decision – Bail Application Rejected – Prima facie materials against the accused supported by technical evidence and witness statements – Insult to National Flag viewed as serious and non-bailable conduct – Application dismissed [Paras 10–11].

Civil Writ - Paddy Land – Classification Error – Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 – Rejection of Form 5 application without inspection/satellite images – Order Quashed – Petitioner’s land wrongly included in data bank as “paddy land”—Authorised officer dismissed exclusion application mechanically based only on Agricultural Officer’s report—Held: Officer failed to comply with statutory mandate of Rule 4(4f); non-application of mind—Impugned order quashed and matter remitted for fresh consideration with mandatory inspection/satellite verification – Writ petition allowed [Paras 3–5].

Administrative Law – Duty to Record Findings – Failure amounts to arbitrariness – Authorised officer must independently determine nature and character of land as on 12.08.2008 and whether exclusion prejudices surrounding fields – Absence of such findings renders order unsustainable [Para 5].

Decision – Ext.P5 order dated 21.06.2024 quashed – RDO directed to reconsider petitioner’s application under Rule 4(4d), with personal inspection or satellite images—Fresh decision within two months (inspection) or three months (satellite images) – Writ petition allowed [Operative Part].