Specific Performance – Temporary Injunction – Power of Attorney – Fraud and Collusion – Reasoned Order – Appellant-owners executed a registered power of attorney and agreement for sale in favour of respondent nos. 2 and 3 – Both were subsequently cancelled by mutual consent – During the subsistence of the power of attorney, respondent nos. 2 and 3 allegedly executed a sub-agreement for sale of the subject property in favour of respondent no. 1 (plaintiff) without disclosing the same to the appellants – Appellants received no part of the consideration and lodged a police complaint alleging fraud – Trial Court granted temporary injunction in the suit for specific performance without adverting to the serious allegations of fraud and collusion raised in the written objection – Held: An order of temporary injunction which pays lip-service to the three cardinal tests without specifically addressing grave allegations made by the defendants cannot be sustained – Order set aside and matter remanded for fresh hearing [Paras 10–15].

Injunction – Three Cardinal Tests – Duty to Give Reasons – A court granting temporary injunction must specifically advert to the allegations and contentions of both parties, including those raised in the written objection, and must give clear reasons for its conclusion on prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury – Failure to do so renders the order unsustainable regardless of the merits of the respective contentions [Paras 11–12].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned order dated 12.12.2025 of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Third Court at Howrah in Title Suit No. 528 of 2023 set aside – Temporary injunction application remanded for fresh hearing and disposal by a reasoned order preferably by 30.06.2026 – Pending disposal, appellants restrained from selling, transferring or alienating the suit property to third parties – Merits of contentions of parties left open – No order as to costs.

Criminal Law – Murder and Attempt to Murder – Abduction – Sections 302/307/364/34 IPC and Section 27 Arms Act – Conviction Upheld – Eight appellants convicted by the trial court for abducting the informant Panchai Munduiya (P.W.1) and deceased Birendra Munduiya by motorcycle to a secluded check dam near Gaurburu forest, shooting the deceased at close range causing his death and firing upon the informant with intent to kill – High Court, on appreciation of entire record, finding no infirmity in the judgment of conviction and order of sentence – Held: All appeals dismissed – Appellants directed to surrender to serve out sentences [Paras 1–3, 141–143].

Sole Injured Eyewitness – Evidentiary Value – Conviction on Sole Testimony – P.W.1, the informant and injured eyewitness, deposed with consistency regarding the role of each appellant – His presence at the place of occurrence established beyond doubt by the gunshot injuries sustained by him on vital parts of the body (kanpatti) – Testimony corroborated by the medical evidence of P.W.4, discharge report (Ext.2), post-mortem report (Ext.8), and the testimony of Investigating Officer P.W.8 – Held: There is no legal impediment in convicting a person on the sole testimony of a single witness provided he is wholly reliable; testimony of an injured eyewitness carries a built-in guarantee of presence and is not to be discarded lightly unless compelling reasons exist [Paras 64–74, 106–115, 128, 138–139].

Non-Examination of Independent Witnesses – Not Fatal – The incident occurred at a secluded forest location late at night after the victims were taken there in a planned manner – Absence of independent witnesses explained by the nature and location of the occurrence – Held: Examination of independent witnesses is not an indispensable requisite where the testimonies of the witnesses examined are trustworthy and reliable; the prosecution case cannot be dismissed solely on the ground of absence of independent witnesses [Paras 76–79, 102–103, 120–124].

Ocular Evidence vs. Medical Evidence – Variance – Primacy of Ocular Evidence – P.W.1 stated three bullets were fired at the deceased, whereas the post-mortem report recorded two firearm injuries with one bullet lodged in the exit wound – Held: In cases of variance between ocular and medical evidence, ocular testimony must be accorded primacy unless medical evidence completely rules out the ocular version; the variance here does not demolish the prosecution case, as the cause of death by firearm injuries stands established by both ocular and medical evidence [Paras 80–84, 125–136].

Delay in Recording Fardbeyan – Explained – P.W.8, the Investigating Officer, found P.W.1 in an extremely serious and near-speechless condition at Dadima village – Fardbeyan recorded in hospital as soon as the informant was able to speak – Held: Non-disclosure of names of accused to villagers at the spot and the delay in fardbeyan satisfactorily explained by the grave physical condition of the informant; no fatal impact on prosecution case [Paras 85–86, 116–119].

Investigation Lacunae – Non-Seizure of Blood Stain and Weapon – Non-preparation of site plan, non-seizure of blood-stained earth or cloth, and non-recovery of the weapon of offence from the accused – Held: Perfunctory investigation does not vitiate the prosecution case where the prosecution version is supported by cogent testimony of an injured eyewitness; non-recovery of murder weapon or non-sending of blood-stained material for FSL examination are deficiencies in investigation but do not corrode the evidentiary value of eyewitnesses [Paras 89–96].

Common Intention – Section 34 IPC – All appellants restrained the victims, transported them by motorcycle to the secluded site, and participated in the assault – Held: Common intention need not be pre-arranged; it may be formed even moments before the criminal act and must be inferred from the conduct of the accused before, during and after the occurrence; Section 34 IPC fastens joint liability on each co-participant [Paras 97–101].

Decision: All criminal appeals dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 364/34, 302/34 and 307/34 IPC and Section 27 Arms Act upheld – Appellants on suspension of sentence directed to surrender before the trial court forthwith; upon failure to surrender, the trial court to take steps to secure custody.

NDPS – Bail – Commercial Quantity – Section 37 NDPS Act – Rigour Applicable – Recovery of 2.700 kg methamphetamine (Ice) from vehicle – A3 arrested on 22.06.2024 and A4 arrested on 09.11.2024 – Both petitioners sought bail on multiple grounds including non-furnishing of grounds of arrest, absence of CCTV footage during recovery, remand beyond 24 hours, and parity with co-accused – No materials placed to overcome the rigour of Section 37 NDPS Act – Held: Bail petitions dismissed [Paras 8, 16, 17].

Grounds of Arrest – Prospective Application – Arrest Memo vs. Grounds of Arrest – Mihir Rajesh Shah – The Supreme Court in Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra, (2026) 1 SCC 500 (decided 06.11.2025) held that the right to seek bail on account of inadequacy of grounds of arrest would apply only prospectively from 06.11.2025 – Both arrests in the present case were prior to that date – Held: Petitioners cannot raise the issue of non-furnishing of grounds of arrest, even though arrest memos and grounds of arrest stand on a different footing as held by the Supreme Court [Paras 9, 10, 11, 15].

Parity with Co-Accused – Not Available – The co-accused Abdul Gaffar was granted bail in Crl.O.P.No.7908 of 2025 on the ground of non-furnishing of grounds of arrest; however, the judgment in Mihir Rajesh Shah's case mandating prospective application from 06.11.2025 was not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge therein – Petitioners cannot seek parity on the basis of an order that did not consider the binding prospective restriction – Moreover, the role of the present petitioners is distinct from that of Abdul Gaffar [Paras 6, 14, 15].

NDPS – Recovery – Absence of CCTV/Videography – Not Fatal in Absence of Court Direction – Petitioners contended that absence of CCTV recordings during the recovery proceeding entitled them to bail, relying on Ragul Rahaman v. NCB (SLP (Crl.) No.11712 of 2025) – Held: The said ruling arose from a case where the Calcutta High Court had issued a specific direction for videography, which was not done in the present case; the ruling is not applicable – This contention was in any event raised in earlier bail applications and rejected [Para 12].

Detention Beyond 24 Hours – Allegation Not Substantiated – Petitioners were intercepted on 20.06.2024 but A3 was formally arrested on 22.06.2024 after voluntary statements were recorded under Section 67 NDPS Act – No material on record showed that the petitioners were detained prior to formal arrest – Both petitioners were remanded to judicial custody within 24 hours of their respective dates of arrest – Held: No illegality found in the remand [Paras 13, 15].

Distinction – Detention Orders vs. Bail Jurisprudence – Judgments in Shabna Abdulla v. Union of India, 2024 INSC 612 and Harikisan v. State of Maharashtra, 1962 SCC OnLine SC 117, cited by the petitioners, arose in the context of preventive detention orders and are not applicable to bail matters – Distinguished [Para 11].

Decision: Both Criminal Original Petitions dismissed – No grounds made out to overcome the rigour of Section 37 NDPS Act.

NDPS – Bail – Commercial Quantity – Section 37 – Petitioner alleged to have transported 501.5 kg of contraband ganja in a vehicle — Petitioner in custody for over two years — Contention of discrepancies in weighment, non-compliance of mandatory provisions, and prosecution witnesses not supporting the case — State opposed bail on ground that quantity was well above commercial quantity and conditions of Section 37 not satisfied — Court had earlier refused bail in BLAPL No. 6421 of 2025 — Held: Grant or refusal of bail in cases under the NDPS Act involving commercial quantity is governed exclusively by Section 37, which mandates that bail shall not be granted unless the Court is satisfied that there exist reasonable grounds for believing the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit an offence while on bail — Conditions of Section 37 not satisfied — Bail refused [Paras 2–5].

Long Custody – Right to Speedy Trial – Section 37 NDPS Act – Held: The right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution, though a valuable constitutional guarantee, has to be read alongside and not in displacement of the mandate of Section 37 of the NDPS Act in cases involving commercial quantity — Length of custody period and filing of charge sheet are by themselves not considerations that can be treated as persuasive grounds for granting bail under Section 37 — Non-compliance or delayed compliance of Section 52-A cannot be treated as an illegality entitling the accused to bail when sufficient material has been collected to establish that search and seizure was made in due compliance of mandatory provisions [Para 3–4].

Decision: BLAPL dismissed — Bail refused — Petitioner granted liberty to renew bail application before Trial Court if trial not concluded within six months.

Contempt Jurisdiction – Land Loser Appointments – Railway Employment – Scope of Court's Direction – Eligibility Criteria – Petitioners are land losers whose land was acquired for Nandigram Deshapran Project and Arambag Bowaichandi Railway Project on assurance of employment to one family member – Court directed compliance with Tribunal's order dated 16.03.2020 which in turn directed the Railway to follow the identical process as adopted in WPCT 74 of 2016 – Alleged contemnors applied a structured screening process including PET, minimum educational qualification of matriculation, and age relaxation of 15 years as per the Supreme Court's direction in Shankar Prasad Deep – Petitioners, who failed the screening, alleged this imposed conditions beyond what the court directed – Held: The order under contempt directed following the procedure in WPCT 74 of 2016, which itself addressed only the age criterion; the Division Bench in that case never directed blanket appointments irrespective of minimum eligibility screening – No violation of court's order established – Contempt applications dismissed [Paras 19–33].

Contempt – Wilful Disobedience – Substantial Compliance – In contempt jurisdiction the court's scope is limited to determining whether there has been an intentional, deliberate and wilful violation of the court's order – Where the alleged contemnor has taken up each applicant's case for consideration, applied age relaxation of 15 years as directed, screened through a standing committee as provided in the Scheme and JPO, and appointed the majority of eligible candidates, substantial compliance is established – The mere fact that some candidates could not clear the screening process does not constitute contempt [Paras 19, 32–33].

Land Loser Category – Eligibility – Physical Efficiency Test – Educational Qualification – Age Relaxation – The RBE No. 99/2010 and JPO dated 03.06.2011 provide for a fair and transparent selection process including screening by a standing committee – The Supreme Court in Shankar Prasad Deep categorically held that land losers are entitled to age relaxation of 15 years but must fulfil all other prescriptions including educational qualification and medical standards – The court's directions in WPCT 74 of 2016 addressed only the age bar and did not foreclose application of other eligibility criteria – Imposition of PET and matriculation qualification held not to be in violation of the court's order [Paras 26–30].

Participation in Selection Process – Estoppel – Applicants who participated in the screening process and were declared unsuccessful cannot thereafter challenge the validity of the selection criteria through contempt proceedings – Any fresh grievance arising from rejection on grounds of PET disqualification, overage, or educational qualification constitutes a new cause of action and cannot be adjudicated in contempt jurisdiction [Para 14].

Decision: All four contempt applications dismissed – No order as to costs.

Matrimonial Law – Maintenance under Section 125 CrPC – Quantum – Retrospective Fixation – Proportionate Computation – Family Court awarded Rs. 20,000 per month as maintenance to the wife from the date of filing of the application (04.02.2016), computed on the basis of the husband's admitted net monthly salary of Rs. 70,499 at the time of adjudication – Husband challenged uniform retrospective application of Rs. 20,000 from 2016 when his salary was only Rs. 29,711 per month (net), making the maintenance 67% of his then salary – Held: While maintenance is payable from the date of filing of the application as per Rajnesh v. Neha, a uniform lump-sum cannot be applied retrospectively without being commensurate with the actual salary of the husband during each corresponding year – Maintenance for the period 04.02.2016 to 31.03.2024 to be recomputed proportionately year-wise based on Income Tax Returns; maintenance from 01.04.2024 onwards to remain at Rs. 20,000 per month [Paras 18–21].

Maintenance – Quantum – 25% of Net Salary – Standard – Settled law that there is no rigid formula for computing maintenance and it must be determined on the facts and circumstances of each case – However, the Supreme Court in Kulbhushan Kunwar and Kalyan Dey Chowdhury has consistently upheld fixation of approximately 25% of the husband's net salary as just and proper – Maintenance of Rs. 20,000 per month on a net admitted salary of Rs. 70,499 (approximately 28.36%) held to be just and equitable – No enhancement warranted [Paras 11–12, 16–17].

Maintenance – Date of Award – Rajnesh v. Neha – Maintenance is payable from the date of filing of the application and not from the date of the order, as settled by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha – However, Rajnesh v. Neha does not require uniform retrospective application of the maintenance amount without regard to the actual income of the husband during each intervening year – Para 81 of Rajnesh v. Neha requires maintenance to be reasonable and realistic, neither oppressive nor penurious [Paras 13, 15, 19].

Findings in Summary Proceedings – Binding Effect – Observations recorded by the Family Court in paragraphs 34, 36 and 38 of the impugned order regarding cruelty were made solely in the context of a summary proceeding under Section 125 CrPC and do not have binding effect in the pending criminal trial under Section 498-A IPC – Prayer for expungement of such observations rejected as apprehension is misplaced; parties at liberty to raise contentions before appropriate forum [Para 23].

Decision: Criminal Revision No. 1050/2025 filed by husband partly allowed – Uniform fixation of Rs. 20,000 per month from 04.02.2016 modified – Maintenance for 04.02.2016 to 31.03.2024 to be recomputed proportionately on the basis of net salary for each financial year as per Income Tax Returns to be produced before the Executing Court within 30 days; maintenance from 01.04.2024 onwards confirmed at Rs. 20,000 per month – Criminal Revision No. 1158/2025 filed by wife for enhancement dismissed with liberty to seek modification on change of circumstances – No order as to costs.

Criminal Law – Section 34 IPC – Common Intention – Pre-plan and Pre-meditation – No Overt Act – Acquittal – Double murder of Rohtash Singh and Anchali Devi allegedly committed by main accused Hawai Singh @ Hari Singh using a licensed gun – Present appellant Karan Singh, a helper/servant of the main accused, was convicted by the Trial Court with the aid of Section 34 IPC solely on the basis of his presence at the place of occurrence and the alleged dragging of the dead body of Anchali Devi post-incident – Prosecution assigned no role to the appellant in the firing, instigation or exhortation of the main accused – No weapon was recovered from or attributed to the appellant – Held: For conviction under Section 302/34 IPC, the court must arrive at a definite conclusion of prior concert, pre-plan, pre-meditation or meeting of minds among all accused – Mere presence at the place of occurrence is insufficient – Trial Court failed to record any finding or discuss the elements of Section 34 IPC – Conviction set aside [Paras 31–35].

Section 34 IPC – Elements – Meeting of Minds – It is settled law that common intention within the meaning of Section 34 IPC implies a pre-arranged plan pursuant to which the criminal act is done – Such plan may develop on the spot but must precede the criminal act – The prosecution must establish prior meeting of minds, shared intention and that the act was done in furtherance of the common intention of all accused – Bald application of Section 34 without cogent evidence of pre-plan or pre-consultation renders the conviction unsustainable [Paras 32–34].

Medical Evidence – Contradiction with Oral Evidence – Prosecution witnesses deposed that appellant dragged the dead body of Anchali Devi from the roof through stairs to the house of the main accused – However, the post-mortem doctor stated that dragging would ordinarily cause abrasions and contusions on the legs, feet and palms of the deceased – No such injuries were found on the dead body of Anchali Devi – This major contradiction between oral and medical evidence renders the appellant's presence at the place of occurrence highly doubtful [Paras 28–29].

False Implication – Motive – Appellant was a helper/servant of the main accused and was a witness in a pending Section 325 IPC case against the informant and the deceased – In Indian societal context, helpers and servants of the principal accused are often falsely implicated alongside their employers – These circumstances provide plausible motive for false implication of the appellant [Para 30].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and order dated 09.06.1988 of the Trial Court in Sessions Trial No. 272 of 1987 set aside – Appellant acquitted of all charges under Sections 302/34, 307/34 and 449 IPC – Bail bonds cancelled and sureties discharged – Appellant to comply with Section 437-A CrPC.

Election Law – Municipal Council – Election Petition – Maintainability – Limitation – Gazette Notification – Harmonious Construction – Post-2020 amendment to the M.P. Municipalities Act, the President of a Municipal Council is elected indirectly by elected Councillors in the first meeting under Section 55, instead of by direct election – Sections 19(1)(a), 20(2)(b)(iii), 43(1) and 55(1) were amended accordingly but Sections 20(3)(i), 21(2) and 45 were not correspondingly amended, creating a legislative vacuum – Section 45 continued to require publication of election of President in the Official Gazette while Section 20(3)(i) stipulated that an election petition could be filed only within 30 days of such Gazette notification – Since no Gazette notification was published for the indirectly elected President, the Election Tribunal dismissed the election petition as premature – Held: The inconsistency between amended and unamended provisions creates an impossible situation; applying harmonious construction and the principle that no person shall be left remediless, Section 20(3)(i) must be read to allow filing of an election petition within 30 days of the date of election of the President in the first meeting of the Council – Election petition filed on 23.08.2022 within 30 days of election on 05.08.2022 held to be maintainable [Paras 46–59].

Harmonious Construction – Conflicting Provisions – Duty of Courts – Where two provisions of the same statute conflict and cannot be reconciled literally, the court must so interpret them as to give effect to both and further the object of the Act – An interpretation which renders one provision otiose or leaves a party without remedy must be avoided – The subsequent amendment of 2024 to Section 20(3)(i), providing that in case of election of President, limitation runs from the date of election in the first meeting, confirms the legislative intent and supports prospective reading of the unamended provision through harmonious construction [Paras 53–58].

Retrospectivity – Statutory Amendments – The 2024 amendment to the M.P. Municipalities Act operates prospectively from 09.08.2024 and cannot be applied to an order passed on 01.02.2024 or to elections held in 2022 – Submissions of the State to apply the 2024 amendment retrospectively rejected [Para 43].

Election Petition – Dismissal under Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Non-submission of Treasury Receipt – Whether non-submission of Government Treasury receipt of Rs. 200/- as required under Section 20(3)(ii) is a ground for rejection of the election petition at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11 is a mixed question of law and fact requiring determination at the stage of final hearing on the basis of evidence – Division Bench ruling in Renu Shah v. Kant Shirh Dev Singh followed [Paras 41].

Conduct of Parties – Costs – Contradictory Stands – Respondent no. 1, despite knowing that no Gazette notification of her election as President was published, raised the objection of non-publication as a ground to dismiss the election petition, thereby obstructing due process – Such conduct amounts to misuse of judicial process and unfair dealing with both the petitioner and the Court – Costs of Rs. 1,00,000/- imposed on respondent no. 1 (Rs. 50,000/- to petitioner; Rs. 50,000/- to District Legal Services Authority, Sheopur) – Participation of respondent no. 1 in EP proceedings made subject to compliance [Para 60(iv)].

Decision: Civil Revision allowed – Impugned order dated 01.02.2024 of First District Judge, Sheopur set aside – Election petition held maintainable – Tribunal directed to frame issue on the Rs. 200/- receipt objection and decide it at the time of final hearing – Election petition to be concluded by November 2026 – Costs of Rs. 1,00,000/- imposed on respondent no. 1 – Chief Secretary directed to submit enquiry report within 15 days – Matter to be listed in the week commencing 15.06.2026 for compliance.

Specific Performance – Temporary Injunction – Power of Attorney – Fraud and Collusion Alleged – Appellants/defendant nos. 1 and 2, being owners of the suit property, challenged an order of temporary injunction granted in favour of the plaintiff/respondent no. 1 in a suit for specific performance – Agreement for sale in favour of the plaintiff was allegedly executed by respondent nos. 2 and 3 acting as attorneys under a registered power of attorney granted by the appellants – Appellants contended that the power of attorney and the underlying agreement for sale between themselves and respondent nos. 2 and 3 were mutually cancelled prior to the suit agreement, and that the suit agreement was executed fraudulently without their knowledge or consent and without receipt of any consideration by them – Further alleged collusion between respondent no. 1 and respondent nos. 2 and 3, evidenced by mutual monetary transactions in bank statements – Respondent no. 1 countered that the suit agreement was executed during subsistence of the registered power of attorney and that substantial consideration had been paid – Held: None of the grave allegations of fraud and collusion raised in the written objection were adverted to by the Trial Judge while passing the impugned order – Impugned order paid mere lip-service to the three cardinal tests for grant of injunction without recording any clear reason for finding a prima facie case – Impugned order unsustainable [Paras 2–12].

Injunction – Remand – Reasoned Order – Upon setting aside the impugned order, the temporary injunction application remanded to the Trial Judge for fresh hearing on merits – Trial Judge directed to pass a reasoned order considering and adverting to all disputes raised by both parties in the injunction application and written objection respectively – During pendency of the fresh hearing, the interim order of injunction revived restraining the appellants from selling, transferring, or alienating the suit property in favour of third parties – Fresh disposal directed preferably by 30 June 2026 – Merits of respective contentions left entirely open [Paras 13–18].

Decision: FMA 433 of 2026 allowed on contest — Impugned order dated December 12, 2025 of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Third Court at Howrah in Title Suit No. 528 of 2023 set aside — Temporary injunction application remanded for fresh adjudication — Interim injunction against appellants revived during pendency — CAN 1 of 2026 disposed of — No order as to costs.