Civil Law - Rent Control - M.P. Accommodation Control Act 1961 - Sections 23A, 23E and 23J - Eviction of tenant - Appellant sought eviction without qualifying as a special category landlord defined under Section 23J - Rent Controlling Authority erroneously entertained application under Chapter III-A and passed eviction order - First appellate court reversed the order holding that Authority lacked jurisdiction as appellant did not fall within Section 23J - High Court upheld reversal noting that Chapter III-A powers are exclusive to specified categories of landlords and the SDO acted without jurisdiction - Held - Appeal dismissed as the order was not passed under Chapter III-A thus rendering the bar under Section 23E inapplicable and making the appeal under Section 31 maintainable - [Paras 13-22].

Civil Law - Appellate Jurisdiction - M.P. Accommodation Control Act 1961 - Sections 23E and 31 - Maintainability of appeal - Whether Section 23E bars an appeal where the order was not passed under Chapter III-A - Appellant contended that the order was passed by Rent Controlling Authority and thus only a revision under Section 23E was maintainable - High Court held that the bar of Section 23E applies only to orders passed under Chapter III-A - Since the appellant was not a special category landlord under Section 23J the order passed was not under Chapter III-A - Consequently Section 31 is the appropriate remedy for challenging such orders - Held - First appellate court correctly entertained the appeal under Section 31 - [Paras 19-21].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court affirmed – Costs made easy.

Criminal Law - Quashing of Proceedings - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Section 509 - Insult to modesty of woman - Petitioners accused of body shaming and verbal abuse - Investigation material and charge sheet failing to establish essential ingredients for the offence of insulting the modesty of a woman - High Court observed that allegations of body shaming do not per se constitute an offence under Section 509 IPC - Held - Continuation of proceedings against petitioners constitutes an abuse of process of law - [Paras 3-7].

Criminal Law - Doctrine of Parity - Quashing of Proceedings - Co-accused granted relief in earlier proceedings - Similar allegations leveled against all accused in the same FIR - Co-accused already granted quashing of identical proceedings by this Court - Held - Doctrine of parity applicable as allegations and materials are common - Proceedings against petitioners quashed - [Paras 6-7].

Decision: Petition allowed - The entire proceedings in C.C. No. 1060/2024 pending before the 1st ACJM, Bengaluru, arising out of Crime No. 203/2023, are hereby quashed insofar as the petitioners are concerned.

Criminal Law - Framing of Charges - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 - Sections 74, 85, 351(3) and 3(5) - Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 - Sections 3 and 4 - Petitioner husband and his parents challenged framing of charges for cruelty and dowry harassment - Complainant alleged sexual harassment by father-in-law and routine dowry demands - Court observed allegations against parents were vague, omnibus, and lacked specific incidents - Held - Allegations against parents were a classic case of over-implication and failed to satisfy the threshold for framing charges - Parents discharged - Charges against husband upheld as allegations were direct and specific requiring trial - [Paras 15-24].

Criminal Law - Matrimonial Disputes - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 - Sections 74 and 85 - Over-implication of distant relatives - Allegations of sexual harassment against father-in-law during lockdown found inherently improbable given complainant held valid driving license - Held - Courts must exercise caution in proceeding against relatives based on omnibus allegations in matrimonial disputes - Prosecution against parents liable to be quashed to prevent abuse of process of law - [Paras 16-17].

Criminal Law - Revisional Jurisdiction - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 - Section 438 - Evaluation of defense evidence at charge stage - Petitioner husband sought discharge based on photographs, train tickets, and employment records - Held - At the stage of framing charges, the Court cannot conduct a mini-trial to adjudicate evidentiary value of defense documents - Disputed questions of fact must be tested during trial - [Paras 20-21].

Decision: Revision petition partly allowed - Impugned order set aside qua Petitioner No. 1 and Petitioner No. 2 - They are discharged from all charges - Trial court directed to proceed against Petitioner No. 3 (husband) in accordance with law.

Civil Law - Specific Performance - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order I Rule 10 - Third party impleadment - Third parties filed application to implead in an appeal arising from a suit for specific performance claiming independent title and share in the suit property - Plaintiff opposed on the ground that the suit is purely contractual between plaintiff and defendant and that the applicant is a stranger to the agreement - Court observed that in a suit for specific performance the scope of enquiry is limited to the enforceability of the contract and the presence of third parties is neither necessary nor proper as it would convert a specific performance suit into a title suit - Held - Stranger to the contract claiming adverse title cannot be impleaded as party-defendant against the wish of the plaintiff - application dismissed - [Paras 1-16].

Civil Law - Procedural Law - Dominus Litis - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order I Rule 10 - Principle of Dominus Litis - The plaintiff is the dominus litis and cannot be forced to implead a third party in a suit for specific performance when the dispute is strictly between the parties to the agreement - Held - The proposed respondents are neither necessary nor proper parties and their impleadment would only lead to collateral investigation into title and delay the adjudication of the contract - [Paras 13-15].

Decision: I.A. No. 1 of 2025 dismissed.

Civil Law - Trademark and Passing Off - Trade Marks Act 1999 - Section 27 - Maintainability of suit for unregistered trademark - Plaintiffs sought permanent injunction against defendants for using a deceptively similar name and design for bidi products causing confusion in the market - Trial Court decreed the suit - Appellants argued before High Court that the suit was barred under Section 27 for infringement of an unregistered trademark - High Court held that while Section 27(1) bars suits for infringement of unregistered trademarks Section 27(2) expressly preserves the common law right to maintain an action for passing off - The pleadings clearly established a case of passing off as the defendants were misrepresenting their goods as those of the plaintiff - Held - The suit for passing off is maintainable despite the trademark being unregistered - Appeal dismissed - [Paras 13-17].

Civil Law - Passing Off - Trade Marks Act 1999 - Section 27(2) - Concept of passing off - The Court clarified that passing off signifies the illegal use of a trade name or design in a manner that misleads the public into believing that the products of one party are those of another - This action protects the goodwill and reputation of the legitimate owner - Held - The action for passing off is distinct from an infringement action and remains an available remedy for unregistered trademarks - [Paras 14-15].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – The judgment and decree dated 25.02.2004 passed by the District Judge, Vidisha in Civil Suit No.2-A/2000 is upheld.

Civil Law - Land Acquisition and Compensation - Bombay Provisional Municipal Corporation Act - Section 77 - Unilateral cancellation of Development Rights Certificates (DRCs) - Petitioner surrendered land for Sewage Treatment Plant and was issued 27 DRCs aggregating to 13,117 sq mtrs - Municipal Corporation subsequently cancelled 11 DRCs alleging that the actual land utilised was less than the land recorded in possession receipts - High Court noted that the Corporation had previously acknowledged the acquisition area in internal records and 7/12 extracts - Held - Cancellation of DRCs without notice or opportunity to be heard and in the absence of statutory power is illegal and violates the Petitioner's right to property under Article 300A of the Constitution of India - Impugned orders dated 08/07/2005 and 09/12/2005 set aside and DRCs ordered to be restored - [Paras 1-32].

Civil Law - Estoppel and Vested Rights - Compensation in lieu of land - Petitioner surrendered land under an agreement and received compensation in the form of DRCs - Corporation sought to dispute the area after long lapse of time relying on a subsequent survey - Held - Having issued possession receipts and acted upon them to mutate the land records in their favour the Corporation is estopped from contending that the possession receipts were bad in law or that the acquisition was for a lesser area - [Paras 21-27].

Civil Law - Equitable Relief and Restitution - Utilization of DRCs - Restoration of wrongfully cancelled DRCs - Corporation argued for current regulatory regime application - Relying on Supreme Court precedent in Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation versus Vijay Nagar Apartments 2026 SCC Online SC 904 - Held - Since the cancellation was illegal and not attributable to the Petitioner the DRCs should be restored and permitted to be utilised as per the regulatory regime prevailing at the time of their illegal cancellation - [Paras 29-31].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed - Impugned orders cancelled - DRCs restored and permitted for use within one year as per the 2005 regime - Petitioner granted liberty to apply for DRCs for the deficit 220 sq mtrs.

Criminal Law - Proclaimed Person - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 82 - Procedural compliance - Petitioner challenged order declaring him proclaimed person following his absence from trial proceedings - Trial Court failed to record subjective satisfaction regarding the petitioner absconding or concealing himself before issuing proclamation - Trial Court order lacked the mandatory statutory requirements for publication and verification stipulated under Section 82 CrPC - High Court held that non-compliance with these procedural mandates renders the proclamation order unsustainable and a nullity - Impugned orders set aside subject to the petitioner surrendering within 30 days - [Paras 1-15].

Criminal Law - Procedure for Proclamation - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 82 - Ratio Decidendi - Issuance of proclamation is not a matter of course and requires the Court to be prima facie satisfied that the accused has absconded or is concealing themselves to evade arrest - The provisions regarding the mode of publication and the 30-day notice period are mandatory and conjunctive - Failure to record such satisfaction and failure to strictly adhere to publication protocols voids the declaration of proclaimed person - [Paras 9-14].

Decision: Petition disposed of – Impugned orders dated 06.01.2026 and 25.03.2026 set aside – Petitioner directed to surrender before the trial court within 30 days and move a bail application – Costs of Rs. 10,000/- imposed on the petitioner to be deposited with the District Legal Services Authority, Kapurthala.

Criminal Law - Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 - Section 138 - Amendment of Complaint - Petitioner sought to correct an inadvertent clerical error in the complaint and statutory notice regarding the name of the bank of presentation due to a misleading return memo - Trial court dismissed applications - High Court held that curable formal infirmities that do not prejudice the accused or alter the nature of the complaint can be amended to meet the ends of justice - Held - Impugned order set aside and amendment allowed - [Paras 5-10].

Criminal Law - Powers of Criminal Court - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 482 - Inherent Power - Absence of specific statutory provision prohibiting amendment of criminal complaints does not denude courts of inherent power to rectify formal errors for dispensation of justice - Held - Court must exercise this power judiciously to prevent miscarriage of justice - [Paras 5-6].

Evidence Law - Witness Examination - Re-examination of witness - Court allowed the recall of PW1 to clarify the corrected bank details post-amendment of the complaint to ensure a fair trial - Held - Such procedural correction is permissible when the mistake is bona fide and formal in nature - [Paras 9-10].

Decision: Petition allowed – Order of the Trial Court set aside – Petitioner permitted to amend the complaint and re-examine PW1 – Trial court directed to dispose of the matter within six months.

Criminal Law - Quashing of Proceedings - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 482 - Dispute arising from family property matters and an illegal saw mill closure resulting in an alleged free fight - Medical evidence failing to support the specific allegations of assault and injury - High Court found the proceeding was a civil dispute given a criminal color to harass the petitioners - Held - Proceedings liable to be quashed to prevent abuse of the process of Court - [Paras 5-10].

Criminal Law - Inherent Powers of High Court - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 482 - Guidelines laid down in Bhajan Lal case - Allegations in the FIR and charge-sheet do not disclose commission of any cognizable offence and are manifestly attended with mala fides - Held - Criminal proceedings must be quashed where no prima facie case is made out and the dispute is essentially civil - [Paras 6-9].

Decision: Application allowed – Proceedings in Contai Police Station Case No. 332 of 2022 along with the charge-sheet are quashed in respect of the petitioners.