Criminal Law – Quashing - Proclamation under Section 82 CrPC – Illegal Declaration – Petitioner declared proclaimed person in FIR involving Sections 406 and 420 IPC – Court found that procedure under Section 82 was not followed – No evidence of petitioner absconding or concealing himself – No fresh proclamation issued after adjournment – Minimum 30-day notice period not complied with – Held: Declaration of proclaimed offender without adherence to statutory safeguards is illegal and unsustainable – Order set aside [Paras 5–6, 8–9, 11]

Natural Justice – Right to Fair Process – Petitioner, a 77-year-old NRI, was not served any notice nor restrained despite travelling to and from India – Proclamation proceedings initiated without attempting service via Embassy or international procedure – Held: Proceedings violated principles of natural justice – There was no deliberate evasion or wilful non-appearance – Non-service and absence of notice fatal to validity of proclamation [Paras 2, 5, 9]

Judicial Oversight – Magistrate’s Failure to Record Satisfaction – Order under Section 82 must be preceded by judicial satisfaction that accused is absconding or evading – Court below failed to record such satisfaction – No inquiry conducted nor legal threshold met – Held: Proclamation issued mechanically and contrary to law – Cannot sustain in view of settled precedent [Paras 5–6, 8]

Precedent – Compliance with Section 82 Mandatory – Citing Sonu v. State of Haryana, 2021(1) RCR (Criminal) 319 – Reiterated that failure to comply with all modes of publication and procedural safeguards under Section 82 renders proclamation void – Conditions under Section 82 are mandatory, not procedural irregularities that can be cured [Paras 7–8]

Quashing of Proceedings – Petitioner had joined investigation and cooperated – Keeping proceedings alive serves no purpose – Held: Continuation of criminal proceedings unjustified – Appropriate to invoke inherent powers to quash proceedings [Para 10]

Decision: Petition allowed – Order dated 28.10.2016 declaring petitioner a proclaimed offender quashed – All consequential proceedings also quashed – Pending applications disposed of.

Civil Writ - Rent Control – Court Fees – Determination of Applicable Provision – Petitioner challenged the calculation of court fees on execution of order passed under Section 10(1) of the U.P. Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 (Act No.16 of 2021) – Rent Authority had demanded fee as per Section 7(xi-b) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 treating it as recovery of possession – Held: Application under Section 10(1) pertains to determination of revised rent, not recovery of possession – Therefore, fee governed by Section 39(3) of Act No.16 of 2021, read with Schedule-II Item No.1-b of the Court Fees Act, 1870 [Paras 5–7, 12–14, 19–20].

Interpretation of Statutes – Special vs. General Law – Overriding Effect – Section 42 of Act No.16 of 2021 gives overriding effect to its provisions in case of inconsistency with any other law – Consequently, Section 7(xi-b) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 (general law) applies only to recovery of possession cases, whereas Section 39(3) governs all other applications before the Rent Authority – Special law prevails over general law [Paras 16–17, 19].

Court Fees – Classification under Section 39 – Section 39 divides applications into two categories:

(i) those for recovery of possession or appeals therefrom, treated as suits between landlord and tenant (fee under Section 7(xi-b), Court Fees Act, 1870); and

(ii) all other applications (including determination of rent under Section 10), where fee equals that of interlocutory applications in Civil Courts (Schedule-II Item 1-b, Court Fees Act, 1870) [Paras 14–15, 19].

Execution Proceedings – Time-bound Adjudication – In light of Sections 33(2), 35(2), and 36(3) of Act No.16 of 2021, Rent Authority directed to dispose of Execution Case No.127 of 2023 within 30 days – Court further directed Rent Authorities and Rent Tribunals across the State to adhere strictly to statutory timelines for all pending matters [Paras 21–22].

Decision: Orders dated 28.05.2024 and 29.05.2024 of Rent Authority, Agra, found inconsistent with Section 39(3) of Act No.16 of 2021 – Matter remanded to Rent Authority, Agra, to recalculate court fee as per Schedule-II Item No.1-b of Court Fees Act, 1870 within two weeks – Execution to be concluded within 30 days thereafter – Petition allowed [Paras 20–23].

Criminal Law – Abetment of Suicide – Conviction Reversed – Appellant-husband convicted for abetting suicide of wife based on alleged cruelty and dowry demands – No specific instances of mental or physical cruelty proved – Alleged demand for sewing machine not supported by reliable evidence – Panch witness turned hostile – Held: Mere allegations of unhappiness and weeping insufficient to prove abetment – No evidence of instigation or active role in suicide – Missing report lodged by Appellant himself – Benefit of doubt extended – Conviction under Section 306 IPC set aside. Acquittal [Paras 14–25]

Criminal Law – Cruelty under Section 498-A IPC – No Material Particulars – Parents of deceased made general and vague allegations without specific incidents or unlawful demands – No neighbours examined – No reliable proof of harassment – Held: Mere emotional distress without clear evidence of cruelty insufficient – Prosecution failed to establish ingredients of Section 498-A beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 8–10, 14]

Evidence Law – Hostile Witness – Effect on Prosecution Case – Panch witness to seizure of sewing machine turned hostile – No corroborative evidence to establish illegal dowry demand – Held: Seizure panchnama cannot be relied upon – Ownership of sewing machine also doubtful – Demand not proved [Paras 11, 15–16]

Criminal Procedure – Burden on Prosecution – Allegations must be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt – Held: General and omnibus allegations unsupported by proximate events or reliable testimony insufficient to sustain conviction – Appellant entitled to acquittal [Para 25]

Precedents – Instigation and Abetment – Reiterated that instigation requires direct or active act with intention to provoke suicide – Reliance placed on M. Mohan v. State, (2011) 3 SCC 626 and Sanju alias Sanjay Singh v. State of M.P., (2002) 5 SCC 371 – Held: No act or words of instigation proved in present case – No suicide note or proximate cause – Acquittal warranted [Paras 21–24]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction under Sections 306 and 498-A IPC set aside – Appellant acquitted – Directed to furnish bond under Section 481 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [Paras 25–26]

Guardianship – Custody of Minor – Interim Custody to Father – Welfare Paramount – Appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act challenging Family Court’s interim order granting father custody of minor girl (aged 4 years, Russian national) and restraining mother from taking child abroad – Held: Welfare and stability of child take precedence over statutory parental preference under Section 6 HMG Act – Mother’s foreign nationality, lack of stable residence, and past attempts to secure exit permit justify restriction – Interim custody with father upheld [Paras 5, 12–17, 18(g)–(j), 20–21].

Foreign National Parent – Jurisdictional Apprehension – Enforcement Difficulty – Appellant and child being Russian citizens; mother expressed intent to return to Russia and sought Embassy assistance to leave India – Court observed that any removal of child abroad would render Indian proceedings infructuous – Noted India’s non-membership of Hague Convention and challenges of cross-border enforcement – Family Court rightly restrained mother from exiting India with minor [Paras 13–15, 18(a)–(i)].

Guardianship – Paramountcy of Child’s Welfare – Statutory Provisions Subordinate – Section 6 HMG Act (“custody of child under five years ordinarily with mother”) is not absolute – Welfare principle under Section 13 of the Act and parens patriae doctrine override parental rights – Family Court correctly applied settled principles in Gaurav Nagpal v. Sumedha Nagpal, (2009) 1 SCC 42, and Sheoli Hati v. Somnath Das, (2019) 7 SCC 324, holding welfare to be the controlling consideration [Paras 16–17].

Comparative Jurisprudence – Enforcement & Stability Considerations – Court referred to Viktoriia Basu v. State of West Bengal (pending before Supreme Court) and Prateek Gupta v. Shilpi Gupta, 2017 SCC OnLine SC 1421 – Emphasised that custody cannot be granted if it risks removal of child from Indian jurisdiction – Child’s stability, continued residence in India since birth, and access to father’s support network justified interim custody with father [Paras 18(d)–(j)].

Visitation & Safeguards – Family Court’s directions for daily video access and weekly overnight visitation to mother found balanced and fair – Court upheld arrangement allowing mother to settle in Dehradun with financial and housing support from father [Paras 13–15, 16].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Family Court’s order dated 01.02.2025 upheld – Interim custody to remain with father; mother entitled to visitation and video calls as directed – Restraint on removing child from India maintained – No costs [Paras 20–21].

Criminal Law – Framing of Charges – Murder – Criminal Conspiracy – Charge Sustained – Accused allegedly conspired to dispossess the complainant from his land, leading to fatal assault on his son – Evidence of threats, long-standing land dispute, and coordinated movement of accused supported by CCTV footage, CDRs, and eyewitness accounts – Held: Trial court rightly framed charges under Sections 120-B, 302, 307, 447, 147, 201, and other IPC provisions – Material creates grave suspicion, sufficient to proceed to trial [Paras 40–55].

Criminal Law – Nature of Offence – Murder vs. Culpable Homicide – Prima Facie Case of Murder Established – Argument that single blow rules out murder rejected – Repeated blows with bricks and iron pipe on the deceased’s head with full force show intention to kill – Injury pattern and conduct reveal deliberate targeting – Held: No basis to convert charge to Section 304 IPC at this stage – Trial court justified in framing charge under Section 302 IPC [Paras 51–58].

Criminal Conspiracy – Inference from Circumstances – Land Dispute Escalation – Shared Intent – History of land transactions and threats point to common design among accused – Execution of illegal dispossession plan amounts to conspiracy – Even non-present accused implicated by pre-event meetings and CDR data – Held: Conspiracy can be inferred from conduct and surrounding facts – Presence at spot not essential for conspiracy charge [Paras 45–50].

Criminal Procedure – Discharge of Accused – High Court Revisional Power Limited – Discharge of Sharat Puri, Rajat Jandyal, and Raghunandan Singh upheld – Evidence against them not sufficient to infer intent or participation – No direct or reliable role assigned – Trial court applied correct legal test – Held: High Court will not interfere unless manifest illegality or perversity exists – Discharge justified [Paras 66–71].

Criminal Procedure – Bail – Serious Offences – Bail Rejected – Bail sought on merits and medical grounds – Accused charged with murder and conspiracy – Evidence indicates continuing threat to complainant – Trial at initial stage with material witnesses pending – Medical conditions found manageable in jail – Held: Gravity of offence, conspiracy angle, and threat to complainant warrant rejection of bail [Paras 74–78].

Execution – Garnishee Proceedings – Warrant of Attachment – Continuing Liability – Appellant obtained ex parte money decree against Respondents – Warrant of attachment issued against Respondent No.3 (garnishee) prohibiting payments to judgment-debtor (Respondent No.1) – Garnishee allowed subsequent credits to be withdrawn despite subsisting attachment – Trial court held only balance on date of receipt of warrant (Rs.362) could be attached – Held: Garnishee bound by terms of attachment for entire validity period – Subsequent credits during currency of warrant liable to be attached – Order of trial court rejecting garnishee notice set aside [Paras 3, 10–15]

Civil Procedure – Attachment of Debtor’s Earnings – Post-attachment Credits – Interpretation of Order 21 Rule 46 CPC – Warrant of attachment remains effective until returned with execution details – Period granted in warrant (1 year) implies any funds credited within that time are liable for execution – Garnishee’s conduct in permitting withdrawals despite attachment is contrary to law – Inconsistent conduct of garnishee in depositing partial amounts further undermines defence – Attachment continues until modified or lifted by court order [Paras 10–14]

Execution – Conduct of Garnishee – Contradictory Stand – Garnishee deposited amounts post-attachment and later denied liability – Garnishee also filed affidavit agreeing to deposit more funds – Held: Such inconsistent conduct contradicts defence and affirms continuing obligation under attachment – Impugned order contrary to garnishee’s own actions [Paras 13–14]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned order of trial court rejecting garnishee notice quashed – Trial court directed to give effect to attachment as per law – Civil application disposed [Paras 15–18]

NDPS Act – Section 21 – Conviction – Appeal – Appellant convicted for possession of commercial quantity of heroin (nearly 6 kg) recovered from bag on motorcycle – Search conducted after informing appellant of right under Section 50 NDPS Act – Recovery in presence of DSP and consent recorded – Samples drawn on spot and sealed – Produced before Magistrate next day – Seals found intact – Held: Recovery not from person but from bag – Hence, Section 50 not applicable – Compliance with Section 52A satisfied – Conviction upheld [Paras 6-12].

Section 50 NDPS Act – Applicability – Heroin recovered from bag carried on motorcycle – Not personal search – Held: As per SC rulings (Pawan Kumar, Ranjan Chadha, Prabhu), Section 50 applies only to personal search – Voluntary consent given and recovery witnessed by DSP – No violation found [Paras 8-9].

Section 52A NDPS Act – Drawing of Samples – Appellant contended that samples not drawn before Magistrate – Held: Samples taken at spot in accordance with Standing Orders – Inventory, samples, and case property presented before Magistrate next day – Seals intact – No prejudice shown – Procedural compliance deemed sufficient – Recent SC judgment in NCB v. Kashif relied on [Paras 10-11].

Independent Witness – Non-joinder – Contention of no public witness during recovery – Held: Ruqa shows attempt was made to join public witnesses but none were available – Prosecution version corroborated by consistent testimony of officials – Not fatal to case [Para 13].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Section 21 NDPS Act confirmed – No infirmity found in trial court’s findings [Para 14].

Criminal Law – Quashment of FIR – Section 482 CrPC – Cheating and Criminal Breach of Trust – Allegations that petitioners received ₹3.86 crore under subcontract agreement but diverted construction material and failed to complete work – Specific allegations of dishonest intention and misappropriation of funds from inception of contract found in complaint – Petitioners allegedly shifted materials to personal project and retained valuable equipment – Held: Prima facie offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC made out – FIR not liable to be quashed merely because of existence of arbitration clause or civil nature of dispute – Delay in lodging FIR explained – Limitation under Section 468 CrPC not a bar to investigation of offence punishable with 7 years imprisonment [Paras 2–4, 8–11, 16–21].

Corporate Criminal Liability – Lifting of Corporate Veil – Petitioners being Managing Director and Director accused of personal misuse of company funds and materials – Specific allegations of active involvement in acts of misappropriation – Held: When individuals controlling company are accused of dishonest acts, they cannot seek shelter under corporate veil – Sufficient averments to continue criminal proceedings [Paras 14–15].

Territorial Jurisdiction – Place of Cause of Action – Petitioners contended that no part of offence took place in Hyderabad – Held: Transfer of misappropriated funds occurred in Hyderabad; company offices located in Hyderabad – Investigation can proceed even if jurisdiction questionable – As per Section 156(2) CrPC and Satvinder Kaur judgment, police can investigate offence irrespective of territorial jurisdiction at this stage [Paras 4.6, 28–29].

Civil vs Criminal Remedy – Arbitration Clause – Petitioners argued arbitration clause existed in contract – Held: Arbitration clause does not bar criminal prosecution if allegations make out prima facie offence – Allegations in FIR include dishonest intention and misappropriation from inception, which cannot be resolved merely by arbitration [Paras 4.4, 16, 19].

Power under Section 482 CrPC – Scope – Court reiterated that inherent power must be used sparingly – When FIR discloses cognizable offence and investigation is ongoing, courts should not interfere at threshold stage – Petitioners not entitled to quash FIR when disputed facts require investigation [Paras 20, 27, 30–31].

Decision: Petition dismissed – FIR not quashed – Criminal proceedings to continue – Observations confined to decision on quashment and not to affect merits of investigation or trial [Para 33].

Criminal Law – Rash and Negligent Driving – Identity of Accused Not Established – Accused acquitted by Trial Court for offences under Sections 279 and 337 IPC and Sections 181 and 196 of MV Act – Prosecution failed to conduct Test Identification Parade – Witnesses identified accused for the first time in Court after long lapse of time and in absence of prior familiarity – Held: Dock identification without TIP in such circumstances is highly unreliable and cannot sustain conviction – Acquittal upheld [Paras 6, 14, 16, 19, 20, 25].

Criminal Procedure – Appeal Against Acquittal – Scope of Interference – Appellate court can interfere only if judgment of acquittal is perverse or based on misreading of evidence – Where two views are possible, appellate court must defer to trial court – Held: Trial court’s view was reasonable and based on evidence; High Court refused to substitute alternative view in absence of compelling reasons [Paras 12, 13, 25].

Witness Testimony – Identification in Court – No Prior TIP – Eyewitnesses claimed to identify accused only during trial – No prior identification during investigation – Held: Identification for the first time in Court without prior TIP is weak and inherently suspect – Particularly when visibility was poor, incident occurred at night, and accused was a stranger – Testimony held unreliable [Paras 16, 17, 19, 24].

Investigative Lapses – No Explanation How Accused Was Identified – IO failed to explain how the accused was linked to the incident – No chain of evidence or identification process disclosed – Held: Investigation lacked procedural safeguards; raises doubt about correctness of prosecution case – Acquittal justified [Paras 14, 15].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Trial Court’s judgment of acquittal affirmed – No error or perversity found – Accused entitled to benefit of doubt – Directed to furnish bond under Section 437-A CrPC / Section 481 BNSS for appearance before the Supreme Court in case of further appeal.