Anticipatory Bail – Sections 318(4), 319(2), 336(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 61(2) of the  BNS - Fraudulent Sale Deed – NRI Property – Active Complicity Alleged – Petitioners sought anticipatory bail in a case involving impersonation and fraudulent execution of sale deed of NRI-owned land—High Court found petitioners actively facilitated fraud by verifying identity of impersonator and assisting with registration formalities—Held: Active role of petitioners and gravity of offence militates against grant of bail [Paras 1–7].

Real Estate Fraud – Identity Theft – Impersonation of NRI – Alleged impersonation of NRI Deep Singh to execute sale deed for 14 kanals of land valued in crores for ₹30.20 lakhs using uncashed cheques—Petitioners including nambardar and advocate verified identity of impersonator using forged Aadhar and PAN cards—Held: Pattern of land grabbing targeting NRI owners noted—Bail rightly denied [Paras 3–6].

Custodial Interrogation – Need to Uncover Wider Conspiracy – Court noted necessity of custodial interrogation to trace involvement of other accused, including revenue and registry staff—Referred to statements and CCTV footage implicating petitioners and co-accused—Held: Further investigation demands custodial presence [Paras 6–7].

Systemic Abuse – Undervaluation and Public Trust – Court's Caution – Highlighted larger trend of NRI property frauds through forged documents and sham transactions—Court emphasized such frauds corrode institutional credibility and public trust—Held: Judicial discretion must be exercised cautiously to uphold real estate integrity and social conscience [Paras 6–7].

Decision – Anticipatory bail petitions dismissed – Court directed Deputy Commissioner to proceed with disciplinary action against petitioner Bagel Singh and file compliance report – Petitioners found to be part of orchestrated fraudulent scheme [Para 7].

Civil Law - Res Judicata – Declaration And Injunction Over Ancestral Property - Previous Suit Involving Same Parties and Property – Appeal Dismissed – Plaintiff-appellants filed suit claiming coparcenary rights over 1/5th share of land through inheritance from Satnam Singh – Defendants contended suit barred by res judicata due to prior litigation involving same dispute and parties – High Court upheld findings of both courts below that earlier suit filed by legal representatives of Amar Singh (including present plaintiffs) had been dismissed finally – Held: Re-litigation on same grounds not maintainable [Paras 3, 6, 10].

Coparcenary Property – No Evidence of Joint Hindu Family Ownership – Concurrent Findings Affirmed – Plaintiffs failed to prove that the property was ancestral or part of joint Hindu family – Courts below found Satnam Singh had executed valid transfer deed during lifetime – High Court noted complete absence of material to establish coparcenary status – Mere assertion insufficient to rebut registered conveyance [Paras 2, 7, 10].

Unsoundness of Mind – No Proof to Invalidate Deed – Claim Rejected – Plaintiffs alleged Satnam Singh was of unsound mind and incapable of executing document – No medical or legal evidence produced to support this claim – Deed held validly executed and registered – Allegation of forgery or incapacity held baseless [Paras 2, 3].

Substantial Question of Law – None Arises – Appeal Not Maintainable – High Court held that no substantial question of law was raised or established – Findings of fact by both courts conclusive and consistent – Appeal dismissed as meritless [Paras 10–11].

Decision – Second Appeal Dismissed – No Question of Law – Regular second appeal found devoid of merit – Dismissed with pending applications disposed of – No interference warranted [Para 11].

Criminal Law - Superdari – NDPS Act – Interim Custody of Truck – Section 52A NDPS – Offending Vehicle Seized with Contraband – Truck seized carrying 3213.6 kg of poppy straw—Trial Court granted interim custody under Sections 451 and 457 CrPC—Held: In light of amended Section 52A NDPS and Supreme Court rulings, vehicle used in commission of offence should not be released to accused-owner pending trial [Paras 1–3, 6–9].

Criminal Law – Owner Also Accused – Reverse Burden Not Discharged – No Interim Custody – Owner of vehicle arrayed as accused—Court found it implausible that such large quantity of contraband could be transported without owner’s knowledge—Held: In first two scenarios outlined in Biswajit Dey v. State of M.P., vehicle should not be released until accused discharges reverse burden of proof [Paras 6–7].

Judicial Precedents – Dinesh Kumar Verma Case – Custody Order Reversed – Relied on Union of India v. Dinesh Kumar Verma, (2005) 9 SCC 330—Held: High Court not justified in releasing vehicle when owner is also accused—Directed surrender of vehicle back to trial court [Paras 3, 8].

Procedure – Supurdaginama Discharged – Fresh Documentation to be Recorded – Trial Court directed to complete photography and videography of vehicle and related documents upon surrender—Previously deposited bond/surety to be discharged post compliance [Para 10].

Decision – Petition allowed – Interim custody of vehicle quashed – Respondent directed to surrender truck before trial court within 30 days – Trial Court to follow due documentation procedure upon surrender – Supurdaginama bond to be released thereafter [Paras 9–11].

Civil Revision – Leave under Section 80(2) CPC – Grant of Leave Valid – The trial court allowed plaintiffs to institute suit prior to completion of the two-month notice period, citing urgency to prevent tampering with artefacts at a protected monument – Held: Government defendants did not object to the waiver; private revisionist (Masjid Committee) had no locus standi to challenge it – Leave granted lawfully under Section 80(2) CPC [Paras 29–60].

Commission for Local Investigation – Appointment Justified – Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC – Advocate Commissioner was appointed by the trial court to inspect the site and submit a report with photography and videography – Held: Proper compliance with procedural rules was made, and no lis was decided – Mere collection of evidence at preliminary stage not prejudicial – Challenge to Commission not sustainable [Paras 61–85].

Protected Monument – Access under 1958 Act – Suit Not Barred by 1991 Act – Plaintiffs sought right of access to a structure notified in 1920 as protected monument – Held: Relief sought was limited to public access under Section 18 of AMASR Act, 1958; no prayer to convert religious character – Provisions of 1991 Act not applicable [Paras 86–122].

Decision – Civil Revision Dismissed – Trial court orders granting leave to file suit under Section 80(2) CPC and appointing Advocate Commissioner upheld – Suit not barred under Place of Worship Act – No interference warranted under revisional jurisdiction – Interim order vacated – Suit to proceed [Paras 123–127].

Writ Jurisdiction – Section 154, 156(3), 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Refusal to Direct FIR Registration – Alternate Remedies Available – Mandamus Declined – Petitioner sought mandamus for registration of FIR against her husband for allegedly disseminating personal photographs taken before marriage – Despite remedies under Sections 154(3), 156(3) CrPC, and civil injunction suits, no such steps were taken by petitioner – Held: In view of efficacious alternative remedies available under CrPC and civil proceedings, writ petition is not maintainable to compel FIR registration – Petitioner’s choice to avoid civil remedy unexplained and suggests oblique motives [Paras 1, 5-10].

Domestic Violence – Interim Protection Already Granted – No Fresh Mandamus Required – Trial Magistrate had already passed an order dated 02.05.2025 under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act restraining the husband from circulating the photographs – Court noted no justification for further intervention through writ [Paras 4, 10].

Judicial Precedent – Scope of Mandamus – Clarified by Supreme Court – Reference to judgments in Sakiri Vasu v. State of UP, (2008) 2 SCC 409 and M. Subramaniam v. S. Janaki, (2020) 16 SCC 728 – Mandamus to direct FIR registration is not to be issued when alternate legal avenues are unexhausted [Paras 7-8].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Liberty Reserved for Other Remedies – Petition and accompanying application dismissed – However, court clarified that the petitioner may still pursue other statutory remedies without prejudice from this order [Para 10].

Criminal Revision - Domestic Violence – Shared Household – Relief under Section 18,19, 26, 36 of the Domestic Violence Act (DV Act) – 84-year-old mother alleged domestic violence by son and sought his removal from shared household – Magistrate allowed the prayer, but appellate court reversed the order citing pending civil suit and lack of direct evidence – Held: Relief under Section 19(1)(b) is preventive and distinct from civil eviction proceedings – Suit for mandatory injunction cannot preclude relief under DV Act – Appellate finding set aside [Paras 1, 6, 14-16].

Evidence Law – Power of Attorney – Personal Knowledge Requirement – Petitioner’s daughter deposed as power of attorney holder, but had no direct knowledge of alleged incidents – Held: Power of attorney holder cannot depose on matters beyond personal knowledge – Relief under Section 19(1)(b) cannot be granted solely on such evidence – Matter remanded for personal testimony of the petitioner [Paras 7-8, 17-20].

Interpretation – Section 19 vs Section 18 DV Act – Higher Standard for Residence Orders – Relief under Section 18 requires prima facie satisfaction of domestic violence, whereas Section 19 mandates full satisfaction – Held: Magistrate must be satisfied through admissible evidence that domestic violence occurred – Evidence adduced through power holder did not meet this threshold [Paras 4, 7, 10].

Parallel Civil and Criminal Proceedings – Applicability of Section 36 and Section 26 DV Act – DV Act proceedings are not barred by pendency of civil suit – Reliefs under Sections 18-22 can be independently granted even during civil litigation – Held: Finding that DV order would render civil suit infructuous is legally unsustainable [Paras 6, 15-16].

Decision – Criminal Appeal remanded to the Additional Sessions Court-VIII, Ernakulam – Petitioner directed to be examined personally – Fresh decision on relief under Section 19(1)(b) to be taken within three months – Reliefs granted by appellate court under Sections 18 and 19(1)(a) to remain in force in the meantime [Paras 9, 22-23].

Criminal Law - Juvenile Justice – Conflict of Jurisdiction – JJ Act Overrides NIA Act – Trial by Children’s Court – Juvenile charged under UAPA and other severe laws—Despite being tried as adult under Section 18(3) JJ Act, Court held: JJ Act, 2015 has overriding effect over all laws including NIA Act—Trial must proceed before Children’s Court, not Special NIA Court—Section 1(4) JJ Act is broad and unambiguous [Paras 10–11, 19–26].

Statutory Interpretation – Non-Obstante Clause – Later and Specific Law Prevails – Section 1(4) JJ Act overrides all conflicting statutes—In contrast, Section 13 NIA Act overrides only CrPC—Court relied on principles of statutory construction and later-in-time doctrine to affirm that JJ Act governs juvenile cases exclusively [Paras 12–17, 21–24].

Human Rights – Juvenile Protection – Purpose of JJ Legislation Emphasized – Court reiterated that JJ Act is beneficial and remedial in nature—Intended to protect children’s dignity and promote reintegration—Trial of juvenile under NIA would defeat purpose—Only Children’s Court has jurisdiction under such circumstances [Paras 6–9, 25].

Decision – Reference answered – Trial of juvenile under UAPA to be conducted by Children’s Court as per Section 18(3) JJ Act – Not by Special Court under NIA Act – MCrC disposed accordingly [Paras 26–28].

Civil Procedure – Dismiss in Default – Order 9 Rule 8 CPC – Meaning of ‘Hearing’ – Suit dismissed on 08.12.2003 due to non-appearance of plaintiffs though the date was fixed only for defendants to file written statement – Held: Such a date is not a ‘date of hearing’ as per CPC – Dismissal for default under Order IX Rule 8 improper – Orders of trial and appellate court set aside [Paras 9-13].

Restoration of Suit – Order 9 Rule 9 CPC – No Evidence Required Where Absence Explained – Plaintiffs filed application for restoration within limitation citing illness and non-appearance of counsel – Defendants filed no counter affidavit – Trial court erred in rejecting application without recording evidence – Held: Sufficient cause shown; application ought to have been allowed [Paras 4-5, 14-15].

Judicial Delay – Prolonged Litigation over Procedural Defect – Delay of Over 13 Years – Courts below unnecessarily prolonged decision on simple restoration plea – Trial court committed procedural illegality by dismissing restoration application summarily – Appellate court also erred in affirmation – Held: Restoration directed without remand [Para 14].

Case Law Applied – Date of Hearing – Filing of Written Statement Not Equivalent to Hearing – Relied on Satish Saggar v. MPIDC, 1999 (2) MPLJ 644; Ramchandra v. Sagarmal, 1988 (2) MPWN 234; Roop Narayan v. Shambhoo Lal, 2001 SCC OnLine Raj 955 – Held: Date fixed for filing WS not “hearing” under Order IX – No need for plaintiff’s presence [Paras 10-13].

Decision – Civil revision allowed – Orders of trial and appellate courts set aside – Application under Order IX Rule 9 CPC allowed – Suit restored to original number – Trial court directed to proceed in accordance with law from relevant stage [Paras 15-17].

Family Law – Bar on Fresh Suit – Order 13 Rule 1(4) CPC – Divorce Petition Dismissed – Wife initially filed a suit under Section 12 HMA for declaration of marriage as null and void—Withdrew it in Lok Adalat without seeking liberty to file fresh suit—Subsequently filed divorce petition under Section 13(1) HMA on same facts—Held: As per Order XXIII Rule 1(4), withdrawal without permission precludes subsequent suit—Second suit not maintainable [Paras 7–17].

Res Judicata and Abuse of Process – Same Cause of Action – Subsequent Suit Barred – High Court found that both suits were based on identical facts including alleged fraudulent marriage—No cruelty or desertion could be pleaded afresh—Respondent suppressed material facts and attempted to revive barred claims—Bar under Order XXIII applies [Paras 8–11, 15–17].

Judicial Precedents – Cited Delhi and Andhra High Court Rulings – Court relied on precedents including Devarapu Narasimharao v. Yerrbothula Peda Venkaiah and M/s Shoes East Ltd. v. Jainender Jain—Held: Fresh suit on same facts without liberty violates legal procedure—Earlier withdrawal kills cause of action [Paras 13–14].

Application Under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC – Rejection of Divorce Suit Directed – Trial Court erred in dismissing husband's application seeking rejection of plaint—High Court allowed application under Order 7 Rule 11 r/w Section 151 CPC—Divorce petition dismissed as barred by law [Paras 17–18].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Family Court’s order dated 08.04.2024 set aside – Application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC allowed – Divorce suit filed by respondent dismissed as barred by Order XXIII Rule 1(4) CPC [Para 18].