Civil Law - Execution Proceedings – Power of Execution Court – Whether It Can Modify the Decree – Petitioners obtained a decree for possession of land marked with letters ‘E’, ‘F’, ‘G’ & ‘H’ in site plan Ex. PW-4/9—Respondents raised objections regarding measurement, claiming possession of 400 sq. yards instead of 305 sq. yards—The executing court modified the decree by directing proportional apportionment of land—Held: An execution court cannot travel beyond the decree or modify it—Decree must be executed as per site plan boundaries—Impugned order modifying the decree set aside [Paras 6-12].

Res Judicata – Objections on Measurement Previously Decided – Whether Respondents Could Raise It Again – Respondents’ objections on measurement were already dismissed in trial court’s order dated 23.10.2018—Held: Raising the same objections again in execution proceedings constitutes an abuse of process—Once measurement was determined in trial, it cannot be re-agitated—Execution court erred in reconsidering the same issue [Paras 8-9].

Order 7 Rule 3 CPC – Identification of Property in Suit – Sufficiency of Site Plan – Petitioners described property in suit with boundaries ‘E’, ‘F’, ‘G’ & ‘H’ as shown in red in site plan Ex. PW-4/9—Respondents neither submitted an alternative site plan nor rebutted this identification—Held: Site plan forming part of decree sufficiently identifies the property—Executing court cannot re-measure or apportion land based on subsequent claims [Paras 10-11].

Final Decision – Writ petition allowed – Impugned order dated 25.04.2019 set aside—Executing court directed to enforce possession strictly in terms of site plan Ex. PW-4/9—No orders as to costs [Paras 12-13].

Criminal Law – Repetitive Complaints by Informant – Pattern of False Allegations – CBI Inquiry Ordered - The petitioners sought quashing of an FIR lodged by the informant, Pooja Rawat, under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and the Information Technology Act, 2008 – The petitioners argued that the informant had previously filed 11 similar complaints against various persons, all represented by the same counsel – Held: Given the pattern of repeated complaints, the Court directed the CBI to conduct an inquiry and submit a report by 10.04.2025 [Paras 3-6].

Abuse of Process – False FIRs for Extortion – Protection from Arrest Granted - The Court observed that the repeated filing of FIRs suggested a possible misuse of the legal process for personal gain – Directed that the petitioners shall not be arrested unless sufficient and credible evidence is found against them – Held: Until further orders, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners [Paras 6, 10].

Investigative Procedure – Role of Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) – Judicial Oversight - Noting the seriousness of the issue, the Court found it appropriate to entrust the matter to the CBI – Held: The Senior Registrar of the Court shall forward a copy of the order to the CBI Head of Branch at Lucknow for compliance, and the report shall be submitted by 10.04.2025 [Paras 6-9].

Criminal Law - Murder – Appeal against conviction - Circumstantial Evidence – Whether Chain of Evidence Was Complete – The appellant was convicted under Section 302 IPC for allegedly murdering the deceased, Haseena, during an exorcism ritual—Prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence, including testimonies of family members and medical reports—Held: Prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of circumstances leading to the guilt of the accused—Circumstances were not conclusive and left reasonable doubt—Conviction set aside [Paras 20-26].

Last Seen Theory – Applicability in Absence of Direct Evidence – Prosecution argued that the accused was last seen with the deceased before her death—Held: Mere last seen evidence is insufficient unless corroborated by other strong circumstantial evidence—Prosecution failed to prove that the accused was the only person present at the time of death—Last Seen Theory not applicable in this case [Paras 23-26].

Hostile Witnesses – Impact on Prosecution Case – Key witnesses, including the mother and sister of the deceased, resiled from their previous statements—Held: Testimonies of hostile witnesses cannot be the sole basis for conviction when material contradictions exist—Serious deviations in witness statements raised doubt on the prosecution’s version [Paras 22-24].

Medical Evidence – Cause of Death – Whether Sufficient to Prove Guilt – Postmortem report indicated injuries consistent with excessive force—However, prosecution failed to link the injuries conclusively to the accused—Held: Medical evidence alone cannot establish guilt without corroborating circumstantial proof—Acquittal justified [Paras 12-14].

Final Decision – Appeal allowed – Conviction and life sentence under Section 302 IPC set aside—Appellant acquitted—Held that suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute proof beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 27-28].
 

Criminal Law - False Affidavit – Whether Cognizance Under Section 340 CrPC Valid – Petitioner challenged cognizance taken by Magistrate under Sections 193/199/209 IPC—Held: Cognizance taken without a preliminary inquiry violates procedural safeguards—Order set aside [Paras 10-13].

Jurisdiction – Whether Application Should Have Been Heard by Original Court – Complaint was originally filed before the 6th Metropolitan Magistrate but was moved before Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate—Held: Proceedings must be initiated before the Court where the alleged false statement was made—Cognizance taken by incorrect forum vitiates proceedings [Paras 14-16].

Final Decision – Revision allowed – Impugned order quashed—Respondent granted liberty to file a fresh application before the competent court [Paras 17-19].

Criminal Law – Anticipatory Bail – Injury Not Grievous – Bail Granted – Petitioner sought anticipatory bail in a case involving an attack with deadly weapons—Prosecution alleged he inflicted a sword blow on the victim’s right arm—Held: Petitioner was not the main accused, and the grievous injury was attributed to co-accused—Considering absence of prior criminal antecedents, bail granted with conditions [Paras 7-11].

Bail Conditions – Protection of Victims – Compliance with BNSS and Indian Evidence Act – Bail granted subject to petitioner complying with conditions, including: (i) Surrender of any firearm, (ii) No entry into victim’s residence or workplace, (iii) Cooperation with investigation—Court relied on Vikram Singh v. CBI, 2018 and Aparna Bhatt v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021 to impose victim protection measures [Paras 16-17].

Pre-Trial Incarceration – Principle Against Prolonged Detention – No Justification for Custodial Interrogation – High Court observed that pre-trial incarceration should not be a substitute for post-conviction punishment—Held: While evidence justified prosecution, it did not necessitate pre-trial detention—Interim protection granted earlier was made absolute [Paras 8-9].

Decision – Petition allowed – Interim bail order dated 13.12.2024 made absolute – Petitioner to furnish bail bonds to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/trial court – Compliance with bail conditions mandatory, failure to do so may result in bail cancellation [Para 24].
 

Criminal Law - Default Bail – Stringent Conditions – Violation of Fundamental Rights – Petitioner was granted default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC due to the prosecution’s failure to file a charge sheet within 60 days – However, bail conditions included an excessive surety bond of ₹1.10 crore and a bank guarantee of ₹55 lakh – Petitioner challenged these conditions as violative of his fundamental rights under Article 21 – Held: Imposing stringent financial conditions on default bail is impermissible and renders bail illusory – Bail conditions modified to ₹50,000 with one surety in the like amount [Paras 6-8, 22-23].

Delay in Trial – Violation of Right to Liberty – Petitioner remained in custody for over 4 years despite a maximum punishment of 5 years under Section 132 of the CGST Act – Charges had not been framed, and the trial had not commenced – Held: Prolonged incarceration without trial amounts to a gross violation of the right to a speedy trial – Courts must ensure that undertrial prisoners are not indefinitely detained due to procedural delays [Paras 6, 9].

Application of Section 479 BNSS – Retrospective Effect – Court noted that Section 479 of BNSS, which provides for the release of undertrial prisoners who have served a certain proportion of their maximum sentence, applies retrospectively – Supreme Court in In Re Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons directed immediate implementation of this provision – Held: Petitioner had already undergone more than one-third of his maximum sentence and was entitled to release under Section 479 BNSS [Paras 10-11].

Judicial Precedents on Bail Conditions – Reference to Moti Ram v. State of M.P. and Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar – Court reiterated that bail conditions must be reasonable and cannot be used to impose financial constraints that effectively result in continued detention – Held: Courts must ensure that monetary conditions do not create a class divide in access to bail [Paras 12-16].

Failure of District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) – Non-Compliance with Bail Reforms – Supreme Court in In Re Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail directed DLSAs to assist undertrial prisoners unable to fulfill bail conditions – Court found that DLSA failed to take any steps to secure the petitioner’s release – Ordered matter to be placed before the Chief Justice for appropriate action to ensure compliance with Supreme Court directives [Paras 7-8, 25].

Final Decision – Petition allowed – Bail conditions modified – Petitioner released on bail upon furnishing a bond of ₹50,000 with one surety in the like amount – Family Court directed to expedite the trial – Matter referred to Chief Justice to ensure compliance with bail-related Supreme Court directions [Paras 23-25].
 

Civil Law – Challenge Ex-Parte Order - Service of Summons – Valid Service Through Adult Family Member – Order V Rule 15 CPC – The defendant challenged the service of summons, arguing that notice was served on his wife and not personally on him – The Court held that service of summons on an adult family member is valid when the defendant is unavailable and there is no likelihood of his presence within a reasonable time – Held: Summons served on the wife of the defendant is valid and in compliance with Order V Rule 15 of CPC [Paras 6.6-6.8].

Delay in Seeking Recall of Ex-Parte Order – 16 Years Unexplained – The petitioner sought to reopen the right to file a written statement after 16 years – The Court found no sufficient cause to condone the delay, emphasizing that a party cannot remain negligent and then seek to reopen proceedings at the stage of final judgment – Held: Application rightly rejected by the Trial Court due to the inordinate and unjustified delay [Paras 6.5, 6.15].

Failure to Disclose Date of Knowledge – Conduct of Petitioner Not Bonafide – The petitioner failed to disclose the exact date when he allegedly came to know about the pending suit, raising doubts about his bonafide intentions – The Court noted that the petitioner’s own suit was pending before the same court, making it improbable that he was unaware of the proceedings – Held: Petitioner’s claim of ignorance is untenable and lacks bona fides [Paras 6.14-6.16].

Decision: The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner was validly served, remained negligent for 16 years, and failed to disclose material facts. No interference under Article 227 was warranted as there was no jurisdictional error in the Trial Court’s decision.
 

Civil Law - Unregistered Sale Deed – Admissibility under Section 90 Evidence Act – Document Not Proven – Sale Deed Disregarded – Respondents relied on a 1975 unregistered sale deed as basis of title – Lower Appellate Court wrongly presumed genuineness due to age – Held: Document was not 30 years old at time of marking; Section 90 presumption inapplicable – No attesting witness examined; contradictions in witness statements – Document treated as inadmissible [Paras 15–25].

Adverse Possession – No Specific Pleading or Proof – Plea Rejected – Respondents failed to plead or prove date from which possession became adverse – Revenue entries insufficient to prove continuous hostile possession – Trial court correctly rejected claim of adverse possession – Lower Appellate Court erred in accepting vague and contradictory oral evidence [Paras 31–34, 37–38].

Contradictory Defences – Title and Adverse Possession Cannot Co-Exist – Respondents simultaneously relied on sale and adverse possession – Held: These are legally inconsistent – One claiming under sale acknowledges title; adverse possession requires denial of same – Both pleas cannot be sustained together [Paras 32, 39].

Third Party Affidavit – Unmarked and Disputed – Not Admissible – Lower Appellate Court wrongly relied on affidavit allegedly filed in another suit by plaintiff’s father – Affidavit was not proved or marked – Court held: Reliance without marking and cross-examination violates CPC and principles of fair trial [Paras 27–30].

Revenue Records – Mutation Does Not Confer Title – Well-Settled Law – Respondents relied on revenue entries post-1999 – Court reaffirmed that revenue records are for fiscal purposes only and do not confer ownership rights [Paras 40].

Decision: Second Appeal allowed – Judgment and decree of lower appellate court set aside – Judgment of trial court dated 27.01.2004 restored – Suit decreed in favour of plaintiffs for declaration and recovery of possession – No costs [Para 42].
 

Maintenance – Right of Wife Despite Decree for Restitution of Conjugal Rights – Husband contended that wife voluntarily deserted him, making her ineligible for maintenance—Held: Mere passing of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights does not disentitle wife from maintenance unless husband proves willful desertion—Maintenance order upheld [Paras 6-9].

Quantum of Maintenance – Whether Excessive Given Husband’s Financial Condition – Husband argued that he earned only ₹21,167 per month, making maintenance of ₹9,000 excessive—Held: Trial court correctly considered financial capacity—No reduction warranted [Paras 10-12].

Effective Date of Maintenance – Whether Payable from Date of Application – Husband challenged retrospective applicability—Held: Maintenance is payable from the date of application unless special circumstances exist—No error in trial court’s order [Paras 13-15].

Final Decision – Revision dismissed – Maintenance order upheld—Arrears to be cleared within three months [Paras 16-18].