Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Civil Dispute Allegedly Converted into Criminal Case – FIR Discloses Prima Facie Cognizable Offences – Petition Dismissed – Petitioner approached for quashing of FIR under Sections 451, 504, and 34 IPC alleging false implication in a dispute over car repair charges – Held: FIR allegations show petitioner, along with co-accused, forcibly entered garage with sticks and assaulted complainant – Ingredients of Section 451 IPC satisfied as garage used for custody of property – Civil nature of dispute does not bar prosecution for acts involving violence and criminal trespass – FIR discloses cognizable offences warranting trial – Petition dismissed [Paras 2, 14, 19–21]

Section 482 CrPC – Scope and Principles – No Interference Unless Exceptional Case Made Out – Framing of Charges Not Challenged – Trial Court to Proceed – High Court reiterates that extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC must be exercised sparingly and only in rare cases of abuse of process – Petitioner did not challenge framing of charges and no exceptional circumstances shown to justify quashing – Disputed facts require trial – Held: Mere delay in FIR or lack of medical evidence not sufficient grounds for quashing when allegations disclose cognizable offences [Paras 11–13, 15–18, 22–24, 27–29]

House Trespass – Section 451 IPC – Garage Held to be Place of Property Custody – Entry with Preparation for Assault Constitutes Offence – Petitioner argued that garage being a public place could not attract Section 451 IPC – Rejected – Court held that garage qualifies as place used for custody of property and unlawful entry with intent to assault satisfies ingredients of Section 451 IPC – Cited Karnataka HC decision in State of Karnataka v. Richard supporting interpretation [Paras 19–21]

Evidentiary Issues – Alleged Falsehood or Omissions in FIR – No Ground for Quashing – Discrepancy in FIR regarding mention of sticks and lack of medical evidence does not invalidate proceedings – Allegations if taken at face value disclose offences – Court held that appreciation of truthfulness and sufficiency of evidence is within trial court’s domain – False in part does not vitiate entire statement [Paras 23–26]

Delay in Lodging FIR – Not a Ground to Quash Criminal Proceedings – Submission regarding delayed complaint held untenable – Delay properly explained and not unusual in inter-personal disputes – Whether explanation is plausible is a matter for trial, not for quashing under Section 482 CrPC [Para 22]

Decision: Petition dismissed – FIR and consequential proceedings to continue – Trial Court to proceed uninfluenced by observations in this judgment.

Dowry Death – Appeal Against Acquittal – Contradictions in prosecution evidence regarding post-marriage dowry payments – No specific proof of cruelty or harassment “soon before death” – Presumption under S.113-B Evidence Act not attracted – Two reasonable views possible – No perversity in evaluation of evidence – Acquittal upheld – Additional direction issued to trial courts in U.P. not to write judgments partially in Hindi and partially in English except for limited permissible quotations [Paras 19–33, 34–38].

Criminal Law – Dowry Death – Ingredients of Section 304-B – Requirement of proof of cruelty or harassment “soon before death” – Held, though death occurred within 7 years of marriage and was unnatural (aluminium phosphide poisoning), prosecution failed to prove cruelty or harassment in connection with dowry demand soon before death – Mere proof of unnatural death insufficient to invoke Section 304-B IPC [Paras 19–21, 31–32].

Evidence Law – Section 113-B Presumption – Presumption arises only when prosecution proves cruelty/harassment for dowry “soon before death” – Contradictions in evidence regarding alleged payment of ₹5 lakhs / jewellery worth ₹3–4 lakhs; no complaint ever made during 32 months of marriage; no specific act of cruelty proved – Presumption under Section 113-B not attracted and stood rebutted [Paras 20–23, 31–32].

Witness Credibility – Contradictions and Improvements – PW1 (father) contradicted FIR regarding post-marriage payments; PW2 (cousin) failed to specify exact amount allegedly given; neither narrated any specific act of cruelty; improvements and omissions held material – Trial Court’s findings upheld [Paras 12(2), 20–21, 25].

Conduct of Accused – Husband admitted deceased to hospital, cleared bills, remained present till last rites – Found by both courts to indicate bona fides and absence of incriminating conduct – No evidence of absconding or concealment – Supports acquittal [Paras 23–24, 26–28].

Medical Evidence – No ante-mortem injuries found – Cause of death established as aluminium phosphide poisoning – Prosecution failed to prove whether death was suicidal or homicidal – No link established between accused and poisoning [Paras 12(4), 32].

Appeal Against Acquittal – Scope of Interference – Reliance on precedents: Bharwad Jakshibhai Nagjibhai (1995) 5 SCC 602; Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 561; Gamini Bala Koteswara Rao (2009) 10 SCC 636 – Held: Unless findings are perverse or based on misreading of evidence, High Court cannot substitute its own view if two views are reasonably possible – Trial court’s view held reasonable – Acquittal sustained [Paras 15–18, 33].

Dowry Demand – No Demand at Marriage – PW2 admitted marriage was cordial and “rajī-khushī se huī thī” – Prosecution failed to prove demand at marriage or that any post-marriage payment was in connection with dowry within Section 2, Dowry Prohibition Act – Essential ingredients not established [Paras 25–26, 31].

Trial Court Judgment – Bilingual Drafting Defect – High Court noted that the impugned judgment contained 63 paragraphs in English, 125 paragraphs in Hindi, and 11 mixed paragraphs with sentences half in Hindi and half in English – Held improper – Direction issued that trial courts may write judgments either entirely in Hindi or entirely in English, except for quoting extracts of higher-court judgments or evidence, which must then be translated – Circulars and prior orders referred – Judgment circulated to all Judicial Officers and placed before Hon’ble the Chief Justice for appropriate action [Paras 34–38].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Acquittal upheld – Statutory presumption in favour of acquitted accused reinforced – No perversity or misreading proved [Paras 33].

Motor Accident Claims – Delay in FIR – Rejection of Claims – Set Aside – Appellants, husband and wife, injured in motorbike accident, filed claims which were dismissed by Tribunal for delay in lodging FIR – Medical records (Exhibits P7 and P10) substantiated road traffic accident – Held: Delay alone not sufficient ground to disbelieve accident – Mental agony, treatment needs, and absence of fabrication sufficient justification for delay [Paras 2–6, 8–9].

Evidence – Weight of Medical Certificates – Wound certificates clearly recorded cause as road traffic accident – Tribunal erred in ignoring such documentary evidence – Hospital’s failure to report accident should not prejudice claimants – Court emphasized evidentiary value of injury documentation in absence of prompt police report [Paras 6–7].

Principles of Law – FIR Delay Not Fatal – FIR delay in genuine accident cases cannot override material evidence – Reiterated Supreme Court precedent (Ravi v. Badrinarayan, 2011 ACJ 911) – Emphasized that lodging delay does not per se imply fabrication or false claim – Tribunal's conclusion reversed as legally unsustainable [Paras 4, 7, 8].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Order of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Belgaum in MVC No.1710/2013 and MVC No.1798/2013 dated 10.09.2014 set aside – Tribunal directed to restore cases, consider evidence afresh, and decide on merits.

Income Tax – Assessment under Section 153D – Mechanical Approval – Validity – Revenue challenged ITAT order which quashed assessments for AY 2007–08 on ground that approval under Section 153D was granted mechanically by Additional CIT through a single omnibus letter covering 246 assessments – Tribunal held approval lacked application of mind and violated legislative intent requiring due consideration of seized materials – Following Pr. CIT (Central-2) v. M/s MDLR Hotels Pvt. Ltd., ITA No.593/2023 (Del) and Pr. CIT (Central-2) v. M/s King Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., ITA No.754/2024 (Del) – Held: Approval given in bulk without reference to individual records or seized material defeats purpose of Section 153D – Such “rubber-stamp” or blanket approval unsustainable [Paras 3–5].

Administrative Approval – Requirement of Satisfaction – Court reaffirmed that statutory satisfaction under Sections 151 and 153D must reflect due application of mind – Merely appending “Yes” or issuing a common sanction letter to multiple assessments cannot be deemed valid approval – Citing Pr. CIT-7 v. Pioneer Town Planners Pvt. Ltd., 2024 SCC OnLine Del 1685; N.C. Cables Ltd.; and Central India Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. ITO [Paras 4, 15–21].

Judicial Precedent – Binding Effect – Court followed coordinate bench rulings in MDLR Hotels Pvt. Ltd. and King Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., arising from identical ITAT order dated 08.02.2023 and involving same issue of Section 153D approval – Held: No new substantial question of law arises – Appeal covered by settled precedent [Paras 4–6].

Decision – Delay in refiling (812 days) condoned – Appeal dismissed – No substantial question of law arises – Issue concerning interplay of Section 144A and Search & Seizure Manual, 2007 kept open for future consideration [Paras 1, 6–7].

Civil Procedure – Second Appeal – Concurrent Findings – Plaintiff sought injunction to restrain defendants from encroaching upon a street claimed as common passage – Trial Court decreed suit based on documentary evidence, witness testimony, and admissions – Appellate Court affirmed, finding no ownership documents from defendants and holding the passage to be common – Held: No substantial question of law arises – Findings are neither perverse nor contrary to law – Second appeal dismissed [Paras 4–8].

Evidence – Site Plan and Admission – Plaintiff relied on multiple site plans including Ex.P1 and Ex.P9 depicting common passage – Defendant’s own admission that plaintiff’s house opens onto disputed passage and that waste water from adjacent property drains there – Defendants failed to produce title documents – Draftsman’s plan (Ex.D1) unreliable due to omission and lack of impartial inspection – Findings of common passage upheld [Paras 5–6].

Injunction – Encroachment on Common Property – Courts below restrained defendants from interfering with plaintiff’s use of a shared passage – Courts found long-standing use and no proof of exclusive ownership by defendants – Concurrent decree for injunction held proper [Paras 4–6].

Decision: Regular Second Appeal dismissed – No substantial question of law found – Findings of lower courts upheld – No interference warranted [Para 8].

^{Service Law – Compassionate Appointment – Fiduciary and Moral Obligation – Maintenance of Dependents – Widow of deceased government employee appointed as LDC under the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment Rules, 1996, based on an affidavit undertaking to maintain her aged in-laws—subsequently abandoned them and began living separately—Petitioner, father of the deceased, sought deduction of 50% of her salary—Held: Compassionate appointment is not a vested right but an act of State benevolence intended for the entire family unit of the deceased, not an individual benefit—Respondent No.4 having derived employment solely on her solemn undertaking to support the petitioner cannot resile from that obligation—Her conduct amounts to breach of trust and frustration of the object of the 1996 Rules—Department directed to deduct ₹20,000/month from her salary for petitioner’s maintenance [Paras 9–15, 20–22].}

^{Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel – Enforcement of Undertakings in Welfare Schemes – Affidavit by respondent No.4 stating she would maintain her in-laws and not remarry formed the foundation of the compassionate appointment—Having accepted employment on that representation, she is estopped from disowning the obligation—Principle of promissory estoppel applies with full force even in administrative benevolence—Held: Respondent No.4’s repudiation of the undertaking constitutes moral and legal breach; authorities must ensure continued maintenance of the petitioner [Paras 12, 15, 21–22].}

^{Administrative Law – Object of Compassionate Scheme – Equity and Public Policy – Compassionate appointment is not a mode of regular employment but a social welfare measure to prevent destitution—Benefit extended to one dependent is in representative capacity for the entire family—Authorities failed to appreciate that the appointment was first offered to the petitioner and later transferred to his daughter-in-law in trust—State’s parens patriae role obliges it to ensure fairness and protection of all dependents—Court can issue equitable directions under Article 226 to uphold the humanitarian purpose of the scheme [Paras 13, 16–19].}

^{Remarriage – Effect on Compassionate Obligation – Though remarriage of respondent No.4 is a matter of personal liberty, her remarriage and abandonment of the deceased’s parents after obtaining employment on compassionate grounds underscores violation of her solemn undertaking and negates the moral basis of her appointment [Paras 12, 14, 21].}

^{Decision: Writ petition partly allowed – Respondent-department directed to deduct ₹20,000 per month from respondent No.4’s salary and deposit the same in the petitioner’s bank account from 01.11.2025 onwards towards his maintenance—To continue during petitioner’s lifetime or until modified by competent authority—Writ petition disposed of with observations [Para 22–23].}

Motor Accident Claim – Fatal Accident – Final-Year Medical Student – Future Prospects – Assessment of Deemed Income – Enhanced Compensation Awarded – Deceased was a final-year MBBS student killed in a bus accident – Tribunal awarded compensation of ₹54,80,000 on notional income of ₹35,000 per month with 50% future prospects and multiplier M-17 – MSRTC challenged inclusion of future prospects and interest thereon – Claimants sought enhancement of income to ₹56,000 and correction of multiplier to M-18 based on age of 24 – Held: Deceased had strong earning potential, and future prospects must be applied even to notional income – Future prospects at 40% applicable – Income reasonably fixed at ₹50,000 per month – Correct age was 24, hence multiplier of 18 applicable – Tribunal erred in relying on post-mortem report for age despite presence of SSC and Aadhaar on record – Just compensation enhanced to ₹76,70,000 with 6% interest from date of petition [Paras 5.1–6.3].

Future Prospects – Applicability to Non-Earning Individuals – No Discrimination Permissible – Reiterated that future prospects apply not only to salaried or self-employed but also to non-earning individuals with proven earning potential – Reliance on Kavita Nagar v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Kirti v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. – Held: Classification limiting future prospects to earning persons is flawed – Students, homemakers, and others with potential are entitled to this component under the standardisation principle [Paras 5.1.5, 5.4.5].

Interest – Future Prospects – Interest Applicable – Rejected MSRTC’s contention that interest cannot be levied on future prospects – Held: Once future prospects form part of assessed income, entire award including that component must carry interest – Supported by Oriental Insurance Co. v. Niru @ Niharika [Paras 5.2.3].

Age Determination – SSC Certificate vs. Post-Mortem Report – Correct Age Must Prevail – Tribunal erred in relying solely on post-mortem report showing approximate age of 27 years – SSC certificate and Aadhaar showed exact age of 24 years – In social-benefit legislation, tribunals must proactively ensure just compensation, even by seeking proof – Multiplier of M-18 applicable [Paras 5.3.7].

Deemed Income – Final-Year Student – Medical Graduate – Assessment Based on Education and Future Earning Potential – Courts must consider education, course pursued, and academic record in assessing future income of a student – Income of ₹50,000 per month held just and reasonable – Reliance on Sharad Singh v. H.D. Narang, Kirti v. Oriental Insurance Co., and Ashvinbhai Modi v. Ramkaran Sharma [Paras 5.4.5, 6.2].

Decision: MSRTC’s First Appeal dismissed – Tribunal’s award enhanced from ₹54,80,000 to ₹76,70,000 in Cross Objection – Enhanced amount to carry 6% interest from 02.04.2015 – Claimants allowed to withdraw enhanced amount upon deposit.

Insurance Law – Motor Accident – Personal Accident Cover – Deceased had purchased the insured vehicle and applied for ownership transfer on the same day – Fatal accident occurred before the registration certificate was formally updated – Insurer repudiated the claim citing absence of policy endorsement and privity of contract – Insurance Ombudsman upheld the repudiation – Held: Registration certificate is not conclusive of ownership – Doctrine of relation back applies – Once application for transfer is allowed, ownership is deemed to relate back to the date of application – Absence of endorsement within 14 days does not invalidate claim where accident occurs within that window – Performance of such formality made impossible by death cannot be insisted upon [Paras 5–9, 18–21]

Insurance Law – Section 157 MV Act – Deemed Transfer – Personal Accident Cover – Court held that statutory fiction under Section 157 extends to personal accident cover which is now a statutory, non-derogable component of every motor insurance policy – IRDAI regulations mandate PAC as a compulsory and non-optional benefit – Therefore, PAC travels with the policy and attaches to the transferee with effect from date of ownership transfer – Technical objections on delay or non-endorsement cannot defeat statutory rights [Paras 10–17]

Contract Law – Privity of Contract – Personal Nature of Insurance – Argument that PAC is personal to the original insured and nomination bars claim by transferee's legal heirs rejected – Once ownership transfers and premium is paid, insurable interest passes to transferee – No breach of policy shown – Insurer cannot deny benefit on procedural grounds when substantive rights have vested [Paras 19–21]

Decision:

Writ Petition Allowed – Repudiation letter (Ext.P4) and Ombudsman Award (Ext.P7) quashed – Insurer directed to honour the insurance claim and release compensation within one month.

Civil Law – Agreement to Sell – Refund of Earnest Money – Specific Performance Not Pressed – Plaintiff claimed refund of Rs.46.38 lakhs as part of Rs.85.78 lakhs allegedly paid under agreement to sell dated 04.12.2007 – Both Trial Court and First Appellate Court rejected claim as agreement did not mention payment of any earnest money and lacked clarity on sale consideration – Held: Plaintiff failed to establish payment of any specific amount towards earnest money through cogent evidence – No refund could be granted in absence of proof of consideration or admission by seller [Paras 4, 7].

Civil Procedure – Limitation of Challenge – Scope of Appeal – Before First Appellate Court, plaintiff did not press for specific performance and restricted challenge to refund claim only – First Appellate Court rightly limited its findings to Issue No.3 regarding refund – No error found in courts below in rejecting plaintiff’s restricted claim [Paras 4, 7].

Second Appeal – Substantial Question of Law – Concurrent Findings – Both courts below rejected plaintiff’s case on facts and evidence – No substantial question of law arising from concurrent findings – Held: Second appeal not maintainable under Section 100 CPC where no perversity or legal infirmity shown [Paras 8-9].

Decision:   Appeal dismissed – No merit found – No substantial question of law arises.