Accident Claim - Motor Accident Compensation – Income of Deceased – Salary plus Pension – Inclusion for Loss of Dependency – Deceased was a retired armed forces veteran drawing pension and also employed as Principal of a Government school – Tribunal excluded pension income while computing loss of dependency – Held: Pension being a recurring and assured source of income forms part of pecuniary benefit and must be included while assessing loss of income – Family pension received by widow is her independent right and cannot be deducted from income of deceased [Paras 8–10].

Motor Vehicles Act – Deduction towards Personal Expenses – Number of Dependents – Legal Representatives – Insurance company contended that major sons could not be treated as dependents – Court held that while computing compensation, all legal representatives are to be considered irrespective of marital status or actual dependency – With four claimants, deduction of 1/4th towards personal expenses held appropriate instead of 1/3rd [Paras 12].

Future Prospects – Addition of 15% – Deceased Aged 56 Years – Tribunal granted 15% towards future prospects – Held: In consonance with Pranay Sethi, addition of 15% justified for deceased aged between 50–60 years and in permanent employment [Para 11].

Conventional Heads – Consortium – Reassessment – Tribunal awarded limited amounts under conventional heads – Held: In light of Sarla Verma, Pranay Sethi and Satinder Kaur, claimants entitled to enhanced amounts – Loss of consortium payable to all four claimants at ₹48,000 each – Funeral expenses and loss of estate enhanced to ₹18,000 each – No separate compensation for loss of love and affection permissible [Paras 13–14].

Interest on Compensation – Rate of Interest – Award of interest at 9% per annum from date of filing of claim petition upheld – Direction issued that in case of default beyond three months, enhanced amount shall carry interest at 12% per annum thereafter [Para 15].

Cross Objections by Insurer – Reduction of Compensation – Rejected – Insurer challenged grant of future prospects, multiplier and rate of interest – Court found no merit in objections – Compensation reassessed leading to enhancement rather than reduction – Cross objections disposed of accordingly [Paras 6, 16].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Compensation enhanced from ₹67,04,800/- to ₹78,24,382.50/- – Enhanced amount of ₹11,19,582.50/- payable with interest – Cross objections dismissed – Award modified to aforesaid extent.

Cooperative Societies – Recovery of Maintenance Dues – Non-Member Flat Occupants – Petitioners received possession of flats from developer under unregistered agreement and were never admitted as society members – Society initiated recovery proceedings under Section 154B-29 of MCS Act for unpaid maintenance since 2005 – Held: Petitioners, though not members, were in occupation, using common services, and liable under Section 154B-29 [Paras 2, 3, 4, 26, 27].

Limitation – Applicability to Recovery Proceedings under MCS Act – Petitioners argued that demand raised in 2023 for arrears since 2005 was barred under Article 137, Limitation Act – Held: Section 154B-29 is a special mechanism with overriding clause and no prescribed limitation period – Limitation Act not attracted – Dues are recurring in nature and cannot be barred merely by passage of time [Paras 7, 19, 21].

Continuing Wrong – Monthly Maintenance Dues – Maintenance and service charges are recurring and arise from continuous occupation – Each month’s default constitutes fresh cause of action – Held: Non-payment is a continuing breach and cannot be defeated on the ground of delay – Concepts of stale claim and reasonable time inapplicable [Paras 22, 23, 24, 25].

Promoter's Duty under MOFA – Flat Ownership and Liability for Dues – Petitioners, having received flats in consideration and treated them as owned units, fell within meaning of “promoters” under MOFA – Held: Duty to form society and be part of it exists regardless of registration of agreement – Conduct establishes ownership and liability [Paras 26, 27].

Interest on Arrears – Validity of 21% Interest Charge – Society levied 21% interest on unpaid dues as per its bye-laws – Petitioners failed to demonstrate any statutory violation or ceiling breached – Held: Interest charge valid and enforceable [Para 28].

Registrar’s Power and Finality of Recovery – Registrar’s power under Section 154B-29 is independent and overrides other provisions – Recovery certificates once issued are final and enforceable as arrears of land revenue – Held: Statute ensures efficient, litigation-free recovery of dues essential for cooperative housing society’s functioning [Paras 18, 20, 21].

Decision: Writ Petitions dismissed – Recovery certificates upheld – No interference warranted – Request for stay of judgment also rejected [Paras 29–31].

Criminal Law – Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Section 482 CrPC – Power to be used sparingly – Prima Facie Case Absent – No Role Attributed – Names Not in FIR – Petitioners (except those named in FIR) not identified by witnesses and not linked to offences by any direct or circumstantial evidence – Held: Continuation of proceedings against such petitioners amounts to abuse of process – Cognizance order and criminal proceedings quashed qua unnamed petitioners – Trial to continue only against Petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 9, 11, and 16 [Paras 1, 4–6, 12–13, 22–26]

Criminal Law – Protest Turning Violent – FIR Alleging Vandalism, Assault, and Outraging Modesty – Allegations Found Largely Omnibus – Prosecution Unable to Link Vandalism to Specific Accused – Recovery of Broken Furniture and ABVP Flags not Sufficient to Sustain Charges – Simple Injuries Alleged without Medical Proof – Acquittal of Juvenile Co-Accused on Same Evidence Considered Relevant – Petitioners entitled to relief under Bhajan Lal Guidelines [Paras 22–24]

Public Employment – Adverse Impact of Prosecution – Consideration of Career Stakes – Petitioner in CRLMC No. 1017/2024 selected for multiple public posts – Criminal case preventing joining – No prior criminal antecedents – Held: In absence of concrete evidence, continuation of proceedings would unfairly jeopardize future – Court considers such facts while applying discretion under Section 482 CrPC [Para 24]

Inherent Powers – Guiding Principles – Reiterated Principles from R.P. Kapur, Madhu Limaye, Bhajan Lal and Neeharika Infrastructure – Inherent power under Section 482 CrPC not to be exercised arbitrarily – Meant to prevent miscarriage of justice – Must not result in a mini-trial – High Court must avoid appreciation of evidence unless case falls into recognised exceptions [Paras 14–21]

Decision: CRLMC applications allowed in part – Criminal proceedings and cognizance order dated 14.11.2018 quashed only in respect of petitioners not named in FIR – Proceedings to continue against Petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 9, 11 and 16 in CRLMC No. 2832/2024 – Trial court directed to expedite and conclude trial within six months [Paras 26–28]

Minority Educational Institutions – Unrecognized Madarsa – Power of Closure by State Authorities – Article 30(1) of the Constitution – District Minority Welfare Officer directed closure of the petitioner Madarsa on the ground that it was being run without recognition – Regulation 13 of the 2016 Regulations only provides consequence of non-recognition as denial of government grant – No provision empowering authorities to stop functioning of an unrecognized Madarsa – Held: Mere lack of recognition cannot justify closure of the institution [Paras 2–4, 7].

Constitution of India – Article 30(1) – Classification of Minority Educational Institutions – Reliance placed on Anjum Kadari v. Union of India, (2025) 5 SCC 53 and In re: Kerala Education Bill, 1957 – Minority institutions categorized into (i) those seeking neither aid nor recognition, (ii) those seeking aid, and (iii) those seeking recognition alone – Institutions falling in first category fully protected under Article 30(1) – Petitioner Madarsa neither seeking aid nor recognition – Held: Its functioning is constitutionally protected [Paras 5–6].

Administrative Law – Absence of Statutory Authority – Invalid Executive Action – State argued that unrecognized Madarsa may create complications for students – However, no statutory provision enabling closure on this ground – Executive order without authority of law held unsustainable [Paras 7, 9–10].

Relief – Quashing of Closure Order with Clarifications – Impugned order dated 01.05.2025 directing closure quashed – Clarified that unrecognized Madarsa not entitled to government grants – Madarsa Board not obliged to allow students to appear in examinations – Qualifications acquired not to confer any benefit vis-à-vis State Government – Directions issued to remove seal within 24 hours [Paras 9–11].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Order dated 01.05.2025 quashed – Seal on Madarsa directed to be opened within 24 hours subject to conditions stated.

Criminal Law – Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder – Section 304 IPC – Group Assault with Lathis and Dandas – Conviction Sustained – Deceased sustained multiple grievous injuries in a concerted assault by appellants armed with lathis and dandas – Death occurred as a direct consequence of injuries – Held: Nature, number and gravity of injuries coupled with manner of assault clearly establish knowledge that such acts were likely to cause death – Conviction under Section 304 read with Section 34 IPC justified [Paras 41–45, 62–64, 71].

Common Intention – Section 34 IPC – Pre-meditated Assault – Appellants were lying in wait near Mattan Nala armed with weapons and launched coordinated attack on deceased and injured witnesses – Conduct before, during and after incident shows acting in furtherance of common intention – Held: Section 34 IPC rightly invoked [Paras 44–45].

Evidence – Injured Eye-Witnesses – Non-Examination of Independent Witnesses – Prosecution relied on testimonies of injured witnesses PW-2 and PW-3 – Villagers who arrived later not examined – Held: Testimony of injured witnesses stands on higher pedestal – Non-examination of independent witnesses not fatal when ocular evidence is consistent, natural and corroborated by medical evidence [Paras 36–40].

Medical Evidence vis-à-vis Ocular Testimony – Alleged Contradictions – Defence alleged inconsistency between medical and ocular evidence, particularly regarding stab-like injuries – Medical experts opined possibility of injuries caused by fall on hard surface – Held: No irreconcilable contradiction – Ocular evidence duly corroborated by medical evidence – Ocular version prevails [Paras 46–55].

Night Occurrence – Identification of Accused – Moonlight and Prior Acquaintance – Incident occurred at night – Defence alleged absence of light and false implication – Held: Occurrence took place on a bright moonlit night (Ekadashi) – Accused and witnesses were co-villagers with prior acquaintance – Identification reliable and trustworthy [Paras 56–61].

Section 304 IPC vs Section 325 IPC – Knowledge of Likely Death – Argument that offence would not travel beyond Section 325 IPC rejected – Held: Brutal group assault on a 46-year-old man causing multiple fractures establishes knowledge of likelihood of death – Offence rightly falls under Section 304 IPC [Paras 62–64].

Intentional Insult – Section 504 IPC – Ingredients Not Made Out – General allegation of abuses without specification of words or provocation – Held: Mere allegation of abuse insufficient – Essential ingredients of Section 504 IPC not proved – Conviction under Section 504 IPC set aside [Paras 65–70, 72].

Sentence – Modification on Grounds of Lapse of Time and Age of Accused – Original sentence of life imprisonment modified – Considering incident of 1993, pendency of appeal for over two decades and age of appellants – Sentence reduced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 304 IPC – Fine enhanced and compensation directed to be paid to legal heirs of deceased [Paras 74–76].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Conviction under Sections 304/34, 325/34, 323/34 and 506(2) IPC affirmed – Conviction under Section 504 IPC set aside – Sentence modified to 10 years rigorous imprisonment with enhanced fine and compensation – Appellants directed to surrender.

Money Laundering – Bail – Prolonged Incarceration – Article 21 Rights – Trial Not Likely to Conclude Soon – Petitioner alleged to be involved in laundering proceeds of cyber fraud committed against foreign national by providing bank accounts and documents for shell companies – Co-accused allegedly impersonated petitioner and used his documents – Petitioner in custody since 20.12.2023 – 31 witnesses and over 6000 pages of documents – Held: Continued incarceration without early trial violates right to personal liberty under Article 21 – Bail granted in line with V. Senthil Balaji v. ED and Manish Sisodia v. ED [Paras 16, 20–26].

PMLA – Section 45 – Twin Conditions – Harmonization with Article 21 – Not an Absolute Bar – Bail provisions under Section 45 PMLA impose twin conditions but must be balanced with the fundamental right to liberty – Where trial is unlikely to conclude and accused has clean antecedents, Constitutional Courts can grant bail despite statutory bar – Stringent bail provisions not meant to perpetuate pre-trial punishment [Paras 18, 19, 22–24].

Parity – Co-Accused Granted Bail – Petitioner Similarly Placed – Co-accused granted bail by coordinate Bench – Petitioner entitled to bail on grounds of parity, prolonged custody and absence of recovery from his possession [Paras 10, 26].

Cyber Crime – Alleged Identity Misuse – Fake Companies – Bank Account Laundering – Allegations include use of petitioner’s ID to float shell companies and open bank accounts used for layering of foreign funds – Petitioner claimed he was unaware and documents were misused – Held: All such contentions to be evaluated during trial – Bail not to be withheld merely due to seriousness of offence [Paras 4–7, 25].

Decision: Bail application allowed – Petitioner to be released on bail in connection with Special Trial (P.M.L.A.) Case No. 12 of 2023 on furnishing bail bond of ₹1,00,000 with two sureties – Strict conditions imposed including no travel abroad, no interference with witnesses, and keeping mobile phone active – Court clarifies no opinion on merits of the case [Paras 27–29].

Civil Law – Recall of Witness – Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC – Discretionary Power – Witness once discharged cannot be routinely recalled for cross-examination – Trial Court failed to ascertain if valid reasons existed for Defendant No.1’s failure to cross-examine at relevant stage – Held: Order recalling P.W.2 unsustainable – Power under Order XVIII Rule 17 must be exercised sparingly and not to fill evidentiary gaps – Impugned orders set aside [Paras 4–9, 12]

Judicial Discipline – Error in Trial Court Order – Inconsistencies in identifying parties and witnesses – Trial Court incorrectly described plaintiff as petitioner in recall application and misidentified P.W.2 as P.W.1 – Held: Orders reflect non-application of mind and lack of diligence – Duty of court to ensure accuracy and clarity in orders [Paras 10–11]

Procedural Law – Scope of Section 151 CPC – Inherent Powers – Can be invoked only when no express provision applies – Recall of witness not permissible merely on ground of potential prejudice or interest of justice unless supported by bona fide cause – Inherent power cannot override settled procedural safeguards [Paras 7–9]

Judicial Discretion – Exercise of Power under Article 227 – High Court interferes to prevent abuse of process – Trial Court failed to assess necessity, did not apply legal standard under Order XVIII Rule 17 – Held: Misuse of discretion – High Court justified in setting aside such order under Article 227 [Paras 6, 9, 12]

Decision: CMP allowed – Impugned orders dated 06.12.2023 and 24.01.2024 set aside – Trial Court’s order permitting Defendant No.1 to recall and cross-examine P.W.2 quashed – Court emphasises that recalling of witnesses is an exception, not the rule – Expresses appreciation for Amicus Curiae assistance [Paras 12–13]

Criminal Law – Attempt to Murder – Section 307 IPC – Essential Ingredients – Mere causing of grievous injury is not determinative for attracting Section 307 IPC – Sine qua non is existence of intention or knowledge of a homicidal degree – Such intention must be inferred from weapon used, nature and location of injuries, manner of assault, conduct of accused and surrounding circumstances – Absence of these factors disentitles prosecution from invoking Section 307 IPC [Paras 10–15, 20–21].

Hurt vs. Attempt to Murder – Legislative Scheme under IPC – Chapter XVI IPC provides a graded and exhaustive framework for offences affecting human body – Sections 319 to 338 IPC carefully demarcate hurt, grievous hurt and aggravated forms thereof – Mechanical escalation of cases covered under Sections 325/326 IPC into Section 307 IPC would disturb legislative proportionality – Penal statutes require strict construction [Paras 16–19].

Framing of Charge – Scope of Judicial Scrutiny – At the stage of framing charge, suspicion however grave cannot substitute foundational facts – Even if prosecution material accepted at face value, absence of prima facie homicidal intent bars framing of charge under Section 307 IPC – Courts must guard against abuse of process by over-invocation of serious charges [Paras 27–28].

Nature of Weapon and Injuries – Relevance – Alleged assault by blunt object (lathi) resulting in a single grievous injury – No repeated or forceful blows, no sharp-edged or deadly weapon used – Medical evidence did not opine injury sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death – Factors cumulatively negate intention to kill [Paras 22, 26].

Animosity and Family Disputes – Limited Evidentiary Value – Prior civil and criminal disputes between close family members not sufficient by itself to infer intention to murder – Animosity is a double-edged circumstance and cannot mechanically justify invocation of Section 307 IPC [Paras 23–24].

Conduct of Accused – Post-Incident Behaviour – Accused fleeing upon arrival of villagers and not persisting in assault militates against inference of homicidal intent – Failure to take undue advantage or persist in attack is a strong indicator negating Section 307 IPC [Paras 25].

Revision – Interference with Order Framing Charges – Trial Court committed manifest error in framing charge under Section 307 IPC ignoring settled legal parameters – However, prima facie case made out for offences under Sections 341, 323, 325 and 354 IPC – Charges under these provisions sustained [Paras 28–29].

Transfer of Case – Jurisdiction – Since surviving charges are triable by Magistrate, case directed to be transferred to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner, for trial in accordance with law [Para 29].

Decision: Revision petition partly allowed – Charge under Section 307 IPC quashed – Charges under Sections 341, 323, 325 and 354 read with Section 34 IPC maintained – Case transferred to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner – Stay petition and pending applications disposed of.

Writ Jurisdiction – Maintainability – Bar Association – Bar Association registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 – Body of private lawyers formed for welfare of its members – Does not discharge public functions – Not ‘State’ or instrumentality under Article 12 of Constitution – Held: Writ petition under Article 226 seeking mandamus against Bar Association not maintainable [Paras 15–17].

Mandamus – Preconditions – For issuance of mandamus, existence of statutory duty and failure to discharge such duty essential – Bar Association under no statutory obligation to initiate criminal or disciplinary proceedings against its members – No mandamus can be issued to compel a private body to act in a particular manner [Paras 17–18].

Advocate Chamber – Permissive Possession – No Enforceable Right – Appellant advocate not allottee of chamber – Occupation based on permissive possession granted by allottee – No independent legal or enforceable right over chamber – Held: Absence of legal right disentitles petitioner from invoking writ jurisdiction [Paras 10–11].

Alleged Criminal Trespass – Alternative Remedies – Allegations of trespass, threats and dispossession amount to criminal offences – Remedy lies under Code of Criminal Procedure – High Court will not issue directions for registration of criminal case when statutory remedies available – Reliance placed on Sakiri Vasu and Priyanka Srivastava [Paras 11, 18].

Bar Council of Delhi – Disciplinary Jurisdiction – Bar Council is statutory body empowered to take disciplinary action against advocates – Appellant neither approached Bar Council nor impleaded it as a party – Held: Mandamus cannot be sought without first invoking jurisdiction of competent statutory authority [Paras 19–21].

Prayer Partly Not Pressed – Effect – Even though prayer for restoration of possession was not pressed subsequently, remaining prayer seeking action against advocates still not maintainable – Lack of public law element fatal to writ petition [Paras 13–15].

Decision – Intra-court appeal dismissed – Order of Single Judge dismissing writ petition as not maintainable affirmed – Liberty reserved to appellant to pursue appropriate civil, criminal or disciplinary remedies in accordance with law – No order as to costs [Paras 22–24].