Motor Accident Claim – Driver Identity Dispute – Insurer contended that Aman Chauhan, a deceased without a valid driving license, was driving the Alto car at time of accident, rendering policy coverage void – Tribunal and High Court rejected insurer’s claim based on consistent eyewitness testimony and admission of Anil Kumar, who confessed to being the driver and fleeing the scene – FIR and police final report found unreliable as no investigating officer was examined and discrepancies existed in factual narration [Paras 5.4, 6, 9-13, 16]

Motor Vehicles Act – Liability of Insurer – Defence of breach of policy failed – Insurer failed to prove that Aman Chauhan was driver – Testimony of surviving occupant (Prince Chauhan) and six independent eyewitnesses supported that Anil Kumar was driving – Police's reliance on ASI’s second-hand report not sufficient – Tribunal rightly fastened liability on insurer [Paras 10.1 to 10.9, 14-17]

Compensation – Quantum Determination – Aman Chauhan’s income estimated at ₹15,000/month by Tribunal, though not supported by documentary proof – Court reduced monthly income to ₹10,000 based on skilled worker’s minimum wage – Total compensation modified to ₹20,53,932 from ₹30,06,000 [Paras 20-20.2]

Compensation – Quantum Re-assessment – In Jasvinder’s case, Tribunal assumed ₹12,000/month income; Court revised it to ₹10,000 based on minimum wage – After 50% deduction and 40% future prospects, compensation recalculated as ₹14,14,000 instead of ₹16,82,800 [Paras 21-21.1]

Personal Injury – Compensation – In Prince Chauhan’s claim (injury case), award of ₹50,000 upheld – Court found it reasonable and not excessive – No interference warranted [Para 22]

Evidence – FIR and Police Report – FIR based on ASI’s inference from hearsay and not supported by direct evidence – Final report filed months later without timely recording of survivor’s version – Held: FIR and police report untrustworthy, especially in absence of testimony of investigating officer [Paras 12-13, 15-16]

Appellate Interference – FAO No. 31 (Prince Chauhan) dismissed – FAO Nos. 32 and 33 (Aman Chauhan and Jasvinder) partially allowed to modify compensation quantum – Awards modified but insurer held liable [Paras 24-25]

Decision: FAO No. 31 of 2023 dismissed – FAO Nos. 32 & 33 of 2023 partially allowed – Compensation in MAC 11-R/2 of 2021 and MAC 12-R/2 of 2021 reduced – Tribunal’s finding on liability upheld – Interest to remain as awarded [Para 24]

Property Law – Permanent Injunction – Co-sharer plea – Adverse inference – Concurrent findings – Suit land 32 marlas marked ABCD – Trial Court decreed injunction on possession; First Appellate Court affirmed – Defendant’s belated co-sharer argument inapplicable as he never pleaded joint status and instead set up exclusive claims (7 marlas with himself, 25 marlas with sister) – Non-appearance of defendant warranted adverse inference – No substantial question of law – Appeal dismissed [Paras 4, 7–13].

Pleadings and Burden – Co-sharer principle not attracted – Legal proposition that one co-sharer cannot injunct another is undisputed, but inapplicable where the defendant’s own pleadings deny jointness and assert exclusive titles in defined portions – Court declines to permit a case beyond pleadings [Paras 8–9].

Evidence – Family partition and possession – First Appellate Court recorded that partition stood admitted even by defence witnesses – Sister (alleged owner of 25 marlas) residing in another village since 1947; no possession proved – Defendant did not enter the witness box; son (DW2) lacked personal knowledge of partition or identification of the alleged 7 marlas – Defence testimony inconsistent and unreliable [Para 10].

Adverse Inference – Non-appearance of a party – Adverse inference against the defendant for not stepping into the witness box, consistent with Prem Sagar v. Darbari Lal and Sardari Lal v. Kartar Singh – Defendant failed to substantiate title or possession; plaintiff’s possession proved – Decrees sustained [Paras 11–12].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – No substantial question of law arises – Concurrent injunction in favour of the plaintiff maintained [Para 13].

Pension – Conviction under Section 138 NI Act – Moral Turpitude – Petitioner, a retired police official, was convicted under Section 138 of NI Act and his pension was stopped invoking Rule 8 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules – Held: Conviction under Section 138 NI Act arises from a contractual dispute and cannot be considered an offence involving moral turpitude – Such conviction does not, by itself, reflect absence of good conduct warranting denial of pension – Impugned order quashed – Pension directed to be restored with arrears [Paras 2, 5, 6].

Service Law – Natural Justice – Denial of Pension – Pension was stopped without affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing – Held: Violation of principles of natural justice – Action unsustainable in law [Paras 2, 5].

Binding Precedent – Madras High Court Ruling – Reliance placed on earlier Madras High Court decision in W.P.(MD) No. 5002 of 2024 dated 05.09.2024, holding that conviction under Section 138 NI Act does not amount to misconduct involving moral turpitude – Court finds no reason to differ from settled position [Para 5].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Impugned order dated 07.07.2025 quashed – Respondents directed to release monthly pension and pay arrears within 12 weeks – No costs – Connected miscellaneous petitions closed [Paras 6–7].

Criminal Law – Murder – Bail – Circumstantial Evidence – Applicant accused of murdering the deceased by beheading him and disposing of body parts in gunny bags – FIR registered under Sections 302 and 201 IPC – Application under Section 483 BNSS for regular bail – Defence contended that recovery of body was planted, CCTV footage inconclusive, and motive unproved – Held: Offence grave and heinous – Recovery of torso and head of deceased at instance of applicant is of high evidentiary value and directly connects him to concealment of body – Immediate discovery pursuant to disclosure under Section 27 strengthens prosecution case – Last seen theory supported by CCTV footage showing applicant and deceased together shortly before disappearance – Prima facie chain of circumstances complete – No case for bail [Paras 8–23, 36–44].

Section 27, Indian Evidence Act – Discovery of Fact – Recovery of Body vs. Weapon – Court explained distinction: discovery of weapon requires corroboration, but recovery of body at instance of accused directly connects him with concealment of crime – Immediacy between disclosure and recovery strengthens evidentiary value – Applicant’s failure to explain knowledge of location leads to presumption of concealment by him [Paras 14–20].

Circumstantial Evidence – Last Seen Theory – Applicability – Deceased last seen alive with applicant on 27 June 2023 – CCTV footage corroborates presence together – Applicant offered no explanation of parting – Proximity of time and subsequent discovery of body sufficient to invoke presumption under Section 106 Evidence Act – Decomposition of body does not negate probative value of circumstance [Paras 36–41].

Witness Evidence – Corroboration – Independent witness Rohit Kumar’s statement that applicant sought his help to dispose of a “dead goat” supports prosecution case – Payment of Rs.200 and CCTV footage of applicant carrying gunny bag form consistent chain of events – Recovery panchanamas drawn in presence of independent witnesses, voluntary disclosure established [Paras 24–25].

Bail – Principles – Nature and gravity of offence, strength of evidence, and potential tampering risk considered – Circumstantial evidence forms unbroken chain pointing to guilt – Brutality of crime and societal impact outweigh plea for liberty – Bail refused [Paras 45–49].

Decision: Bail application dismissed – Court held prima facie material sufficient to connect applicant with crime – Seriousness and nature of offence justify continued custody [Para 49].

Criminal Law - Motor Vehicle Accident – Negligence – No Direct Evidence – Conviction Set Aside – Accused was convicted by Trial and Appellate Courts for rash and negligent driving causing injuries – Revisional Court held that prosecution failed to prove rashness or negligence – Injury location inconsistent with prosecution's version of accident – Conviction under Sections 279 and 338 IPC set aside [Paras 18–24, 29–37, 40].

Evidence – Contradictions – Prosecution version that victim was hit from behind contradicted by injury on her left leg – Witnesses’ testimony regarding “high speed” insufficient without specific elaboration – Statements of negligence by witnesses held inadmissible as opinion, not fact – Witnesses’ conclusions disregarded [Paras 19–26, 34–36].

High Speed – Not Per Se Negligent – Speed alone not determinative of rashness – No evidence of reckless driving or breach of duty – Court cited State of Karnataka v. Satish and Mohanta Lal v. State of W.B. to reaffirm that “high speed” must be contextualised – Mere speed cannot establish guilt [Paras 24–26].

Licensing – Driving Without License – Conviction Upheld – Accused admitted to not holding a valid driving license – Held: Though not evidence of negligence, driving without license validly attracts Section 181 of M.V. Act – Sentence of ₹500 fine upheld as reasonable [Paras 31–33, 38].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Scope – Concurrent Findings – Revisional Court reiterated that it cannot act as a second appellate court – Interference only when findings are perverse or based on no evidence – Court relied on Malkeet Singh Gill, Dilipsinh Rao, Kishan Rao and others to set out settled law on revisional powers [Paras 13–17].

Decision: Revision Petition Partly Allowed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 279 and 338 IPC set aside – Conviction and fine of ₹500 under Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act upheld [Paras 40–42].

Senior Citizens Act – Section 23 – Cancellation of Transfer Deed – Conditions breached – Petitioner (grandfather) sought cancellation of transfer deed citing failure of transferee to maintain him as required under deed – Tribunal initially cancelled deed but appellate authority remanded case – Upon rehearing, Tribunal denied cancellation and instead granted monthly maintenance of ₹24,000 to be paid by all three respondents – Held: Petitioner’s pleadings vague and lacking specific proof of refusal to maintain by Respondent No.5 – No evidence to show Respondent No.5 breached conditions – Tribunal correctly refused to cancel deed [Paras 3, 12–13].

Misuse of Welfare Law – Family property dispute cloaked as senior citizen welfare issue – Court noted coordinated stand of Respondents Nos.3 & 4 to not pay maintenance and admit lack of possession/income – Found that application was used as tool to settle property dispute among family members under the guise of senior citizen welfare – Held: This practice of using Section 23 for collateral purposes must be deprecated [Paras 6, 10, 13].

Voluntary Reversion of Property – Deed cancelled only to the extent admitted by transferees – Respondents Nos.3 & 4 voluntarily expressed willingness to relinquish land – Court allowed cancellation of transfer only as to their share – Respondent No.5’s share maintained – He directed to continue paying maintenance of ₹8,000/month as per Tribunal’s order – Welfare of petitioner thus adequately protected [Paras 14–15].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – No interference warranted – Transfer deed partially cancelled to extent of shares held by Respondents Nos.3 & 4 – Respondent No.5 to retain his share and continue maintenance obligation of ₹8,000 per month – Petitioner’s welfare sufficiently secured [Paras 14–16].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Dishonour of Cheque – Dismissal in Default – Right to Appeal – Complainant's cheque dishonour complaint was dismissed for want of prosecution – High Court held that such dismissal amounts to acquittal – In light of Supreme Court ruling in M/s Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, a complainant in a private complaint under Section 138 N.I. Act qualifies as a ‘victim’ under Section 2(wa) Cr.P.C. – Such a victim has the right to file an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. without seeking special leave under Section 378(4) – High Court directed that the application be treated as an appeal under Section 372 and sent to the Sessions Court for adjudication [Paras 1–5]

Criminal Procedure – Right of Victim to Appeal – Supreme Court in M/s Celestium Financial clarified that complainants in Section 138 cases are entitled to file appeals as victims without procedural barriers applicable to the State or complainants under Section 378 – The distinction is rooted in the nature of the victim's harm and absence of State involvement in such prosecutions – High Court accepted this rationale and followed precedent [Paras 2–5]

Procedural Law – Appeal Transfer – High Court did not examine the merits of the appeal – Directed the Registry to transmit records to the Sessions Court – Applicant to appear before Sessions Court for further proceedings – Petition disposed accordingly [Paras 6–9]

Decision: Application disposed – Treated as an appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. – Transferred to Sessions Judge, Panipat for appropriate disposal.

Criminal Law – Cognizance on Protest Petition – Procedure – Petitioner summoned under Sections 409, 420, 465, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC after police filed a cancellation report and departmental inquiry found no wrongdoing – Magistrate took cognizance solely on protest petition without directing preliminary evidence – Case was incorrectly treated as instituted on a police report – Held: Cognizance could have been taken, but only after following warrant case procedure applicable to private complaints – Framing of charge without pre-charge evidence improper [Paras 1, 3–5, 14–16, 21–26, 28].

Sanction for Prosecution – Section 197 CrPC – Petitioner, a public servant, was prosecuted for acts alleged to have been committed while sanctioning bills in discharge of official duty – Held: There was a direct nexus between the act and the official duties – Without prior sanction from the competent authority, prosecution was barred – Trial Court and Revisional Court failed to appreciate this requirement – Cognizance and charge-sheet held unsustainable in law [Paras 13, 20, 27–30].

Warrant Case Procedure – Non-Compliance – Trial Court proceeded without list of witnesses or pre-charge evidence – Since the case was not instituted on police report, CrPC mandates procedure for cases based on complaints – Non-compliance led to procedural vacuum – Held: Charges framed without following proper process vitiated the trial [Paras 25–26, 28].

Decision: Petition allowed – Order framing charge dated 09.02.2023 and Revisional Court order dated 26.02.2024 set aside – Trial Court directed to reconsider the matter in light of the requirement for sanction under Section 197 CrPC and by following correct procedure for warrant cases instituted otherwise than on police report.

Criminal Law - SC/ST Act – Recommendation for FIR – Jurisdiction of Commission – Order dated 05.01.2018 passed by Member of National Commission for Scheduled Castes recommending registration of FIR under SC/ST Act against DDA official (Karamvir Narwal) and restoring vendor’s permission challenged – Held: NCSC is empowered to recommend enquiry but cannot direct FIR registration – The impugned order is merely recommendatory and not binding – No mandatory direction for FIR found [Paras 33-36].

Street Vendors Act – Right to Vend – Respondent street vendor had valid permission which was later withdrawn by DDA – Subsequent Writ Petition quashed revocation order – Vendor allegedly harassed and caste-abused by DDA official – Held: Grievance essentially related to vending rights and withdrawal of permission – No evidence of specific incident of caste abuse noted – Omnibus allegations insufficient to justify FIR [Paras 32-34].

Writ Jurisdiction – Maintainability – Petition filed by DDA challenging recommendation of NCSC – Held: Petition maintainable to clarify that NCSC’s order was only advisory in nature – Police not bound to register FIR solely on Commission’s recommendation – Enquiry may be conducted in accordance with law [Paras 35-36].

Decision: Writ Petition disposed of – Clarified that impugned order of NCSC dated 05.01.2018 is recommendatory and not mandatory – No direction to register FIR – Police free to proceed with enquiry under law [Paras 36-37].