Bail Application – NDPS Act – Long Incarceration – Section 439 Cr.P.C – Sections 18, 21, 25, and 29 of NDPS Act – Petition filed seeking regular bail citing prolonged incarceration (over 2.5 years) and non-compliance with procedural requirements in the investigation – Held: Restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act are outweighed by the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution – Bail granted [Paras 40-43].

NDPS Act – Compliance with Section 52A – Delayed Sending of Samples – Procedural Irregularity – Delay of 13 days in sending samples for FSL analysis argued as violative of Standing Order 1/88 – Held: Delay is procedural and does not vitiate trial or automatically entitle the accused to bail – Subject to trial evaluation whether serious prejudice was caused to the accused [Paras 24-26].

Search Procedure – Section 50 NDPS Act – Compliance with Rights of Accused – Challenge on grounds that notice under Section 50 used "any" Magistrate instead of "nearest" Magistrate – Held: The word "any" does not negate compliance with Section 50 – Petitioner was adequately informed of rights and declined to exercise the option of being searched before a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer – Compliance upheld [Paras 28-30].

Non-Joinder of Independent Witnesses – Lack of Videography – Impact on Prosecution – Argument raised that no independent witnesses were included in the investigation despite the alleged apprehension occurring at a crowded location and no videography of the raid – Held: Non-joinder of witnesses is not fatal to the case, but the prosecution must justify this omission during trial – Combined absence of witnesses and videography raises a reasonable doubt, entitling the petitioner to the benefit during bail evaluation [Paras 31-34].

Right to Speedy Trial – Prolonged Incarceration – Petitioner incarcerated for over 2.5 years with no witnesses examined and trial unlikely to conclude soon – Held: Article 21 of the Constitution mandates a right to a speedy trial – Restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act cannot override this constitutional guarantee – Bail granted considering inordinate delay and absence of criminal antecedents under the NDPS Act [Paras 36-40].

Decision – Bail Granted – Petitioner directed to furnish a personal bond of ₹20,000 with a surety – Conditions imposed to ensure attendance at trial and prevent tampering with evidence – Observations not to affect the merits of the trial [Paras 42-44].

Panchayat Law - Resignation of Upa-Sarpanch – Procedural Compliance under Section 34 and Rule 3 – Section 34(2) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act mandates that a resignation by the Upa-Sarpanch must be submitted to the Sarpanch and acknowledged in Form II as prescribed under Rule 3 of the Bombay Village Panchayat (Delivery of Notice of Resignation) Rules, 1965 – Held: Failure to comply with mandatory procedures, including acknowledgment of the resignation in Form II, rendered the resignation invalid. Mere signatures of witnesses to the resignation letter could not substitute strict compliance with the statutory methodology [Paras 14-17, 26-27, 29].

Dispute Regarding Genuineness of Resignation – Emphasis on Strict Compliance – Petitioner emphatically denied tendering the resignation letter and alleged forgery of his signature – Evidence revealed a lack of proper inquiry by the Collector and Divisional Commissioner into the manner of submission and acknowledgment of the resignation – Held: Without adherence to mandatory procedural requirements and proper inquiry into the allegations of forgery, the resignation could not be treated as valid [Paras 18-20, 23, 31].

Non-Compliance with Form II Acknowledgment – Impact on Effectiveness of Resignation – Rule 3(3) of the Bombay Village Panchayat (Delivery of Notice of Resignation) Rules requires acknowledgment in Form II for a resignation to take effect – Held: The absence of Form II acknowledgment and failure to identify the person who accepted the resignation letter violated statutory requirements, invalidating the resignation process [Paras 17-18, 26-27].

Judicial Precedents – Resignation under the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act – Mandatory Nature of Procedural Requirements – The Court invoked the principle in Taylor v. Taylor that when a statute prescribes a specific procedure for performing an act, it must be followed strictly – Held: Compliance with statutory provisions under Sections 29 and 34 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act and Rule 3 of the Resignation Rules is mandatory, especially when the resignation of an elected official is disputed [Paras 24-25, 28].

Right to Hold Elected Office – Democratic Principles and Judicial Oversight – Acceptance of resignation without adherence to mandatory procedures unseats a democratically elected representative, warranting strict judicial scrutiny – Held: The orders of the Collector and Divisional Commissioner rejecting the Petitioner’s challenge to his resignation were perverse and based on non-application of mind – Resignation deemed ineffective, and the Petitioner restored to the position of Upa-Sarpanch [Paras 30-32].

Decision: The Writ Petition was allowed with the following directions: The orders dated 24 October 2024 (Additional Collector, Nashik) and 10 December 2024 (Additional Divisional Commissioner, Nashik) were set aside. The Petitioner’s Dispute Application No. 51/2023 was allowed, holding that the alleged resignation dated 10 November 2023 had not taken effect.The Petitioner continues to hold the office of Upa-Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Rasegaon.

Criminal Law - Adjournments – Excessive and Repeated Requests – Court’s Duty to Prevent Abuse of Process – Repeated adjournments sought by the petitioner/accused for leading defence evidence were granted, including a final opportunity on 11/11/2024 – Despite this, no evidence was produced on 21/12/2024 – Held: The petitioner’s conduct was aimed at delaying proceedings, and the order of the trial court closing the defence evidence is proper and justified [Paras 4-6, 9].

Fair Trial – Right to Lead Defence Evidence vs. Timely Justice – While the right to lead defence evidence is a fundamental component of a fair trial, it cannot be used as a tool to delay justice – The petitioner’s repeated failure to comply with court orders to produce defence evidence demonstrated gross negligence, justifying the closure of his right to lead evidence [Paras 7, 9].

Judicial Responsibility – Addressing Adjournment Culture – Courts have a duty to discourage adjournments granted in a mechanical or routine manner, which harm the justice delivery system – Reiterating the principles in Ishwarlal Mali Rathod vs. Gopal, (2021) 12 SCC 612, the Court emphasized the need to avoid delays that erode public trust in the judicial process and undermine the rule of law [Paras 7-8].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Speedy Remedy Undermined by Delays – The petitioner’s dilatory tactics in a case under the Negotiable Instruments Act undermined the efficacy of the Act, which is designed to provide a speedy remedy – Held: The trial court rightly refused to tolerate delays that obstruct the purpose of the law [Para 10].

Decision: The criminal revision petition is dismissed, and the impugned order dated 21/12/2024, closing the petitioner’s right to lead defence evidence, is upheld.
 

Civil Law - Partition Suit – Proof of Ownership and Possession – Concurrent Findings – The plaintiffs, being legal heirs of late A.R. Lakshmaiah Naidu, sought partition and separate possession of the plaint schedule properties. The trial court decreed the suit based on evidence, including oral testimony and 35 exhibits, which proved the plaintiffs' entitlement. The defendant’s claim of ownership through a will was unsupported by evidence. The appellate court upheld the trial court’s findings. – Held: Plaintiffs entitled to partition and possession; judgments of lower courts affirmed. [Paras 18–26]

Second Appeal – Scope of Section 100 of CPC – No Substantial Questions of Law – The High Court emphasized that it can interfere in a second appeal only when substantial questions of law arise. The appellant failed to show that the concurrent findings of the lower courts were based on inadmissible evidence, contrary to law, or perverse. – Held: No substantial questions of law raised; appeal dismissed. [Paras 15–28]

Will – Proof of Execution – Burden of Proof on Propounder – The appellant claimed title to the property through a will but failed to produce the will or call attesting witnesses. The court applied the settled principle that where the propounder fails to prove the will in accordance with law, the claim must fail. – Held: Will not proved; appellant’s claim dismissed. [Paras 20–23]

Patta Claim – No Evidence to Support Ownership – The appellant argued that a DKT patta was issued for the property, but no patta or evidence was produced to substantiate the claim. The court reiterated that unsubstantiated oral claims cannot overturn concurrent findings based on evidence. – Held: Appellant’s claim of patta rejected. [Paras 24–25]

Decision: The second appeal was dismissed at the stage of admission, confirming the concurrent findings of the trial and first appellate courts. No substantial questions of law were found to warrant interference.
 

Civil Law - Waqf Property – Partition Deed – Section 51 and Section 104A of the Waqf Act – Partition Deed Not Void – The petitioners challenged the 1956 partition deed as being in violation of Sections 51 and 104A of the Waqf Act, contending it constituted an impermissible transfer of Waqf property. The court held that the deed did not involve transfer, sale, or exchange of ownership but was merely an amicable family arrangement for residential purposes. – Held: Partition deed not void ab initio and not barred under the Waqf Act. [Paras 15–17]

Limitation – Article 59 of the Limitation Act – Suit Time-Barred – The court found that the petitioners were aware of the partition deed executed in 1956 but filed the suit only in 2016. Under Article 59 of the Limitation Act, a suit to cancel or set aside an instrument must be filed within three years from the date of its execution or knowledge. The court held that the suit was barred by limitation. – Held: Petition dismissed due to delay. [Paras 20–21]

Waqf Property – Nature of Waqf-alal-aulad – Permanent Character of Waqf – The court emphasized that once a property is dedicated as Waqf, it retains its Waqf character perpetually. The Waqf deed allowed for family members to use the property for residence and religious purposes, but this did not constitute secular ownership. – Held: Property remains Waqf; rights of parties limited to Waqfnama terms. [Paras 10, 16]

Waqf Estate – Non-Applicability of Section 107 of the Waqf Act – Limitation in Recovery Suits – The court clarified that Section 107 of the Waqf Act, which excludes the application of the Limitation Act, applies only to suits for recovery of possession of Waqf property under Section 52 of the Act. The present suit, not involving possession, is governed by the Limitation Act. – Held: Limitation Act applies; Section 107 not attracted. [Paras 18–19]

Deed of Exchange – Essentials of Valid Exchange – Section 118 of the Transfer of Property Act – No Mutual Transfer Found – The petitioners claimed the partition deed was a deed of exchange and thus invalid under Section 118 of the Transfer of Property Act. The court found no evidence of mutual transfer of ownership or exchange of properties. – Held: Partition deed cannot be termed as a deed of exchange. [Paras 13–15]

Decision: The revision petition was dismissed as the suit was barred by limitation and the partition deed of 1956 was upheld as a valid family arrangement, not in violation of the Waqf Act, 1995.

Criminal Law – Conviction and Sentencing – Sections 302, 307, 394 IPC – Injured Witness Evidence – Appellants convicted for the murder of Vishnu and causing grievous injuries to Anoop – Trial Court relied on eyewitness testimony of PW8 (injured) and corroborating circumstantial evidence – Appellants argued discrepancies in scientific evidence, absence of blood matching, and alleged a fight between the deceased and PW8 – Held: Testimony of PW8 deemed credible and corroborated by material and circumstantial evidence – Conviction affirmed for both appellants [Paras 8, 19-23].

Evidence – Credibility of Injured Witness – Relevance of Corroboration – Injured witness (PW8) provided consistent testimony regarding the appellants’ role in stabbing and hitting the victims – Supported by circumstantial evidence from PWs 3, 5, 7, 10, and 13 – Held: Injured witness evidence carries special weight and built-in reliability unless contradicted significantly – Corroboration strengthened the case【Paras 19-21】.

Juvenile Justice – Claim of Juvenility – Section 7A, JJ Act – Second appellant claimed juvenility during appeal – Juvenility confirmed after inquiry by Trial Court as per order of the High Court – Held: Conviction affirmed but sentence modified – Sentence in excess of three years quashed considering Section 16 of the JJ Act – Juvenile released, noting incarceration already exceeded the statutory maximum【Paras 6, 26-29】.

Scientific Evidence – Relevance of Knife and Blood Detection – Knife (MO7) recovered from the second appellant and clothes of appellants contained human blood – Appellants challenged lack of conclusive proof connecting blood to victims – Held: Even if blood origin not established, injuries on victims consistent with weapon type supported the prosecution case【Para 24】.

Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – Conviction Affirmed – Sentence Modified for Juvenile – Conviction of both appellants upheld – First appellant’s life sentence confirmed – Second appellant’s sentence reduced to three years due to juvenility under JJ Act – Juvenile released due to time served exceeding three years【Paras 28-29】.

Criminal Law – Quashing - Breach of Contract – Civil Nature – Ingredients of Cheating Absent – FIR Quashed – The petitioner failed to appear as a guest artist at agreed events despite receiving an advance payment. The court held that mere breach of contract without fraudulent or dishonest intention at the outset does not constitute the offence of cheating under Section 420 IPC. – Held: FIR quashed as the dispute was of a civil nature and not criminal. [Paras 19–21]

Section 482 CrPC – Inherent Powers of High Court – Abuse of Process – Quashing Allowed – The court reiterated that inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC are to be exercised sparingly, to prevent abuse of the legal process and secure the ends of justice. Criminal proceedings initiated to pressurize settlement of civil disputes are an abuse of process. – Held: Continuation of proceedings would be an abuse of process; FIR quashed. [Paras 15–17, 21]

Oaths Act and Procedural Irregularities – Section 4(2) of the Oaths Act – Not a Ground to Dismiss – The court addressed the objection regarding the affirmation of the affidavit by the petitioner under Section 4(2) of the Oaths Act, holding that even if irregularities existed, they did not constitute grounds for dismissal of the application. – Held: Procedural irregularities do not invalidate the application. [Paras 22]

Decision:

The criminal revision petition was allowed, and the FIR being Narkeldanga P.S. Case No. 254 of 2018 dated 27/11/2018 under Sections 406, 420, 506, and 120B of the IPC was quashed.

Criminal Procedure – Recording of Second Statement under Section 164 CrPC – Legal Validity – The prosecutrix's father moved an application for recording her second statement under Section 164 CrPC, claiming that the earlier statement was false and implicating the applicant would amount to abuse of process – Held: While the law permits recording of multiple statements under Section 164 CrPC, such requests must not be used to negate or defeat the earlier statements, especially when not sponsored by the investigating agency – Application dismissed [Paras 6–10].

Section 164 CrPC – Role of Investigating Agency in Requesting Statements – Statements under Section 164 CrPC should ideally be recorded when sponsored by the investigating agency – Allowing unsponsored applications may derail the investigation and result in the misuse of the provision – Magistrates have discretion to reject such applications when unsupported by valid reasons – Held: The Trial Court rightly dismissed the application for recording the prosecutrix’s second statement [Paras 7–9].

Protection of 164 CrPC Statements – Sanctity of Evidence – Safeguards Against Misuse – Recording multiple statements under Section 164 CrPC should be exceptional and subject to proper safeguards – Repeated statements risk diluting the evidentiary value and sanctity of the process – Held: The Court must balance the legal rights of witnesses with the sanctity of investigation – The application for recording a second statement was rightly rejected by the Trial Court [Paras 6–10].

Judicial Caution – Statements Without Investigating Agency’s Sponsorship – Supreme Court Guidance – Following precedents from Jogendra Nahak v. State of Orissa and Ajay Kumar Parmar v. State of Rajasthan, the Court reiterated that Magistrates should exercise caution in recording unsponsored statements under Section 164 CrPC – Held: The Magistrate was justified in rejecting the unsponsored application, as the investigating agency did not support the request for the second statement [Paras 7–10].

Decision: The application under Section 482 CrPC is dismissed. The Trial Court's decision rejecting the application for recording the second statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 CrPC is upheld. The Court emphasized that statements under Section 164 CrPC must not be misused to negate earlier statements and should be recorded only in exceptional circumstances when supported by the investigating agency [Paras 10–11].

Matrimonial Law - Divorce – Cruelty – Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act – The respondent-husband filed for divorce on grounds of cruelty, citing that the appellant-wife displayed unruly behavior, threatened suicide, and created disturbances at the matrimonial home – The appellant denied these allegations and, in turn, claimed that she was subjected to physical abuse and forced to consume poison – The Family Court found that the allegations of cruelty were established and granted divorce – Held: Findings of cruelty by the Family Court were justified based on evidence presented, and no interference is warranted [Paras 2.2, 5-6].

False Allegations – Filing of Section 498-A IPC Case – Impact on Divorce – The appellant filed a criminal complaint under Section 498-A IPC against the respondent and his family after the filing of the divorce petition – The respondent and his parents were acquitted – The High Court, relying on Rakesh Raman v. Kavita (2023 SC) and K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa (2013 SC), held that false allegations leading to acquittal amount to mental cruelty, justifying the grant of divorce [Paras 2.2, 6].

Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage – Long Period of Separation – The parties had been separated for 23 years since 2001, and the marriage had irretrievably broken down – Relying on Savitri Pandey v. Prem Chandra Pandey (2003 SC) and Jorden Diengdeh v. S.S. Chopra (1985 SC), the High Court observed that prolonged separation is a strong indicator of irretrievable breakdown, which is a valid ground for divorce – Held: The appeal lacks merit, as the long separation further justifies the decree of divorce [Paras 7-9].

Alimony – Right of Wife to Withdraw Maintenance Amount – The Family Court had ordered alimony, which was deposited by the respondent – The High Court directed that the appellant-wife is permitted to withdraw the amount from the Family Court, Vadodara – Held: The respondent’s obligation towards alimony remains intact [Para 10].

Decision: Appeal Dismissed – Divorce Granted on Grounds of Cruelty – Wife Permitted to Withdraw Alimony from Family Court – The Family Court’s findings were upheld, as the allegations of cruelty were supported by evidence – The long separation and the false criminal complaint further justified the decree of divorce [Paras 9-10].