Criminal Law – Abetment of Suicide – Section 306 IPC – Husband convicted for abetting wife’s suicide and mother-in-law convicted under Section 498A IPC – Wife consumed poison at her parental home – Allegation only that husband told wife not to put sindoor of his name on her head – No other evidence of cruelty or instigation – Held: Mere utterance without intention to provoke suicide does not constitute instigation under Section 107 IPC – Active or direct act of abetment required – Conviction unsustainable [Paras 10–12].

Criminal Law – Cruelty – Section 498A IPC – No evidence of sustained mental or physical cruelty or harassment to drive deceased to suicide – Witness contradictions and absence of corroborative material noted – Prosecution failed to prove ingredients of Section 498A IPC beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction set aside [Paras 13].

Criminal Procedure – Revisional Jurisdiction – Sections 397 and 401 CrPC – High Court can interfere where concurrent findings are perverse or contrary to evidence – Revisional Court not bound to re-appreciate evidence as second appeal but can quash convictions if legal ingredients of offence not proved [Paras 8–9].

Decision: Revision application allowed – Judgment of conviction dated 04.11.2004 in Sessions Case No.92 of 2002 and judgment dated 19.11.2005 in Criminal Appeal No.33 of 2004 quashed and set aside – Applicants acquitted of all charges under Sections 306 and 498A IPC – Rule made absolute [Para 13].

Criminal Law – Economic Offences – Anticipatory Bail – Alleged Ponzi Scheme – Sections 406, 409, 420 IPC and MPID Act – Applicant accused of being part of financial fraud involving over ₹1.13 crore collected through investment scheme – Co-accused (husband and wife, main operators of company) already granted anticipatory bail – Entire amount deposited before Sessions Court for refund to investors – Held: Allegations against applicant limited to disseminating information via laptop – Custodial interrogation not required – Bail granted subject to conditions [Paras 2–8].

Criminal Procedure – Anticipatory Bail – Section 438 CrPC – Scope – Prior anticipatory bail application withdrawn to rectify omission of antecedents – Court found no significant role attributed to applicant and noted that financial loss to investors had been mitigated – Balance of convenience favoured grant of anticipatory bail [Paras 3, 6–8].

Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors Act – Compliance and Refund – Full amount involved in fraudulent investment scheme already deposited in court – No objection from main accused to refund – Investor interest protected – Held: Relevant factor for grant of bail [Paras 5, 8].

Decision: Anticipatory bail granted – Applicant to be released on bail in the event of arrest on furnishing PR bond of ₹1,00,000 with one or two sureties – Conditions imposed including cooperation with investigation, no tampering with evidence or contact with witnesses, and no travel abroad without permission – Application disposed [Para 8–9].

Motor Accident Claim – Compensation – Quantum – Pain and Suffering – Modification of Award – Tribunal awarded ₹7,60,000 with 7% interest – Appellant (Insurance Co.) challenged the award as excessive and based on planted vehicle – Claimant filed cross-objection for enhancement – High Court held: ₹5,00,000 awarded for pain and suffering justified in light of 55% disability (pelvic fracture and urethral injury), but ₹2,00,000 awarded for loss of amenities reduced to ₹1,50,000 – Total compensation revised to ₹7,10,000 with 7% interest from date of filing [Paras 10–12].

Motor Accident – Delay in FIR – Not Fatal – Medical Emergency Justified Delay – FIR was lodged with delay showing involvement of unknown vehicle – Insurance Company alleged false implication – Court held that delay due to medical emergency and hospitalisation is not fatal – Tribunal rightly rejected allegation of planting of vehicle – Charge-sheet and testimony of injured supported claim [Paras 7–9].

Motor Accident – Permanent Disability – Functional Disability Rejected – No Loss of Income Granted – Claimant suffered 55% physical disability (spine and hip) but failed to prove functional disability or reduced earning capacity – Tribunal rightly declined compensation for loss of income or promotion denial – High Court upheld [Paras 6, 8A].

Cross-Objection – Enhancement Claim – Rejected for Lack of Evidence – Claimant alleged loss of salary due to reversion from medical category B-1 to C-1 – Tribunal found no evidence of functional impairment or reduced pay – High Court declined to enhance compensation [Para 8A].

Decision:

Appeal partly allowed – Tribunal's award modified – Total compensation reduced from ₹7,60,000 to ₹7,10,000 with interest @7% p.a. from 25.03.2015 till realization – If not paid within 8 weeks, penal interest @9% shall apply – Cross-objection dismissed – No costs.

Criminal Law – Religious Conversion – Quashing of FIR – Allegations of mass religious conversions of over 100 persons across 37 Hindu families to Islam through allurement, foreign funding, promises of jobs and housing – FIR registered under multiple sections of IPC, Gujarat Freedom of Religion Act, IT Act and SC/ST Act – Petitioners argued that conversions were voluntary and pre-dated 2021 amendment – Held: Conversion by inducement is a continuing offence – FIR maintainable – Delay in FIR not fatal as punishment exceeds three years [Paras 1.1, 6–7, 19–25].

Constitutional Law – Freedom of Religion and Article 21 – Interim stay by Division Bench on amended provisions of Gujarat Freedom of Religion Act applies only to inter-faith marriages – Present FIR not related to inter-faith marriage – Hence, interim relief inapplicable – Court held petitions are not barred from hearing [Paras 2–3, 20].

Criminal Procedure – Sanction for Prosecution – Section 6 of the Gujarat Freedom of Religion Act – Petitioners contended FIR invalid due to absence of prior sanction – Held: Sanction dated 25/07/2022 granted by District Magistrate – Validity of sanction is to be tested during trial, not in quashing proceedings under Section 482 CrPC [Paras 12.4, 13.5, 15.6, 28–30].

Criminal Law – Absconding Accused – Petition by foreign national (UK resident) accused of funding conversions – Non-cooperation with investigation, declared absconding in separate case – No anticipatory bail sought – Held: Petition dismissed on grounds of conduct and non-cooperation – Liberty granted to approach court after charge-sheet is filed [Paras 13.6–13.9, 35–37].

Criminal Law – Prima Facie Offence – Petitioners alleged to have played varied roles in conversion activities – Some accused claimed to be victims of earlier conversion – Held: Statements, digital evidence and witness testimonies sufficient to establish prima facie offence – Role of each accused to be tested during trial – Quashing not permissible at this stage – Petitions dismissed accordingly [Paras 12, 13, 15–17, 31–32].

Criminal Procedure – Summons under Section 160 CrPC – Applicant advocate challenged summons – State assured no action would be taken against him – Petition dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to re-approach if grievance arises [Para 34].

Decision: Petitions dismissed – Criminal Misc. Application Nos. 13496, 13662, 13667, and Special Criminal Application No. 1225 of 2022 dismissed on merits – Criminal Misc. Application Nos. 309 and 11426 of 2022 dismissed with liberty to apply afresh after charge-sheet – Special Criminal Application No. 66 of 2022 dismissed as withdrawn [Paras 38–39].

Criminal Revision – Scope – Revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 CrPC is supervisory, not appellate – interference permissible only in cases of patent defect, error of jurisdiction, perversity, or non-consideration of material evidence – High Court cannot reappreciate evidence to substitute findings of fact unless perverse  [Paras 13-18].

Section 498A IPC – Cruelty – Frequent beatings and demand of ₹20,000/- proved – corroborated by testimony of victim (PW1), her father (PW6), accused’s brother (PW4), and father (PW8) – medical evidence consistent – contradictions in testimonies were minor, attributable to lapse of memory, not sufficient to discard prosecution case – conviction under Section 498A sustained [Paras 19-42].

Sections 323 & 506 IPC – Assault and criminal intimidation – Evidence of victim and corroborating eyewitnesses proved beatings and threats – conviction upheld [Paras 19, 23-24, 27-29, 42].

Sentence – Trial Court imposed maximum sentence of 3 years under Section 498A without assigning reasons – considering that accused had left matrimonial home about one year prior to incident and danger to victim had reduced, maximum sentence held unjustified – imprisonment reduced from 3 years to 1 year; fine reduced from ₹10,000/- to ₹5,000/- with default sentence maintained – no interference with sentences under Sections 323 & 506 IPC [Para 43-44].

Decision – Revision partly allowed – conviction under Sections 498A, 323, 506 IPC upheld – sentence under Section 498A modified to 1 year SI + ₹5,000/- fine; sentences under Sections 323 & 506 IPC affirmed [Paras 42-44].

Family Law – Divorce – Ex Parte Decree – Special Marriage Act – Decree set aside – Marriage dissolved by Family Court based on unchallenged testimony of husband after wife failed to file written statement and remained absent – Held: Even in absence of contesting party, Family Court must assess evidence on merits and provide reasoned findings – Mere non-appearance or failure to file written statement not sufficient to decree divorce – Trial Court’s reliance solely on absence of wife without independent assessment of cruelty allegations rendered judgment perverse – Judgment set aside and matter remanded for fresh trial [Paras 10-16].

Civil Procedure – Duty of Court in Ex Parte Proceedings – Trial Court must scrutinize pleadings and evidence even when defendant is ex parte – Decree cannot be automatic – Reiterated that evidence must be evaluated independently and findings must be recorded with reasons – Failure to do so amounts to miscarriage of justice [Paras 11-12, 15].

Appellate Intervention – Remand Ordered – Matter restored to original file to allow appellant-wife to file written statement – Both parties granted opportunity to lead and test evidence afresh – Trial Court directed to complete proceedings within nine months [Paras 16-17].

Subsequent Remarriage – No Bar to Appellate Relief – Fact that respondent-husband remarried during pendency of appeal does not prevent appellate court from setting aside a perverse and unreasoned decree – Rule of law must prevail over subsequent developments [Para 18].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Decree of divorce set aside – Matter remanded to Family Court from the stage of written statement – Trial to proceed afresh – No costs [Paras 19-20].

Arbitration – MSMED Act – Commercial Dispute – Supply of Goods – Dispute over unpaid dues under three purchase orders raised by micro enterprise Ranjana Industries against Mahindra – Mahindra raised objections of late delivery and quality defects – Held: Objections not raised within statutory 15-day window under Section 2(e) of MSMED Act – Arbitral Tribunal rightly treated delivery as deemed accepted – No proof of return or rejection of goods shown – Finding upheld [Paras 2–16, 27–38, 44–48].

Arbitration – Scope of Judicial Review under Sections 34 & 37 – Concurrent findings of Arbitral Tribunal and District Court held not perverse or contrary to fundamental policy – Appellate court cannot reappreciate evidence – Mahindra’s claims of defects, rejection and counter-claim for damages not substantiated with proof – No ground to interfere under Section 37 – Appeal dismissed [Paras 39–41, 49–50].

Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSME) – Protection of Small Suppliers – MSMED Act provides statutory framework to ensure timely payments – 15-day deadline for objections mandatory, not directory – Mahindra’s conduct amounted to unfair delay and frustration of statutory entitlements of micro supplier – Held: Deadline under Section 2(e) has substantive legal consequences including accrual of interest under Section 16 [Paras 45–46].

Evidence – Onus of Proof – Rejection of Goods – Onus on Mahindra to prove that goods were defective and returned – No debit notes, return challans, or payment proof for alternate vendor produced – Tribunal’s inference that goods were accepted and used is reasonable and based on preponderance of probability [Paras 19, 33–36, 38–39].

Corporate Litigation – Abuse of Process – Cost and Conduct – Court criticises Mahindra’s continued litigation despite two concurrent findings – Notes power asymmetry between large corporates and micro enterprises – Cost of litigation treated as “miscellaneous expense” by Mahindra – Interest and deposit provisions under MSMED Act meant to deter such conduct – Mahindra directed to pay Rs. 1.5 lakh as costs and release deposit [Paras 51–54].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Arbitral Award and District Court order upheld – Mahindra directed to pay Rs. 16,16,950 with interest under Sections 15 & 16 of MSMED Act within one month – Costs of Rs. 1.5 lakh to be paid to Respondent within four weeks – Deposit to be released to Respondent [Paras 50–52].

Civil Law – Local Commissioner – Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC – Improper Rejection – Appointment Directed – Trial court dismissed plaintiff's application seeking appointment of Technical Engineer as Local Commissioner to demarcate disputed wall and report physical condition – Held: Though appointment of Commissioner is discretionary, such discretion must advance cause of justice – Where real controversy relates to physical features or encroachment, court must allow factual verification – Refusal to appoint Local Commissioner stifles adjudication of real issue – Impugned order set aside – Trial court directed to appoint Commissioner for inspection and report [Paras 1–10].

Constitution of India – Article 227 – Superintendence Over Subordinate Courts – Interference Justified – High Court invoked supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 to correct error committed by trial court in refusing crucial procedural aid for just determination – Held: Interference under Article 227 warranted to prevent failure of justice and facilitate effective adjudication [Paras 6–10].

Commissioner Report – Scope – Not to Determine Possession or Title – Court clarified that Commissioner is to report physical condition only and not express opinion on possession or rights – Appreciation of report lies with the court – Purpose is to aid adjudication, not to substitute judicial evaluation [Para 6].

Decision: Civil Revision allowed – Impugned order dated 04.07.2024 set aside – Trial court directed to appoint Local Commissioner to inspect site and report existing physical condition – Pending miscellaneous applications also disposed of.

Criminal Law – Murder – Kidnapping for Ransom – Conviction upheld – Deceased (Devang) was kidnapped and murdered by the accused-appellants – Trial court convicted accused under Sections 302, 364A, 363, 201, and 506(2) IPC – On appeal, High Court found the chain of circumstantial evidence to be complete and consistent with the hypothesis of guilt – Theory of “last seen together”, discovery of body and incriminating articles at the instance of accused, forensic report and CDRs established guilt – No explanation offered by accused under Section 313 CrPC – Held: Prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction upheld [Paras 1 to 37].

Circumstantial Evidence – Last Seen Theory – Deceased last seen with both accused at 8:00 AM at Bindu Sarovar pick-up stand (PW-9, PW-10) – Accused identified as Nirav @ Ravi Shah and Dhaval @ Jato Darji – PW-9 saw Devang enter the accused's car – PW-10 corroborated same – Defence failed to establish inconsistency or enmity – Delay in recording witness statements held not fatal – Presence of accused with deceased established [Paras 8 to 12].

Criminal Law – Kidnapping and Ransom Call – PW-1 (father of deceased) received ransom calls from deceased's phone demanding ₹40 lakhs and threatening murder if police were informed – Phone number used belonged to complainant and was used by deceased – Deposition corroborated by documentary evidence (Exh.138, Exh.145) – Factum of kidnapping, ransom demand and subsequent murder of Devang proved beyond reasonable doubt – Non-examination of relatives Deviprasad and Avinash Thakar not fatal [Paras 13, 14, 32].

Evidence Act – Extra-Judicial Confession – PW-11 (Suraj Rami) deposed that accused Dhaval confessed to murder in conversation – Accused allegedly discussed use of spray/medicine to render someone unconscious – Witness informed police only on 24.08.2015 – Court held confession not used as foundation of conviction but to lend assurance to other established evidence – Delay and nature of relationship did not erode credibility significantly – Held: Extra judicial confession supports prosecution case [Paras 15 to 15.1].

Discovery and Recovery – Section 27 Evidence Act – Dead body exhumed at instance of accused Nirav Shah (PW-4) – Clothes of deceased, blood-stained clothes of accused, knife and car used in crime recovered at instance of Nirav and Dhaval (PWs 5, 8) – Serological report (Exh.126) confirmed blood group of deceased found on clothes of accused – Court held recoveries proved in accordance with law – Minor discrepancies in keys and house entry not material [Paras 18 to 26, 28].

Criminal Procedure – Section 313 CrPC – Accused offered no explanation to incriminating evidence put to them – Repeatedly denied knowledge or truth without rebuttal – Absence of any credible defence or alternate hypothesis – Held: Adverse inference against accused is justified [Paras 34, 35].

Indian Evidence Act – Sections 8, 106, 114 – Conduct of accused in leading police to recovery sites held admissible under Section 8 – Accused last seen with deceased but gave no explanation under Section 106 – Presumption under Section 114 drawn from natural conduct and silence of accused – Held: Entire chain of evidence consistent with guilt – No other hypothesis possible [Paras 35, 36].

Motive – Prosecution failed to prove specific motive regarding debt or desire for luxury – Court held motive not essential when chain of circumstantial evidence is complete and points only to guilt – Absence of motive does not create reasonable doubt when other evidence is cogent and convincing – [Para 27].

Appeal – Dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 302, 364A, 363, 201 and 506(2) IPC upheld – Accused to surrender within 4 weeks if on bail [Para 37].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Conviction upheld – Accused to surrender before jail authorities within four weeks if on bail.