Criminal Law - Conviction under Section 366A IPC – Assessment of Evidence – Lack of Corroboration – Prosecution relied on inconsistent statements by witnesses and failed to present corroborative evidence from independent witnesses or reliable medical findings – Held: Inconsistencies in testimony of the victim (PW-1) and informant (PW-2) undermine the prosecution’s case. No injuries were reported on the victim’s body, and the victim's age was determined to be on the borderline of adulthood, further complicating the charge of procuration of a minor girl [Paras 17-19].

Credibility of Prosecution Case – Eyewitnesses Not Examined – The prosecution failed to examine critical eyewitnesses, including school staff and students, despite the alleged abduction occurring in broad daylight outside a school – Held: Non-examination of key witnesses raises serious doubts about the reliability of the prosecution’s case [Para 19].

Ante-Dated FIR and Informant's Knowledge – Question of Reliability – FIR appeared ante-dated as the informant (PW-2) claimed to file the report based on details shared by the victim the day after the alleged incident. Further, the informant admitted he did not know the accused personally before filing the complaint – Held: Such discrepancies render the prosecution’s case untrustworthy [Para 18].

Age Determination of the Victim – Borderline Case – The medical board opined the victim’s age to be between 17 and 18 years, with no evidence conclusively establishing her as a minor – Held: Lack of clarity on age undermines the applicability of Section 366A IPC [Paras 8, 19].

Outcome: Prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted of all charges [Para 20].

Decision: Judgment and Sentence Set Aside. Conviction under Section 366A IPC quashed. Sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and fine of ₹1,000/- annulled. Acquittal and Discharge of Bail Bonds. The appellant is acquitted of all charges. Appeal Allowed:
 

Limitation - Delay Condonation – COVID-19 Limitation Extensions – GRT Refused Condonation – High Court Upholds – The petitioner sought condonation of 365 days' delay in filing a revision application before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, citing lack of legal awareness and the COVID-19 pandemic – Held: The petitioner was legally aware, having filed a civil suit in 2019 challenging the same Deputy Collector’s order – The Supreme Court's COVID-19-related limitation extensions do not apply to cases where the limitation period expired before the pandemic – GRT’s rejection of delay condonation upheld [Paras 6.1-6.8].

Sufficient Cause for Delay – No Liberal Interpretation When Bona Fides in Question – Lack of Vigilance by the Petitioner – The petitioner failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for delay in filing the revision application – Courts emphasized that sufficient cause cannot be liberally interpreted if negligence or lack of diligence is apparent – High Court upheld GRT’s reasoning that the petitioner, despite being aware of his legal remedies, failed to act in time [Paras 6.6-6.8].

COVID-19 Limitation Extensions – Applicability – Held: Supreme Court's limitation extensions for COVID-19-related delays benefit vigilant litigants whose limitation period fell during the pandemic – In this case, the delay predated the pandemic, and the petitioner could not claim benefit under the Supreme Court's orders [Para 6.6].

Procedural Rigour of Limitation – Equitable Grounds Insufficient Without Legal Justification – The petitioner cited equitable grounds for delay condonation but failed to justify the inordinate delay legally – High Court reiterated that rules of limitation are based on sound public policy and must be applied rigorously [Paras 6.7-6.8].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed. The Gujarat Revenue Tribunal's refusal to condone the delay in filing the revision application was upheld. No interference warranted as the petitioner failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for delay.

Property Law – Eviction under Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act – Appeal and Writ Petition – Respondent No. 3 (mother) sought eviction of the appellant (son) under the Act, citing harassment – District Collector ordered eviction – Appellant challenged the eviction order in writ proceedings, citing lack of jurisdiction and violation of natural justice – High Court quashed the eviction order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration with due process [Paras 5.3, 18-19].

Principles of Natural Justice – Failure to Provide Opportunity – District Collector failed to allow the appellant to submit an explanation or supporting documents before passing the eviction order – High Court held this to be a violation of natural justice – Remanded the matter for rehearing and compliance with Rule 21(3) of the Telangana Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2011 [Paras 6.3, 14, 18].

Jurisdiction – Eviction Proceedings by Senior Citizen – Appellant argued that the mother (Respondent No. 3) had executed a gift settlement deed in favor of another son, Respondent No. 4, and therefore lacked standing to seek eviction – High Court clarified that jurisdictional issues must be adjudicated by the District Collector without being influenced by previous findings [Paras 10, 18].

Alternative Remedy – Writ Maintainability – Appellant bypassed the statutory remedy of appeal, citing breach of natural justice – High Court held that while alternative remedies are generally preferred, writ jurisdiction can be invoked in cases involving natural justice violations or lack of jurisdiction [Paras 17-18].

Decision: W.P. No. 34257 of 2024 allowed – Eviction order dated 20.11.2024 set aside – Matter remitted to District Collector for fresh consideration – Appellant directed to submit an explanation within two weeks, and Collector to decide within six weeks thereafter – W.A. No. 1202 of 2024 dismissed as infructuous – No costs [Paras 19-21].
 

Land Acquisition – Redetermination of Compensation – Maintainability of Application Under Section 28A – Petitioners sought parity in compensation under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, based on enhanced compensation awarded by the High Court in a first appeal – Application rejected by the Collector on the ground that Section 28A applies only to awards passed by the reference court under Section 18, and not by appellate courts – High Court held: The provisions of Section 28A, being beneficial in nature, must be interpreted to advance their purpose – Application under Section 28A maintainable on the basis of enhanced compensation awarded in appeal by the High Court [Paras 20–22].

Beneficial Legislation – Interpretation of Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Court observed: Section 28A aims to address inequality in compensation by providing relief to landowners who were unable to file references under Section 18 – Interpretation must favor extending the benefit, not curtailing it – Rejection of the petitioners’ application was contrary to the legislative intent of Section 28A [Paras 11–12, 20].

Limitation Under Section 28A – Trigger Date – Petitioners filed their application within three months of the High Court’s judgment enhancing compensation – High Court held: Limitation under Section 28A begins from the date of the award or judgment with which parity is sought – Application filed within the prescribed period was valid [Paras 13, 22].

Contrary Precedents – Clarification – High Court clarified: Judgments limiting Section 28A applications to awards passed by the reference court (e.g., Bhagti v. State of Haryana, (1997) 4 SCC 473) are not applicable in cases where the enhancement was first made in appeal – Judgments in Pradeep Kumari v. Union of India, (1995) 2 SCC 736, and Banwari v. Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd., (2024), correctly reflect the law and were relied upon [Paras 13–19].

Decision:

Writ petition allowed – Impugned order dated 29/07/2022 rejecting the application under Section 28A quashed – Respondent-Collector directed to reconsider the application for redetermination of compensation and pass a fresh order in terms of the High Court’s judgment in First Appeal No. 458 of 1982 [Para 22–23].

Criminal Law - Dying Declaration – Reliability and Fit Mental Condition – The conviction was based solely on the dying declaration recorded by a medical officer and Dehati Nalishi, both allegedly made by the deceased. However, there was no certification of the deceased’s mental fitness by a medical professional, and prosecution witnesses stated the deceased was not in a condition to make a statement – Held: The dying declaration was unreliable, and the lack of corroboration further weakened its evidentiary value [Paras 14-18].

Contradictions in Prosecution Evidence – Location and Time of Incident – The dying declaration (Ex. P/10) and Dehati Nalishi (Ex. P/12) provided conflicting accounts regarding the location of the incident and time of occurrence – Held: The inconsistencies created serious doubts about the veracity of the prosecution’s case and rendered the evidence unreliable [Paras 17-18].

Plea of Alibi – Proof Through Evidence – The appellant claimed he was in Guna at the time of the incident and presented call records, tower locations, and testimonies of witnesses to prove his presence elsewhere – Held: The defence proved the plea of alibi to the court’s satisfaction, and the trial court erred in discarding this evidence without cogent reasons [Paras 24-27].

Credibility of Defence Witnesses – Equal Weight to Defence Evidence – Defence witnesses, including public servants, corroborated the appellant’s alibi. Their testimony could not be discarded without valid reasons – Held: Defence evidence should be given equal treatment and weight as that of the prosecution if free from infirmities [Paras 28-29].

Conviction and Sentence – Doubts About Guilt – The prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and the trial court erred in holding the appellant guilty without credible evidence – Held: The appellant was entitled to the benefit of the doubt, and the conviction and sentence were set aside [Paras 29-30].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 302 and 449 IPC set aside. The appellant is directed to be released forthwith unless required in any other case [Paras 30-32].

Matrimonial Law – Divorce - Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act – Divorce on Grounds of Cruelty – Appeal Dismissed – Decree Affirmed – The appellant-wife challenged the decree of divorce granted to the respondent-husband under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act – Respondent had alleged physical abuse, defamatory complaints to employer and mental harassment – Appellant in turn alleged desertion and false allegations – Both parties accused each other of adultery but failed to prove the same – Family Court accepted the respondent's claims of cruelty based on audio recordings, medical evidence and uncontested complaints – Held: Repeated defamatory complaints, especially to the respondent’s employer, amounted to cruelty – Long separation and irretrievable breakdown of marriage further justified dissolution – Appeal dismissed [Paras 5–6, 27–34, 38–45].

Mental Cruelty – Complaints to Employer – Defamatory Allegations – Cruelty Established – Appellant made multiple complaints against the respondent to his employer and various public authorities including false allegations of adultery – Held: Such conduct intended to damage reputation and professional standing constitutes cruelty – The Family Court rightly relied on Joydeep Majumdar v. Bharti Jaiswal Majumdar and other precedents to hold that complaints made with malicious intent or reckless disregard for truth amount to mental cruelty [Paras 31–34, 36–37].

Electronic Evidence – Admissibility of CDs – Family Court Procedure – Appellant contested admissibility of CDs on grounds of non-compliance with Section 65-B(4) of Evidence Act – Held: Under Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, strict rules of evidence not mandatory – CDs supported by corroborative oral and medical evidence – Evidence rightly relied upon by the Family Court [Paras 20, 39].

Allegations of Adultery – Mutual – Not Proved – Appellant and respondent both accused each other of extramarital affairs – Neither side produced credible evidence to prove such claims – Held: Family Court correctly concluded that adultery allegations remained unsubstantiated and irrelevant to cruelty findings [Paras 28–30].

Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage – Long Separation Considered – Parties have been living separately for over 15 years – Court held that prolonged acrimonious litigation and absence of cohabitation supported the finding of cruelty and justified decree of divorce – Cited Rakesh Raman v. Kavita and Shankar Routh v. Soma Dutta in support [Paras 40–44].

Decision:

Appeal Dismissed – The Court upheld the decree of divorce granted by the Family Court – Held that the respondent had established cruelty by way of sustained defamatory conduct by the appellant – The Family Court rightly exercised jurisdiction and appreciated evidence – Separation of over 15 years showed irretrievable breakdown – Appeal devoid of merit and dismissed [Paras 44–46].

Eviction Notice - Town Planning – Eviction Under MRTP Act – Rights of Tenants in Redevelopment – Petitioners, long-term occupants of commercial premises, challenged their eviction due to road widening – The Court reiterated that tenants do not have the right to challenge eviction notices under the MRTP Act; only the landlord (owner) can challenge such actions – Held: Petitioners have no right to challenge the Town Planning Scheme; their only remedy lies against their landlord [Paras 9-10].

Public Interest and Implementation of Town Planning Schemes – No Right to Stall Public Projects – The road widening project (18.30 meters) was notified in 2009, but the Petitioners stalled its implementation for over seven years by filing petitions – The Court strongly criticized the delay, stating that private interests cannot override public development projects – Held: Town Planning Schemes are meant for public benefit, and Petitioners cannot indefinitely obstruct them [Paras 12-13].

Claim of Tenancy – Lack of Documentary Evidence – Encroachment Allegations – Petitioners failed to produce tenancy agreements or rent receipts – Respondent No. 3 (Trust) denied their tenancy claims, alleging that they were encroachers running commercial businesses without permission – The Court observed that the Petitioners had no documentary proof of legal tenancy and were allegedly subletting the premises without authorization – Held: In the absence of tenancy proof, Petitioners cannot seek rehabilitation rights over the alternate plot [Para 10].

Alternate Accommodation – Petitioners’ Demand for Rehabilitation on Trust’s New Plot – Legal Standing – Petitioners sought allotment of Plot No. 232(A) in lieu of their existing premises, arguing that their tenancy should transfer to the new plot – The Court noted that Respondent No. 3 (Trust) had already been allotted the alternate plot, and tenants cannot automatically claim rehabilitation unless provided by law – Held: Petitioners have no legal claim over the alternate plot; their rights (if any) are against their landlord, not the municipal authorities [Para 11].

Delay in Challenging Eviction Notices – No Justification for Long Litigation – The eviction notices were issued in July 2016, yet Petitioners delayed legal proceedings for years – The Court criticized the prolonged litigation as a deliberate attempt to prevent public road development – Held: Delaying tactics in public projects should not be encouraged; eviction must proceed immediately [Paras 12-13].

Dismissal of Writ Petitions – Summary Eviction Under MRTP Act Upheld – The Court referred to Vivek Krushna Dode v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 BHC-AS 2854-DB, which held that tenants cannot challenge eviction under the MRTP Act – The Court also cited Anandrao G. Pawar v. MCGM, 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 2534, reaffirming that demolition of a tenanted building does not extinguish tenancy rights but must be pursued separately – Held: Eviction notices under Sections 88, 89, and 90 of the MRTP Act are legally valid and enforceable [Paras 9-10].

Decision: Writ Petitions Dismissed – Eviction Orders Upheld – No Relief Granted – The Court held that Petitioners had no legal basis to challenge the eviction notices or demand alternate accommodation – Their claims were purely against their landlord (Trust), not against the municipal authorities – The Interim Application No. 11643 of 2024 was also dismissed [Paras 14-18].
 

Quashing of FIR – Section 17-A of Prevention of Corruption Act – Procedural Safeguard – Accused as Municipal Commissioner challenged FIR alleging malafides and non-application of mind during approval under Section 17-A – Held: Approval under Section 17-A must be substantive, not ritualistic, requiring application of mind to the materials presented – Court found lack of incriminating evidence and misuse of Section 17-A – FIR quashed [Paras 22-38].

Frivolous or Malicious Proceedings – Guidelines in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal – FIR in Public Servant Decisions – Allegations relating to contracts for municipal services during floods and public health measures – No prima facie evidence produced, prosecution failed to substantiate charges despite seven years of investigation – FIR was found frivolous and vexatious, quashed by Court [Paras 11-13, 37].

Role of Section 17-A PCA – Procedural and Substantive Nature – Approval for Investigation – Section 17-A ensures protection for bonafide public decisions – Court noted improper application of mind by authority granting approval for investigation, undermining legislative intent of Section 17-A – FIR quashed for failure to adhere to statutory safeguards [Paras 20-24].

Evaluation of Malafides – Allegations of Blackmail by Complainant – FIR Initiated by Professional Blackmailer – Petitioners placed materials highlighting personal vendetta – Held: Court recognized the malicious intent of complainant and misuse of legal process – FIR quashed [Paras 6.1-6.2, 30.4].

Decision: FIR No. 2 of 2023 quashed for lack of evidentiary support, procedural infirmities under Section 17-A PCA, and malicious intent of complainant – Petition allowed.
 

Motor Accident Claims – Applicability of Limitation Period Under Amended Section 166(3) – Prospective Effect – The petitioner challenged the maintainability of a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the MV Act, arguing that it was barred by the six-month limitation period introduced by the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019 – Held: The six-month limitation under Section 166(3), effective from 01.04.2022, applies prospectively – Claims relating to accidents occurring prior to this date are governed by the unamended law, which imposed no limitation period – Petition dismissed, affirming that benevolent legislation should be liberally interpreted in favor of claimants [Paras 6.1-7.1].

Legislative Intent – Benevolent Interpretation of MV Act – Compensation to Victims – The legislative intent behind Section 166 of the MV Act is to provide a mechanism for victims of road accidents to claim compensation – Courts must prioritize the purpose of the enactment over technical objections – Amendment introducing limitation was prospective and does not extinguish pre-existing rights [Para 7.1].

Claims Process – Detailed Accident Report (DAR) as Claim Petition – Section 166(4) – Emphasized the role of investigating authorities under Sections 159 and 166(4) of the amended MV Act – Report filed by police authorities, including the Detailed Accident Report, is deemed sufficient to initiate claims proceedings, reducing procedural burdens on victims [Para 6.8].

Decision – Petition Dismissed – The writ petition challenging the Tribunal's order rejecting the objection to maintainability was dismissed – Held: The claim petition was correctly entertained, as the accident occurred before the introduction of Section 166(3), MV Act – No costs awarded [Paras 8-9].