Preventive Detention – Subjective Satisfaction of Detaining Authority – Judicial Review – Detention Order Quashed – The detaining authority failed to establish a live and proximate link between the grounds of detention and the alleged activities of the detenue – Subjective satisfaction was vitiated due to lack of material evidence and application of mind – Decision: Detention quashed, detenue released [Paras 13, 20, 24].

Grounds of Detention – Vagueness and Ambiguity – Constitutional Safeguards Violated – Held: Grounds of detention lacked specificity, rendering them vague and irrelevant – Non-disclosure of material relied upon by the authority violated the detenue’s right to make an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution – Decision: Detention order set aside [Paras 19, 21-23].

Health Grounds – Preventive Detention and Medical Needs – Constitutional Safeguards Ignored – The detenue’s health condition, including a chronic medical ailment, was overlooked by the detaining authority – Failure to consider medical grounds amounted to a constitutional violation – Decision: Detention order quashed; detenue released [Paras 7, 23].

Role of Advisory Board – Duty to Conduct Independent Review – Held: The Advisory Board failed to provide an independent review of the detention order, reducing its role to a mere formality – Such actions violate constitutional protections – Decision: Detention quashed [Paras 18, 20].

Relevant Material – Non-Disclosure – Constitutional Violation – Non-supply of documents relied upon by the detaining authority invalidated the detenue’s opportunity for an effective representation – Held: Failure to supply essential material violated Article 22(5) – Decision: Detention quashed; immediate release ordered [Paras 21-23].

Decision: The detention order issued under the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978, was quashed on grounds of non-application of mind, vagueness in allegations, and failure to adhere to constitutional safeguards. The Court ordered the immediate release of the detenue unless required in any other case.
 

Civil Law - Hindu Widow’s Remarriage Act – Termination of Limited Rights Upon Remarriage – Misconceived Plea - The appellants claimed that the defendant, having remarried before 1956, ceased to hold limited rights in her deceased husband’s property under Section 2 of the Hindu Widows’ Remarriage Act, 1856. Held: The plea was neither raised in the pleadings nor supported by evidence before the Trial Court. Such claims were first raised in appeal and are untenable. [Paras 15-18].

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Section 14 – Applicability Post-Remarriage - Appellants contended that remarriage before the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, precluded the defendant from becoming an absolute owner under Section 14. Held: The claim is not substantiated by pleadings or evidence. Additionally, no issue was framed to adjudicate this contention. [Paras 7, 15, 19].

Pleadings and Evidence – Scope of Appeal – Introduction of New Issues Barred - New claims regarding remarriage and its legal implications under the 1856 and 1956 Acts were raised only at the appellate stage. Held: Courts below rightly dismissed these as unsupported by pleadings or evidence. Appeals cannot be used to introduce fresh claims. [Paras 15, 18].

Ancestral Property and Adverse Possession – Claim Dismissed - The appellants’ assertions of ownership by adverse possession and application of agricultural customs were unsupported by evidence. Held: The claim of adverse possession or disqualification of the defendant under alleged customs was rightly rejected by the Courts below. [Paras 14, 19].

Decision of the Court – The appeal was dismissed, finding no misreading or misinterpretation of evidence or law by the Courts below. The judgment affirming the defendant's rights over the suit land was upheld. [Paras 19-21].
 

Criminal Law - Section 91 CrPC – Issuance of Summons Without Investigation – Quashed – Summons issued by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) under Section 91 CrPC were challenged on the ground that they were issued in the absence of any pending investigation, inquiry, or trial. The court held that Section 91 can only be invoked during a lawful investigation, inquiry, or trial under the CrPC and not during preliminary verification. Since preliminary verification does not amount to an investigation under the CrPC, the issuance of summons was held to be without jurisdiction and legally unsustainable. [Paras 6-9].

Preliminary Verification by Anti-Corruption Bureau – Excessive Delay – Prejudice Caused – The ACB's preliminary verification relating to financial transactions dating back to 1990 was challenged for being initiated after an inordinate delay of over three decades. The court held that such delay caused inherent prejudice to the petitioner society, making it impossible to effectively defend itself. The loss of documents, records, and key individuals involved violated the principles of natural justice and rendered the verification procedurally unfair. The delayed initiation of verification was thus quashed. [Paras 7-9].

J&K Cooperative Societies Act, 1989 – Exclusive Jurisdiction of Registrar – The court noted that the Jammu & Kashmir Cooperative Societies Act provides a comprehensive framework for the regulation, audit, inspection, and accountability of cooperative societies. The Registrar has the exclusive authority to address financial irregularities and enforce compliance. The ACB's attempt to circumvent the statutory mechanism under the Act was held to be without legal basis. [Paras 5-6, 7].

Principles of Natural Justice – Right to Fair Defence Compromised – Initiating verification proceedings against a cooperative society after a lapse of more than three decades was deemed to place the society at an insurmountable disadvantage. The loss of records and the inability to mount an effective defence constituted a violation of the right to fair defence, rendering the verification proceedings invalid. [Para 7].

Section 482 CrPC – Abuse of Process – Intervention to Secure Justice – The court invoked its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash the impugned summons and preliminary verification as their continuance would constitute an abuse of process and cause a miscarriage of justice. [Para 10].

Decision: CRM(M) No. 317/2024: The petition was allowed, and the summons issued under Section 91 CrPC by the Anti-Corruption Bureau on 02/04/2024 were quashed. CRM(M) No. 133/2024: The petition was allowed, and the preliminary verification initiated by the Anti-Corruption Bureau vide No. SSP/MSA/Misc.16/2023/ACB/8961-62 dated 20/12/2023 was quashed. The court clarified that this decision is confined to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and shall not be treated as a binding precedent.

Civil Law - Specific Performance – Readiness and Willingness – Burden of Proof – Section 16(c), Specific Relief Act – Relief Granted – The plaintiff must establish both readiness (financial capacity) and willingness (conduct) to perform obligations under the contract – In this case, evidence in the form of fixed deposits and legal notices proved the plaintiff's readiness and willingness – Held: Plaintiff demonstrated compliance with Section 16(c), justifying specific performance – Decision: Decree upheld with additional interest and costs. [Paras 15, 18, 23, 32].

Execution of Sale Agreement – Burden of Proof – Sections 101-103, Evidence Act – Sale Agreement Upheld – The burden to prove the sale agreement's validity was on the plaintiff, discharged through corroborative witness testimonies and documentary evidence – Defendant’s assertion of fabrication unsupported by evidence – Held: Execution of the sale agreement was valid – Decision: Decree upheld with modifications. [Paras 19-23, 38].

Judicial Admissions – Weight and Impact – Admission by Defendant – Statements in cross-examination regarding signing the agreement and receipt of money constituted judicial admissions, shifting the burden onto the defendant to refute – Held: Defendant’s failure to rebut admissions reinforced the validity of the agreement – Decision: Defendant’s claims rejected. [Paras 20-21, 33-37].

Discretion in Specific Performance – Section 20(2), Specific Relief Act – Discretion Exercised Judiciously – Grant of specific performance lies within judicial discretion and depends on equitable considerations – In the absence of hardship or unfair advantage, the trial court’s decree was affirmed – Held: Trial court exercised discretion correctly – Decision: Specific performance granted with equitable relief. [Paras 50-52].

Escalation in Property Prices – No Bar to Specific Performance – Grant of Additional Amount – Escalation in property prices during litigation does not bar specific performance but may justify equitable relief – Held: Additional amount of Rs. 3,00,000 awarded to the defendant, along with interest on the balance consideration – Decision: Decree modified to include interest and additional payment. [Paras 49, 61].
 

Civil - Partition Law – Final Decree – Termination of Suit – Petitioners sought amendment of the preliminary decree in a partition suit post-final decree, invoking the retrospective effect of Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma – Held: A partition suit terminates with the passing of the final decree engrossed on requisite stamp paper – Once the final decree is passed, no further orders, including modification of shares, can be entertained by the trial court [Paras 7-11, 21].

Hindu Succession Act – Rights of Coparceners – Limitation of Retrospective Application – Retrospective application of amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, is restricted to cases where the final decree has not been passed – Court emphasized that the partition is completed only when the final decree is drawn up and properties are divided by metes and bounds – Held: Petitioners cannot claim enlargement of shares under amended Section 6 post-final decree [Paras 12-19].

Execution Proceedings – Delivery of Property – Impact on Partition Suit – Petitioners argued that the partition suit remains pending as delivery of possession of properties had not occurred – Court clarified that delivery of possession is a matter for execution proceedings and does not affect the finality of the suit – Held: Partition suit is concluded upon passing of the final decree and engrossing it on requisite stamp paper [Paras 22-28].

Role of Preliminary Decree – Amendment Pre-Final Decree – A preliminary decree in a partition suit is interim in character and can be modified before the final decree – Court reiterated that subsequent legislative changes or intervening events can affect shares only before the final decree is passed – Held: Petitioners failed to act before the final decree, and their rights cannot now be reopened [Paras 12-18].

Decision: Revision dismissed – Final decree upheld – Petitioners cannot seek enlargement of shares post-final decree – Suit considered terminated upon passing and engrossing of the final decree [Paras 29].
 

Land Acquisition – Enhancement of Compensation – Appeals and Cross Objections – Appeals and Cross Objections arose from a Common Order enhancing compensation for acquired lands – Reference Court enhanced market value from ₹45,000/- to ₹1,13,000/- per acre for dry land and from ₹65,000/- to ₹1,33,000/- per acre for irrigated dry land (ID land) – Held: Market value determined by the Reference Court is lawful, reasonable, and adequately supported by evidence – No interference warranted in the Reference Court's findings [Paras 1-3, 11, 19, 53, 55].

Mineral Deposits – Kadapa Slabs and Limestone – Claim Rejected – Claimants contended that the acquired lands contained deposits of Kadapa slabs and limestone – Reference Court and High Court rejected the claims due to lack of evidence, as no records, quarrying activities, or official documents substantiated the claim – Claimants failed to mention mineral deposits in their initial claim statements, raising doubts about credibility – Contentions regarding mineral deposits were introduced post-acquisition to inflate compensation – Held: Lands cannot be classified as containing Kadapa slabs and limestone [Paras 20-22, 31-33, 37, 39-40].

Post-Notification Transactions – Non-Consideration – Claimants relied on Ex.A.2 (post-notification sale deed indicating ₹3,00,000/- per acre) to argue for higher compensation – Reference Court rightly ignored Ex.A.2, as the transaction occurred over two years after the notification and was influenced by subsequent developments – Held: Market value must be based on pre-notification or contemporaneous transactions, not post-notification sales [Paras 41-43, 44-47].

Comparable Awards – Escalation Applied – Reference Court relied on comparable Awards (Ex.A.7 and Ex.A.9) for determining market value – 10% annual escalation applied for 12 years from ₹50,000/- to ₹1,13,000/- for dry land and ₹1,33,000/- for ID land – High Court found this escalation reasonable and in line with precedents – Held: No merit in the Government Pleader’s contention against the 10% escalation [Paras 48-53].

Severance Charges – New Claim Not Entertained – Claimants sought severance charges at the appellate stage – Held: New claims beyond the pleadings cannot be introduced under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act – Cross objection on this point rejected [Para 54].

Decision – Appeals and Cross Objections dismissed – Compensation determined by the Reference Court upheld – Miscellaneous pending applications dismissed [Paras 55-56].

Criminal Law – Rape - Appeal Against Acquittal – Double Presumption of Innocence – Scope of Interference by Appellate Court – The High Court reemphasized principles governing appeals against acquittal, including the double presumption of innocence in favor of the accused. Held: The appellate court may interfere only if the trial court's judgment is perverse or based on misreading of evidence. If two views are possible, the appellate court must defer to the trial court's findings. [Paras 12-14].

Rape and Carnal Intercourse – Delay in Lodging FIR – Its Effect – The prosecutrix delayed filing the FIR by four days despite opportunities to report the incident. The delay remained unexplained, raising doubts about the veracity of her allegations. [Paras 16-17].

Medical Evidence – Inconsistencies in Allegations and Findings – Medical examination of the prosecutrix conducted four days after the alleged incident showed no signs of injury or evidence of carnal intercourse. Mere detection of semen on her clothes, without establishing its origin, could not prove the respondent's guilt. [Paras 17-18].

Witness Credibility – Inconclusive Testimonies – The prosecutrix's husband admitted she did not disclose the incident to him immediately. Medical examination of the respondent revealed no injuries, undermining allegations of forced carnal intercourse. [Paras 19-21].

Decision of the Court – The trial court's findings were upheld as reasonable and based on a proper appreciation of evidence. No interference was warranted. The appeal was dismissed. [Paras 23-24].

Partition Law – Fraudulent Suppression of Necessary Parties – Defendant filed a partition suit (O.S. No.213/2002) against only one co-owner, omitting other necessary co-owners – Courts below erroneously upheld the decree despite evidence of suppression and fraud – Held: Decree in O.S. No.213/2002 is null and void for fraudulently excluding necessary parties [Paras 15.3-15.4, 17].

Execution Proceedings – Section 47 CPC – Scope of Objections – Plaintiffs raised valid objections during execution proceedings, citing fraudulent omission from the partition suit – Courts erroneously dismissed objections on the ground that execution courts cannot go beyond the decree – Held: Fraud vitiates all judicial acts, and the execution court should have examined the objections [Paras 15.3, 15.4].

Doctrine of Fraud – Nullity of Decree – Fraudulent omission of necessary parties, despite defendant's knowledge of their claims, constitutes a fraud on the court – Held: The decree obtained in O.S. No.213/2002 is a nullity and cannot bind the plaintiffs [Paras 15.4, 17].

Relief to Plaintiffs – Liberty to Defendant – Plaintiffs entitled to declaration that the decree in O.S. No.213/2002 is null and void – Defendant granted liberty to file a fresh partition suit, impleading all necessary parties [Paras 18(v)].

Decision:  Second appeals allowed – Judgments in O.S. No.367/2016, A.S. No.81/2020, A.S. No.83/2020, and related execution proceedings set aside – Decree in O.S. No.213/2002 declared null and void – Defendant permitted to file a fresh partition suit [Paras 18(i-v)].
 

Criminal Law – Bail Application – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act – Applicant accused under multiple provisions, including Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 363, 366A, 376(2)(N) IPC, Sections 5(L)/6 of the POCSO Act, and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act – Allegations include harassment of wife for dowry and engaging in illicit relations with minor sister-in-law (aged 17 years) – Application for bail rejected citing gravity of offense and societal implications [Paras 2-9].

Minor Victim – Consent Irrelevant – Court emphasized that the victim’s age (17 years) renders her consent immaterial – Applicant allegedly enticed the minor twice, showing persistent behavior – Prosecution's reliance on Section 29 of POCSO Act highlighted presumption against accused unless proven otherwise [Paras 6-7].

Societal and Familial Disruption – Court condemned applicant’s actions as a severe breach of marital trust and familial integrity – Acts caused emotional harm to the wife, strained relationships within the family, and disrupted societal harmony – Behavior unequivocally condemned by law and societal norms [Para 7].

Criminal History – Applicant previously involved in a similar case (Case Crime No. 37/2023 under Sections 363, 366A IPC) – Repeated actions weighed against granting bail – Conduct deemed as undermining legal and moral responsibilities [Paras 4-8].

Decision: Bail application rejected – Court found no grounds to release applicant considering severity of allegations, criminal history, and societal impact – Observations limited to bail and not to influence trial proceedings [Paras 8-10].