Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – execution of enhanced award – doctrine of merger – 18% interest on enhanced compensation relates back to 2017 District Commission order – unjust enrichment plea rejected – Article 227 petition dismissed.

Consumer Law – Execution of Enhanced Award – Interest on Enhanced Amount – Petition Dismissed – DCDRC awarded compensation with 18% interest (2017); State Commission later enhanced amount (2023) – Held: By doctrine of merger, enhanced amount relates back; interest applies from original award date – Interest not “interest on interest”; statutory and precedential basis affirmed – Petitioners’ plea of unjust enrichment rejected [Paras 32-34].

Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Maintainability – Article 227 – Petition Maintainable but No Interference Warranted – Court clarified against ex parte State Commission orders, remedy lies before National Commission (s.51(5)); otherwise Article 227 can be invoked – In present case, orders of District and State Commissions affirmed as proper; supervisory jurisdiction not exercised [Paras 22-30].

Interest – Reasonableness – High Rate of 18% – Validity – Petitioners argued excessive and contrary to Experion Developers (2022) & Suneja Towers (2023) – Held: Rate awarded by consumer fora intended as deterrent to delay; not compound interest; cannot be interfered with in supervisory review [Paras 13-16, 34].

Decision – Miscellaneous Petition Dismissed – Orders dated 03.10.2023 (DCDRC-II) and 09.11.2023 (SCDRC, Bhopal) affirmed; enhanced compensation with 18% interest payable from 18.01.2017 – No interference warranted [Para 35].

Bail – BNS ss.103(1), 106 & 238 – Hunting misfire; decapitation post-mortem – Prima facie not murder under s.103(1); case falls under s.106; s.238 bailable – Gruesomeness irrelevant to bail where statute makes offence bailable – Bail granted with conditions [Paras 2-3, 11-16, 17-18].

Bail – Parameters for grant – Supreme Court guidance reiterated – Nature of accusations, manner of commission, gravity, role, antecedents, risk of tampering/absconding and overall desirability to be weighed – Caution against superficial application of parameters – Applied to facts [Paras 8-10].

Homicide – Hunting misfire – Illustration (c) to IPC s.299 / BNS s.100 – Where shot is fired at supposed wild fowl and a concealed person is killed, intention to kill a human not made out – Liability, if any, for negligence; not murder – Historical rationale from 1837 Law Commissioners’ Report noted – Applied to hold prima facie s.106 BNS attracted, not s.103(1) [Paras 11-14].

Evidence – Destruction of evidence – BNS s.238 – Post-mortem decapitation and burning of corpse – Offence statutorily bailable; court’s moral disapproval cannot override legislative classification – Gruesome nature of conduct cannot, by itself, defeat bail where statutory scheme treats it as bailable [Paras 15-16].

Bail – Decision – Prima facie absence of non-bailable offence; investigation completed and charge-sheet filed; conditions imposed – Personal bond ₹1,00,000 with one surety; attendance, non-tampering, travel/address intimation, passport surrender, and contact details to Police/Court; breach to entail cancellation – Bail granted [Paras 16-19].

Bail – Sexual Assault, Extortion, and Cheating – Sections 318(4), 351(3) BNS, read with Sections 480 & 483 BNSS – Bail Granted – Petitioner accused of fraudulently collecting money, drugging, sexually assaulting complainant, extorting funds, and threatening with photographs – Delay of 14 months in lodging FIR, existence of live-in relationship, and counter-complaint lodged earlier by accused’s family considered – Court noted 68 days of custody and substantial progress of investigation – Bail granted with stringent conditions [Paras 2, 5, 7-10].

Judicial Custody – Bail Considerations – Continued detention not necessary – Custodial interrogation substantially complete – Risk of absconding mitigated by conditions – Bail ordered subject to strict compliance [Paras 8-9].

Conditions of Bail – Accused to execute ₹20,000 bond with sureties – Weekly appearance before police – Not to leave district without permission – No intimidation of witnesses – Passport to be surrendered/affidavit to be filed – Breach of conditions to invite consequences [Para 9].

Decision – Criminal Petition allowed – Petitioner enlarged on bail with conditions [Para 10].

Application 156(3) CrPC against singer – Registration of FIR - Lack of jurisdiction and absence of material details – Revisional application dismissed.

Hate Speech – Application under Section 156(3) CrPC – Registration of FIR - Offences under Sections 153, 153A, 295A, 298 IPC – Petition Dismissed – Petitioner sought FIR against singer for allegedly outraging religious sentiments through live concert speech – Magistrate rejected for want of jurisdiction – High Court upheld rejection noting absence of proof of date, time, or place of concert and that accused had no nexus with jurisdiction of Shyampukur PS [Paras 5-7, 16-17, 27].

Jurisdiction – Powers under Section 156(3) CrPC – Territorial Limits – Magistrate can only direct investigation within territorial jurisdiction – No material linking alleged incident to Shyampukur PS – Order rejecting application held correct [Paras 17, 19-20].

Zero FIR – Section 173 BNSS – Scope Explained – Zero FIR enables prompt registration irrespective of territorial jurisdiction, to be transferred to appropriate PS – However, even Zero FIR requires basic details (date, place) of incident – Mere social media clips without authentication insufficient [Paras 21-24].

Supreme Court Directions – Hate Speech – Shaheen Abdullah v. Union of India (2023) – State authorities must suo motu register FIRs in hate speech cases – In instant case, no suo motu action taken as no concrete incident shown [Para 25].

Decision – Revisional application dismissed – Magistrate’s refusal to direct FIR registration upheld – No illegality, infirmity, or perversity found [Paras 27-28].

Suit for Damages - Lease & Damages – Wrongful Occupation – Section 108(q) Transfer of Property Act – Continuing Breach – Defendants (BPCL) failed to vacate property at Anna Salai, Chennai, after expiry of lease on 31.12.1997 – Lease deed (clause 3(iii)) imposed obligation to yield possession to landlord – Held, both statutory and contractual obligations continued till 20.06.2022 when possession was finally delivered – Applying Section 22, Limitation Act, non-vacation treated as a continuing breach – Suit filed in 2020 held within limitation despite delay of 22 years [Paras 19-29].

Cause of Action – Distinction from Ejectment Suit – Earlier ejectment suit decreed in 2010 – Defendants argued present claim for damages barred as identical cause – Held, Supreme Court already clarified ejectment and damages claims arise from distinct causes – Present action for damages therefore maintainable independently [Para 30].

Liquidated vs. Unliquidated Damages – Misdescription – Plaintiff sought ₹128.90 crores styled as “liquidated damages” – Court held lease deed did not stipulate any pre-agreed rent/damages formula – Thus, claim treated as unliquidated damages under Section 73 of the Contract Act – Court emphasised that wrong labelling does not defeat claim [Paras 31-32].

Evidence & Valuation – Plaintiff relied on Engineer’s reports (Exs.P1-P4) and Auditor’s report (Ex.P5) – Engineer’s valuation based on guideline value correlated with sale deeds accepted; Auditor’s report rejected due to internal inconsistencies and lack of basis – Defendants’ documents (Exs.D2-D7) held irrelevant as they concerned properties outside Anna Salai – Court also used Registration Department’s official guideline values for 1998–2022, applying 12% rental yield as recognised formula – Damages for wrongful occupation quantified at ₹36.57 crores for 01.01.1998–20.06.2022 [Paras 33-43].

Adjustment of Payments – Defendants had paid ₹2 crores towards arrears and ₹96 lakhs (₹6 lakhs per month for 16 months) pursuant to interim orders – Court deducted ₹2.96 crores from damages, arriving at net liability of ₹33.61 crores payable by defendants [Paras 42-43].

Interest – Compound interest claim rejected – No contract provided for compounding – Public law precedents (Renusagar; Enviro-Legal Action) inapplicable to private lease disputes – Court applied Section 34 CPC principles – Awarded simple interest at 9% p.a. on monthly damages from the 6th of following month until realisation, with credit for interim payments [Paras 44-45].

Costs – Plaintiff entitled to litigation costs – Court awarded ₹1.10 crores (₹1 crore for court fees reimbursement + ₹10 lakhs towards lawyer’s fees) [Para 46].

Final Relief – Suit decreed – Defendants directed to pay ₹33,61,79,840 as damages for loss of rental income from 01.01.1998 to 20.06.2022, with 9% simple interest from respective due dates till realisation, and ₹1.10 crores as costs [Para 47].

Delay Condonation – Article 227 – Law of Limitation – Delay of Over Three Years – Petition Dismissed – Defendants sought condonation citing Covid-19 and alleged ignorance of decree; Court found they were aware through counsel and execution proceedings; held gross negligence and indolence not excusable – Appellate Court rightly rejected delay condonation – High Court upheld refusal [Paras 8–14].

Specific Performance – Execution of Decree – Sale Deed Registered – Once execution completed, subsequent challenge barred – Defendants’ silence during execution proceedings proved lack of diligence; no ground to reopen concluded decree [Paras 4.1–4.3, 9–10].

Supervisory Jurisdiction – Limits of Article 227 – Court cannot interfere merely because a second view is possible – Interference limited to jurisdictional error; appellate court order well-reasoned – Petition rejected [Para 15].

Decision – Writ Petition Rejected – Impugned Order Confirmed – Rule discharged; no order as to costs [Paras 16–18].

Partition – family settlement (13.12.2003) upheld as binding despite missing “original” – adverse inference for non-examined defendant – preliminary decree for partition and injunction granted; appeals allowed

Partition – Family Settlement – Exhibit A1 Treated as Original – Preliminary Decree Passed – Plaintiffs relied on Exh.A1 family settlement dated 13.12.2003 – Though “original” missing, mediator (PW3) testified to handing it over to defendant – all signatures present on last page – Defendants failed to enter witness box; adverse inference drawn – Exh.A1 accepted as genuine; partition preliminary decree granted in tune with A1–A5 sketches/drafts [Paras 12-23, 26-28].

Civil Procedure – Res Judicata & Partial Partition – Suit Maintainable – Earlier partition suit dismissed on basis of alleged will – Present suit based on subsequent family settlement; hence not barred by res judicata – Exclusion of certain properties justified as widow/daughters had no share therein; not bad for partial partition [Paras 11, 19-21].

Evidence – Non-examination of Party – Adverse Inference – 3rd defendant (widow of predeceased son) failed to depose – Held: adverse inference against her plea of fabrication of Exh.A1 – Plea of tampering rejected [Paras 14-15, 23-25].

Injunction – Rights of Co-owners – Permanent Injunction Granted – Plaintiff in O.S.193/2008 sought to restrain interference with quarry operations – In light of binding family settlement and possession of demarcated shares, injunction decree granted; prayer for damages rejected [Paras 27, 29-30].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – Common judgment set aside – O.S.232/2006 decreed; preliminary decree for partition passed in terms of Exh.A1–A5; O.S.193/2008 decreed for permanent injunction (damages denied); parties to bear own costs [Paras 28-30].

Criminal Law – SC/ST Act – Anticipatory Bail – Maintainability – Where the allegations in FIR do not disclose a prima facie offence under the SC/ST Act, bar under Sections 18 and 18A of the Act does not apply – In such cases, anticipatory bail is maintainable under Section 438 CrPC [now Section 482 BNSS] before the High Court – Held: High Court retains concurrent original jurisdiction in such cases [Paras 22-24, 27].

Criminal Procedure – Jurisdiction of High Court – Despite creation of Special Courts under the SC/ST Act, the High Court retains both original jurisdiction under Section 438 CrPC and appellate jurisdiction under Section 14A of the Act – Special Court gets jurisdiction only when prima facie case under the Act is made out – Where such case is absent, Special Court cannot entertain anticipatory bail applications [Paras 24, 27].

Binding Precedent – Dismissal of SLP without reason – Order dated 31.01.2025 by Supreme Court dismissing SLPs on the forum issue not binding as precedent – Dismissal without reasons is not ratio decidendi and does not override express holdings of constitutionally binding judgments [Paras 24-26].

Supreme Court Precedents – Reaffirmation of legal position in Prathvi Raj Chauhan and Shajan Skaria – No bar on anticipatory bail where no prima facie case under SC/ST Act – Accused in such situations may approach the High Court under Section 438 CrPC [Paras 22-23, 27].

Decision: Reference answered – Held:

(1) When no prima facie case under SC/ST Act is made out, application for anticipatory bail is maintainable before High Court under Section 438 CrPC (now Section 482 BNSS, 2023)

(2) Special/Exclusive Special Courts have no jurisdiction to entertain anticipatory bail in such cases

(3) High Court retains concurrent original jurisdiction under Section 438 CrPC and appellate jurisdiction under Section 14A of the Act [Para 27].

Negotiable Instruments – Section 138 Conviction – Compounding of Offence Permitted – Revision petitioner convicted for dishonour of cheque – Conviction upheld in appeal – During pendency of revision, parties entered into joint compromise – Entire amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- paid and acknowledged by complainant – Held: In view of settlement, offence compounded under Section 147 of NI Act – Conviction and sentence annulled – Petitioner acquitted [Paras 1–5, 7–10, 45–46]

Criminal Law – Compounding of Offences – Scope under NI Act vis-à-vis BNSS – Court held that Section 147 of NI Act, being a special law with non obstante clause, prevails over Section 359 of BNSS – Compounding permissible even post-conviction and at revisional stage – Inherent power of High Court under Section 442 BNSS invoked to secure ends of justice [Paras 20–24, 31–36, 41–43]

Judicial Discretion – Late Compounding of Offence – Despite conviction being affirmed in appeal, High Court permitted compounding owing to full settlement – Held: Purpose of NI Act is compensatory, not punitive – Delay in compromise not a bar when no prejudice caused and justice demands it – Cited Damodar S. Prabhu and Meters and Instruments Pvt. Ltd. cases [Paras 12–14, 29–38, 44–46]

Special Law vs General Law – Interpretational Priority – Court reiterated principle that special law (NI Act) overrides general procedural provisions (BNSS) in event of conflict – Section 147 of NI Act allows compounding at any stage, including revision – Harmonious construction supports access to justice and early dispute resolution [Paras 32–36]

Compounding in Criminal Revision – Power of High Court – Even after dismissal of appeal, High Court retains power to permit compounding of offences under NI Act if parties have settled dispute – Inherent jurisdiction exercised under Section 442 BNSS to prevent miscarriage of justice and bring quietus to litigation [Paras 23–30, 40–42]

Decision: Criminal Revision allowed – Offence under Section 138 of the NI Act compounded based on Joint Memorandum of Compromise – Conviction and sentence passed by Trial Court and affirmed in appeal annulled – Petitioner acquitted – Revision disposed of accordingly [Paras 45–46]