Criminal Law – Quashing of Summons - CBI Jurisdiction – Power to Investigate Non-PC Act Offences – The petitioner challenged the CBI's authority to continue investigating and filing a charge sheet after PC Act offences were dropped – The Court held that the CBI could continue investigating and submit a final report before the jurisdictional magistrate if non-PC Act offences were revealed – Held: The CBI had jurisdiction to prosecute private individuals even after excluding PC Act offences [Paras 14-21].

Committal of Case – Validity Under Section 306(5) Cr.P.C. – The petitioner contended that the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) wrongly committed the case to the Sessions Court – The Court held that under Section 306(5) Cr.P.C., once pardon is granted to an accused and accepted, the CJM must commit the case to the Sessions Court – Held: The committal was valid and in accordance with law [Paras 22-24].

Error in Court Summons – Clerical Mistake Not Affecting Jurisdiction – The petitioner argued that the summons issued incorrectly mentioned the Special Court for CBI cases instead of the Additional Sessions Court-III – The Court clarified that the Sessions Court had lawfully taken cognizance and the clerical error did not prejudice the petitioner – Held: The jurisdiction was not affected, and the trial remained valid [Paras 25-29].

Framing of Charges – Challenge to Valuer’s Prosecution Not Sustainable at Pre-Trial Stage – The petitioner, a valuer, claimed he was merely performing professional duties and could not be prosecuted – The Court noted that allegations suggested active involvement in the conspiracy, which required trial – Held: Quashing was unwarranted as the charges had already been framed, and trial proceedings were ongoing [Paras 30-34].

Final Decision – Petition Dismissed – Trial to Proceed Expeditiously – The Court found no merit in the petition and directed the trial court to conclude proceedings within six months – Held: The writ petition was dismissed, with liberty to the petitioner to contest charges during trial [Paras 35-36].
 

Civil Procedure – Injunction Against Title Holders – Maintainability – Petitioner sought an interim injunction restraining respondents (title holders) from alienating the suit property, claiming a contractual right based on an unregistered sale agreement – Trial Court and Appellate Court rejected the claim, holding that an injunction cannot be granted against the rightful owners – Held: A person in wrongful possession is not entitled to an injunction against the true owner – Mere existence of an agreement to sell does not create any ownership rights – Petition dismissed [Paras 14-16].

Professional Misconduct – Advocates Act – Ethical Violations – Counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Preethi Basker, was found to have engaged in professional misconduct, including conflict of interest, unethical financial dealings, and misrepresentation before the court – Held: Prima facie case of misconduct established – Direction issued to the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the advocate – Matter referred for further inquiry [Paras 27-29].

Fraud and Misrepresentation – Sale Agreement – Suppression of Material Facts – Petitioner and his associates allegedly manipulated legal proceedings to extort money from respondents – Evidence of falsified transactions, fraudulent agreements, and intimidation tactics presented – Held: Such conduct amounts to abuse of judicial process – Proceedings directed to be scrutinized by the appropriate authorities [Paras 30-32].

Decision – Civil Revision Petition Dismissed – Court upheld the findings of the Trial Court and Appellate Court, confirming that the petitioner had no legal right to seek an injunction against the property owners – Directions issued for disciplinary and legal action against concerned individuals – No costs [Paras 68-69].
 

Matrimonial Criminal Law - Criminal Revision – Domestic Violence Allegation – Acquittal by Appellate Court – Revision Dismissed – Applicant alleged assault and verbal abuse by her husband, leading to trial court conviction under Section 323 IPC – Appellate Court reversed conviction, giving benefit of doubt citing delay in lodging FIR, lack of injury, and contradictory witness testimony – High Court upheld acquittal, holding findings not perverse and based on evidence on record [Paras 2–9].
Delay in FIR – Five-Day Delay Without Proper Justification – Benefit of Doubt Given – Court observed that though delay alone is not fatal, in matrimonial disputes, unexplained delay weakens prosecution case – Further, FIR lodged in different district than where incident occurred, creating doubt about credibility – Held: Delay contributed to acquittal [Paras 7–8].
Contradictory Testimony – Independent Witness Did Not Support Prosecution – Acquittal Justified – Key prosecution witnesses including the complainant’s own father and independent witnesses did not support her version – Court noted that testimony of complainant alone was insufficient to sustain conviction in light of these contradictions [Paras 8–9].
Revisional Jurisdiction – Interference in Acquittal – Only When Finding is Perverse – Court reiterated that revisional powers must be exercised sparingly – Unless the findings of the appellate court are perverse or against the weight of evidence, revision is not maintainable – No such perversity found in this case [Para 9].
Decision – Acquittal Upheld – Revision Dismissed – The High Court declined to interfere with the judgment of the appellate court acquitting the husband under Section 323 IPC – Revision petition dismissed at admission stage itself [Para 10].
 

Civil Law - Order 18 Rule 17 CPC – Scope and Purpose – Witness Recall Rejected – Petitioner sought recall of plaintiff witnesses PW-2 to PW-4 for further cross-examination on the ground that certain material questions were omitted earlier – Held: Provisions of Order 18 Rule 17 CPC are meant for clarification of doubts by the Court and not to fill lacunae in a party’s case – Recall of witnesses to cure evidentiary omissions is not permissible – Trial Court rightly dismissed the application [Paras 5–8].

Judicial Discretion – Order 18 Rule 17 CPC – Exercise of Power – Discretionary and Limited – Held: The power under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC is to be exercised sparingly and only to clarify ambiguity, not for re-examination or supplementing cross-examination – Cited precedents include Ram Rati v. Mange Ram and Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar v. Sharadchandra Prabhakar Gogate – Revision petition found devoid of merit and dismissed [Paras 7–8].

Bail Application – Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – Prima Facie Case Against Accused – Rejection Upheld – The appellants, accused of recruiting individuals for a proscribed organization, filed for bail under UAPA – The trial court rejected their applications, citing the bar under Section 43-D(5) UAPA – Held: The prosecution presented credible material including witness testimonies and documentary evidence linking the appellants to CPI (Maoist) – The threshold under Section 43-D(5) UAPA requires only a prima facie case, not conclusive proof – The burden is on the accused to disprove allegations, which they failed to do – Bail rightly denied [Paras 7-10].

Burden of Proof – Standard for Bail Under UAPA – Section 43-D(5) UAPA – Stringent Conditions Applied – The defense argued that CMS (Chaitanya Mahila Sangham), to which the accused belonged, is not a banned organization – However, the prosecution produced letters, protected witness statements, and identification records linking the appellants to CPI (Maoist) – Held: Under Section 43-D(5) UAPA, if the court finds reasonable grounds to believe the accusations are prima facie true, bail must be denied – The evidence sufficiently established the accused’s role in radicalization and recruitment activities [Paras 8-9].

Delay in FIR – Impact on Prosecution – Not a Ground for Bail – The appellants contended that the de facto complainant reported her daughter’s disappearance after four years, weakening the prosecution’s case – Held: Delay in filing an FIR, though a factor for consideration, is not fatal if the prosecution can justify it – The complainant consistently maintained that her daughter was misled and recruited into the Maoist cadre – The investigative agencies corroborated the claims with independent material, making delay irrelevant [Paras 5-6].

Decision – Criminal Appeals Dismissed – Bail Denied – The High Court found the trial court’s decision to be legally sound – Considering the gravity of the offense and the prima facie case established, the appellants were not entitled to bail under Section 43-D(5) UAPA – No interference warranted – Appeals dismissed [Paras 10-11].
 

Divorce on Grounds of Cruelty – Denial of Education – Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act – Wife alleged that she was subjected to mental and physical cruelty, including coercion to discontinue her education and demand for dowry – Husband denied allegations and contended that he supported her studies – Trial court ruled in favor of husband, holding that cruelty was not established – High Court reversed the decision, holding that preventing a spouse from pursuing education or creating conditions that obstruct education amounts to mental cruelty, justifying divorce [Paras 16-22].

Mental Cruelty – Objective Assessment – Court emphasized that cruelty need not be intentional – It is sufficient if the conduct of one spouse causes anguish, frustration, or humiliation to the other – Relying on Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddy and Praveen Mehta v. Inderjit Mehta, the Court held that the husband's actions amounted to mental cruelty, warranting dissolution of marriage [Paras 14-20].

Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage – Justification for Divorce – Parties lived separately for over eight years – Mediation efforts failed at both trial and appellate stages – Court held that forcing the parties to continue the marriage would serve no purpose – Decreed that the marriage should be dissolved in light of long separation and irreconcilable differences [Paras 21-23].

Restitution of Conjugal Rights – Unjustified Decree – Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act – Husband’s claim for restitution was based on the assertion that the wife left without reasonable excuse – High Court held that compelling a spouse to discontinue education and endure an unwelcoming environment constitutes a valid reason to live separately – Decree for restitution of conjugal rights set aside [Paras 22-23].

Final Decision – Appeals allowed – Marriage dissolved on the ground of mental cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act – Trial court's decree rejecting divorce petition set aside – Decree for restitution of conjugal rights in favor of husband also set aside [Paras 23-24].
 

Contempt of Court – No Willful Disobedience – Supervening Circumstances Justified Delay - The petitioner alleged that the respondents failed to distribute the collected ‘Dakshina’ among the three managing families of the temple as per the 2018 High Court judgment – The respondents contended that distribution was temporarily halted due to an internal dispute among family members and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic – The High Court held that the delay was due to legitimate administrative and legal hurdles, and there was no deliberate violation of the court’s order – Held: Mere delay, without intent to defy the court, does not amount to contempt [Paras 12-13].

Judicial Directives for Temple Administration – Compliance Achieved – Contempt Petition Infructuous - The Court examined records and found that post-2023, the respondents resumed the daily counting and monthly distribution of ‘Dakshina’ as per the 2018 judgment – Evidence of deposits and withdrawals from bank accounts confirmed compliance – Held: Since the court’s directives were now being followed, no further action was necessary, and the contempt petition was closed [Paras 11-13].

Locus Standi in Contempt Proceedings – Petitioner’s Standing Disputed – No Proof of Membership in Managing Families - The respondents argued that the petitioner was not a direct party to the original writ petition and had not proven his status as a beneficiary – The Court noted that a contempt petition can only be filed by a party with a direct grievance regarding non-compliance – Held: Though the petitioner’s membership in the managing families was in dispute, the issue was moot since compliance had already been ensured [Paras 6-7].

Decision – Contempt Petition Dismissed – No Further Action Required - The Court found no willful disobedience of its 2018 judgment and dismissed the contempt petition – Held: The petitioner’s claims were now irrelevant as compliance had been established, and the case was closed [Paras 13-15].
 

Motor Accident Compensation – Enhancement of Income – Application of Minimum Wage Notification – Future Prospects and Deduction Adjusted – Compensation Enhanced - Tribunal treated the deceased, a building material shop owner, as a casual labourer due to absence of income proof and applied minimum wage of ₹6,000/- – Court held that minimum wage applicable at the time of the accident was ₹7,200/- as per government notifications – Deduction for personal expenses reduced to 1/4th as deceased left behind four dependents including an unborn child – Tribunal correctly applied multiplier of 18 – Future prospects added at 40% following Pranay Sethi – Total compensation enhanced to ₹18,12,960/- [Paras 6-7].

Unborn Child – Entitlement to Compensation – Included as Dependent - The deceased's widow was pregnant at the time of the accident – The male child born later was held entitled to be treated as a dependent and eligible for compensation under the MV Act – Court followed settled law that unborn children are also entitled to compensation if born alive [Para 6].

Conventional Heads – Omission Rectified – Consortium and Loss of Estate Compensation Awarded - Tribunal failed to award compensation for loss of estate and consortium – High Court awarded ₹1,44,000/- under loss of consortium (₹48,000 x 3 for widow, mother, and minor son) and ₹18,000/- each for funeral expenses and loss of estate – Computation of compensation realigned as per Sarla Verma, Pranay Sethi, and Magma General Insurance guidelines [Paras 6-7].

Final Award – Compensation Enhanced – Interest Modified - Total enhanced compensation fixed at ₹18,12,960/- with an additional ₹9,29,000/- payable to the appellants along with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of claim petition till realization – Appeals allowed and disposed [Paras 8-9].

Civil Law - Limitation for Specific Performance – No Fixed Date for Performance – Suit Within Time - The trial court dismissed the suit as time-barred under Article 54 of the Limitation Act, holding that the agreement stipulated execution of the sale deed within six months – The High Court found that the six-month period related only to the completion of construction and handing over of possession, not execution of the sale deed – Held: In the absence of a fixed date for performance, the suit was within the three-year limitation period, and the trial court erred in dismissing it as time-barred [Paras 40-50].

Genuineness of Agreement – Allegation of Interpolation Rejected – Validity Upheld - The defendant contended that the agreement was forged or interpolated – The High Court found that all insertions were accompanied by signatures, confirming authenticity – Held: The agreement dated October 16, 1995 was genuine, and the defendant’s contradictory stands regarding its validity were legally untenable [Paras 66-70].

Doctrine of Part Performance – Admission by Co-Owners – Sale Deed Execution Directed - Two out of three co-owners admitted the agreement and executed a registered sale deed for their 2/3rd share – The High Court held that the remaining defendant was bound by the agreement and must execute a deed for her 1/3rd share – Held: The plaintiff is entitled to specific performance for the remaining share, upon payment of the balance amount of Rs.1,667/- [Paras 55-65].

Eviction Decree and Specific Performance – Plaintiff’s Ownership Prevails Over Possession Dispute - The defendant argued that the appeal was not maintainable as the plaintiff did not challenge the counterclaim decree for eviction – The High Court rejected this argument, stating that once the plaintiff becomes the lawful owner, the eviction decree becomes inoperative – Held: The decree for specific performance supersedes the eviction decree, and the defendant must execute the sale deed [Paras 80-85].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Trial Court’s Order Set Aside – Decree of Specific Performance Granted - The High Court reversed the trial court’s decision and directed the defendant to execute a sale deed for her 1/3rd share in favor of the plaintiff upon payment of Rs.1,667/- – Held: If the defendant fails to comply, the plaintiff is entitled to have the sale deed executed through court [Paras 98-101].