Civil Law  – Declaration of Matrimonial Status – Sections 7 & 8, Family Courts Act – Jurisdiction – Appeal Allowed in Part – Plaintiff claimed declaration as second wife of late Mukesh Sharma – Trial court dismissed suit holding matrimonial status declaration lies exclusively within jurisdiction of Family Court – High Court upheld finding of lack of jurisdiction but held trial court erred in dismissing instead of returning plaint – Order 7 Rule 10 CPC mandates return of plaint for presentation before competent Family Court – Impugned judgment modified accordingly [Paras 13-22].

Family Court Jurisdiction – Section 7 Explanation (b), Family Courts Act – Exclusive domain over validity of marriage and matrimonial status – Civil Court jurisdiction barred under Section 8 – Supreme Court in Balram Yadav v. Fulmaniya Yadav, (2016) 13 SCC 308 applied – Declaration of matrimonial status can only be sought before Family Court [Paras 14-15, 18].

Return of Plaint – Order 7 Rule 10 CPC – Mandatory where Court lacks jurisdiction – Trial court committed illegality by dismissing suit outright – Supreme Court in EXL Careers v. Frankfinn Aviation Services, (2020) 12 SCC 667 reiterated principle – High Court directed return of plaint to enable presentation before competent court [Paras 16-19, 21-22].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Impugned judgment and decree dated 17/09/2022 set aside to extent of dismissal of suit – Finding of lack of jurisdiction upheld – Trial Court directed to return plaint under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC for presentation before Family Court – No order as to costs [Paras 21-23].

Criminal Law – Murder, Extortion, Conspiracy – Section 302, 120-B IPC & Arms Act – Partial Relief – Trial Court convicted Pradeep (A1) for murder, conspiracy, extortion and Arms Act offences, and Divya (A2) for conspiracy and destruction of evidence – On appeal, Court upheld conviction of Pradeep based on ransom calls, eyewitness account, and ballistic evidence – However, Divya was acquitted, as mere illicit relationship and phone conversations were insufficient to prove conspiracy – Appeal of Pradeep dismissed, appeal of Divya allowed [Paras 22-79, Order].

Criminal Trial – Circumstantial Evidence – Section 302 IPC – Conviction Upheld – The case was based on ransom calls, threatening messages, and eyewitness account – Recovery of pistol and bullets linked to fatal shot through ballistic report – Test identification parade corroborated – Held: Prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that appellant Pradeep committed murder of Jitendra Bhatiya – Conviction under Section 302 IPC affirmed [Paras 22-64].

Electronic Evidence – Admissibility – Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act – Certificates Issued by Nodal Officers Valid – Defence challenged CDRs and SDRs for want of compliance – Court held certificates fulfilled requirements of Section 65-B – Electronic evidence admissible and reliable – Supported case of ransom calls and threats by appellant Pradeep [Paras 30-39].

Test Identification Parade – Delay – Evidentiary Value – P.W.12 identified accused after one month – Defence raised objection of dilution – Court held parade was properly conducted, and witness had ample opportunity to see accused at close distance – Identification accepted as trustworthy [Paras 46-53].

Conspiracy – Section 120-B IPC – Insufficient Evidence Against Wife – Prosecution relied on alleged illicit relations between Pradeep and Divya and claimed financial assistance by Divya – Court held mere relationship does not prove conspiracy – No overt act attributable to Divya – Benefit of doubt granted – Conviction set aside [Paras 65-79].

Confessional Statement – Section 164 CrPC – Statement Recorded by Special Executive Magistrate – Inadmissible – Court reiterated that only Judicial Magistrate (F.C.) or Metropolitan Magistrate can record such confessions – Statements discarded [Para 69].

Decision – Criminal Appeal No.364/2017 (Pradeep) dismissed – Conviction and life sentence upheld – Criminal Appeal No.345/2017 (Divya) allowed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 120-B and 201 IPC quashed – Divya acquitted and set at liberty [Order, Paras 79].

Civil Law – Suit for Damages - Carrier’s Liability – Damage During Transit – Admitted Loss – Decree Upheld - Appellants (transporters) were held liable for damage to 171 packages of viscose fiber during shipment from Calcutta to Ludhiana – Defendants themselves admitted damage in Exhibit P3 – Held: Admission of damage and quantum sufficient to justify decree; plea of “act of God” unsubstantiated – No perversity found in lower courts’ findings [Paras 3-6].

Act of God Defence – No Evidence – Adverse Inference Drawn - Appellants contended damage occurred due to flash floods between Rajpura and Ludhiana – However, no driver or cleaner was examined – DW-1 (Manager) had no personal knowledge – Held: Mere pleading of natural calamity insufficient; non-examination of key witnesses warrants adverse inference under law [Paras 7-8].

Quantum of Compensation – Surveyor Not Examined – Reliance on Defendants’ Own Letter - Though the Surveyor’s report was not formally proved, the Appellate Court rightly relied on Exhibit P3 issued by defendants admitting loss of ₹70,000 – Trial Court awarded ₹1,00,000 (including interest); Appellate Court modified it to ₹86,110 plus future interest at 12% p.a. – Held: Compensation rightly adjusted based on reliable admission [Paras 5-6].

Final Disposition – No Substantial Question of Law – Appeal Dismissed - The High Court affirmed Appellate Court’s reasoning and found no illegality or perversity – Held: No substantial question of law involved; second appeal dismissed as meritless [Paras 8-9].

Matrimonial Law - Maintenance – Criminal Revision – Section 125 Cr.P.C. – Order of Family Court quashed – Petitioner-husband challenged order directing him to pay ₹20,000 per month – High Court found Family Court failed to consider suppression of material facts, income and assets of parties, and mandatory guidelines in Rajnesh v. Neha – Held: impugned order suffers from illegality and impropriety, set aside; matter remanded for fresh decision after affidavits of assets/liabilities [Paras 29-34].

Second Marriage & Alleged Fraud – Divorcee status disclosed in matrimonial site – Affidavit of “unmarried” not fraudulent – Husband married with full knowledge of prior divorce – No illegality or fraud committed by wife [Paras 15-18].

Entitlement to Maintenance – Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. – Wife alleged cruelty and dowry demand; delay of 16 months in lodging FIR casts doubt – Evidence of desertion without just cause relevant – Court emphasized contemporaneous evidence is critical in disputes of cruelty/desertion [Paras 12-14, 24].

Capacity to Maintain Herself – Wife holding M.Sc. in Botany, diploma in Japanese – Capable of earning – Concealed receipt of ₹40 lakhs alimony from first husband – Suppression of material facts disentitles equitable relief – Courts must consider earning potential and assets while fixing quantum [Paras 19-20, 25-28, 30].

Guidelines in Maintenance Proceedings – Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324 – Affidavits of assets/liabilities mandatory for fair adjudication – Failure by Family Court to apply guidelines vitiated order [Paras 22-23, 29].

Decision: Revisional application allowed – Impugned order dated 24/05/2024 set aside – Matter remanded to Family Court, Saran at Chapra, to direct both parties to file affidavits of assets and liabilities within four weeks and decide afresh within four weeks thereafter [Paras 31-34].

Public Interest Litigation – Road Safety – Median Cut Closure – Dismissal of PIL – The petitioner sought reopening of a median cut on National Highway No. 44 near village Khari, which was earlier closed due to safety concerns following accidents – The National Highways Authority of India submitted that the closure was based on recommendations from a Road Safety Audit Report in accordance with MoRTH guidelines – Held: The Court found no reason to interfere with expert advice taken for public safety – Mere inconvenience due to an alternative cut being 1.5 km away was not a sufficient ground to reopen the closed median cut [Paras 1-6].

Judicial Review – Role of Courts in Expert Decisions – Limited Scope – The Court reiterated that judicial review does not extend to substituting expert opinion with judicial wisdom, especially in matters involving technical expertise and road safety audits – Held: Courts should defer to technical assessments unless manifestly arbitrary or mala fide – Petition rightly dismissed [Para 5].

Public Safety vs Local Convenience – Balancing Interests – Median Cut Closure Justified – Though the petitioner cited inconvenience to villagers due to distant alternate routes, the Court observed that safety considerations on a National Highway override such inconvenience – The closure was deemed in public interest to avoid accidents – Petition dismissed accordingly [Paras 4-6].

Final Decision – Petition Dismissed – The High Court declined to entertain the PIL citing valid expert recommendation and public safety grounds – No interference warranted – Petition dismissed [Para 7].

Criminal Law  – Conviction Based Solely on Ballistic Report – Identification Not Established – Conviction Set Aside – The appellant was convicted under Sections 393, 394, 397, 398, 34 of IPC and Arms Act based on an incident where a minor was injured during a robbery attempt – The trial court relied primarily on ballistic evidence linking the bullet to a pistol recovered in another case – Eyewitnesses, including the injured minor and her family, failed to clearly identify the appellant due to the assailants wearing helmets – TIP was refused by the appellant due to alleged exposure to police photographs – There were discrepancies in recovery dates of the pistol, and no CDR/location evidence or recovery of the motorcycle was brought on record – Held: In the absence of positive identification and corroborative evidence, conviction cannot rest solely on ballistic evidence [Paras 1-14].

Investigation Lapses – No Effort to Trace Vehicle or Independent Witness – Weak Link Between Crime and Accused – The IO failed to trace the auto-rickshaw driver or motorcycle involved in the incident – No effort was made to corroborate appellant’s presence at the scene through call detail records or electronic means – Key links in the chain of evidence missing, weakening the prosecution case [Paras 10-12].

Prior Criminal Record – Not a Substitute for Proof of Present Offence – The State relied on past criminal involvement of the appellant to support the conviction – Held: Past cases, in which the appellant was mostly acquitted or on bail, cannot be the basis for conviction in the present case, which must stand on its own evidence [Paras 13-14].

Appeal Allowed – Conviction Set Aside – Appellant Acquitted – In the totality of the circumstances and lack of clinching evidence, the conviction was set aside – The appellant was acquitted of all charges and ordered to be released if not wanted in any other case [Paras 14-15].

NDPS Act – Second Bail Application – Commercial Quantity – Allegation of conscious possession – 151.6 kg of ganja recovered from intercepted DCM truck – Applicant apprehended on spot along with driver – Held: Once contraband is recovered from vehicle and accused was present therein, presumption of conscious possession applies – Burden on accused under Section 35 & 54 to rebut – Mere status as “cleaner” insufficient to displace statutory presumption – Bail rightly refused [Paras 2-3, 20-21]

Bail – Section 37 NDPS Act – Stringent Conditions – Twin requirements under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) not met – No reasonable grounds to believe applicant is not guilty – Likelihood of re-offending not ruled out – Held: Bail under NDPS Act cannot be granted unless both limbs of Section 37(1)(b) are satisfied – No special circumstances warranting deviation found [Paras 8-9, 13-14, 21-23]

Criminal Procedure – Non-filing of FSL Report with Charge Sheet – Not Fatal – Charge sheet filed on 31.12.2023 based on sufficient evidence – FSL report dated 02.12.2023 included later in case diary under Section 173(8) – Held: Non-inclusion of FSL report with charge sheet does not vitiate proceedings or entitle accused to bail – FSL report is corroborative evidence admissible under Section 293 CrPC [Paras 5-6, 14-20]

Section 52A NDPS Act – Delay or Non-Compliance – Not Ground for Bail – Supreme Court’s ruling in NCB v. Kashif (2024) reiterated – Purpose of Section 52A is early disposal of seized drugs – Lapse is procedural irregularity, not illegality – Does not vitiate prosecution case or entitle accused to bail [Paras 9-13]

Search and Seizure – Applicability of Section 50 NDPS Act – Section 50 applies only to personal search – Not applicable to search of vehicles – Argument of non-compliance with Section 50 rejected based on settled Supreme Court law [Para 17]

Decision: Bail application dismissed – Court finds no reasonable ground under Section 37 of NDPS Act to enlarge applicant on bail – Application rejected with reference to conscious possession and sufficiency of evidence including FSL report.

Permanent Injunction – Tenant Holding Over – Section 116, Indian Evidence Act – Relief Denied - Plaintiff, a tenant under the Municipal Committee, sought permanent injunction claiming title after lease expiry – Trial Court dismissed the suit; First Appellate Court reversed – Held: Tenant estopped from denying landlord’s title under Section 116 during or after tenancy unless lawfully surrendered – Injunction cannot protect unlawful possession [Paras 8, 12].

Title Dispute – Unconstitutionality of Statute – No Vesting in Tenant – The Haryana Municipal Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1974 was declared unconstitutional in Rajinder Prashad case – Held: This did not vest title in tenants or co-sharers – Vesting dispute may lie between Panchayat and Committee, but tenant has no locus to claim possession on that basis [Paras 9, 13].

Biswedar Claim – No Documentary Proof – Equitable Relief Refused - Plaintiff claimed co-sharer (biswedar) status in shamlat land – No documentary evidence produced – Both Trial Court and First Appellate Court found no basis for such claim – Held: Equitable relief of injunction cannot be granted without legal entitlement or proof of ownership [Para 10].

Lease Evidence – Revenue Records and Auction Entries – Estoppel Applied - Documents including auction record (Ex. D8) and Rapat Roznamcha (Ex. D10) proved plaintiff took land on lease – Held: Having accepted lease, plaintiff estopped from challenging landlord's title – Possession after lease expiry deemed unauthorized [Paras 11-12].

Final Disposition – Appeal Allowed – Appellate Court Judgment Set Aside - High Court found First Appellate Court erred in ignoring legal principles on estoppel and tenancy – Held: Judgment dated 10.02.1994 set aside; Trial Court’s decree restored; Plaintiff not entitled to injunction – Suit dismissed [Paras 13-14].

Criminal Revision – Charges under Sections 143, 341, 323, 336 & 307 IPC – Partial Relief – Petitioners challenged order framing charges including Section 307 IPC – Court held: prima facie case under Sections 143, 341, 323 and 336 IPC made out – However, no material showing intention or knowledge necessary for attempt to murder – Charge under Section 307 IPC quashed – Case transferred to CJM, Bhilwara for trial of remaining offences [Paras 18-24].

Framing of Charges – Limited Scope of Judicial Review – Sections 227 & 228 CrPC – At stage of framing charge, Court cannot weigh evidence but must ensure prima facie case – Suspicion alone insufficient; there must be grave suspicion – Trial Court erred in framing charge under Section 307 without prima facie ingredients – Revision partly allowed [Paras 19-22].

Attempt to Murder – Section 307 IPC – Essential Ingredients Missing – Injuries on complainant Mustak and others were simple, caused by blunt objects like lathi and stones – No repeated blows on vital parts, no sharp weapons, no premeditation or motive shown – Incident was sudden fight – Held: necessary mens rea absent – Offence under Section 307 IPC not made out even prima facie [Paras 17-18, 23].

Unlawful Assembly and Simple Hurt – Sections 143, 341, 323, 336 IPC – Sustained – Witness statements and injury reports show petitioners voluntarily caused simple hurt, restrained complainants, and endangered safety by pelting stones – Prima facie offences under these provisions made out – Charges under these sections upheld [Paras 10, 23-24].

Decision – Order framing charge under Section 307 IPC set aside – Petitioners discharged from offence under Section 307 – Charges under Sections 143, 341, 323, and 336 IPC maintained – Case transferred to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhilwara for trial – Revision petition disposed of accordingly [Paras 24-25].