Civil Law - Property Ownership – Inheritance and Will – Claim for Full Ownership Rejected – The appellant sought full ownership of a house based on a Will executed by her mother, Kasturi Devi – The lower courts found no evidence that Harbans Lal (original owner) had transferred the property entirely to Kasturi Devi before his death – Held: In the absence of documentary proof of transfer, the property devolved by natural succession among all legal heirs, and the appellant was entitled to only a 50% share [Paras 9-10].

Scope of Will – Limited Effect on Succession – The appellant argued that the Will executed by Kasturi Devi conferred full ownership on her – The Court held that since Harbans Lal’s ownership was never exclusively transferred to Kasturi Devi, she could not bequeath the entire property – Held: The appellant could only inherit her mother’s share through the Will, not the entire property [Paras 9].

No Substantial Question of Law – Second Appeal Dismissed – The Court reaffirmed that a second appeal under Section 100 CPC is not maintainable unless a substantial question of law arises – Since both lower courts correctly applied legal principles and factual findings, no interference was warranted – Held: No substantial question of law; appeal dismissed [Paras 10].
 

Labour Law - Industrial Disputes – Wrongful Termination – Compensation Instead of Reinstatement – Whether Justified – Held: Yes – The respondent was employed as a bus driver from 05.03.2002 but was terminated on 09.09.2012 without notice – The petitioner claimed voluntary abandonment, citing a full and final settlement of ₹30,000 – The Labour Court found no evidence of abandonment and held that the settlement voucher was fabricated – Held: Reinstatement was not feasible as the respondent had since taken other employment, but he was entitled to compensation – Compensation of ₹5,00,000 upheld [Paras 6-9].

Judicial Review Under Article 226 – Whether High Court Can Reassess Evidence in Labour Matters – Held: No – The High Court cannot act as an appellate court in a writ petition under Article 226 – Held: Findings of fact by the Labour Court, if based on some evidence, cannot be disturbed unless they are perverse or arbitrary – Reliance placed on State of Rajasthan v. Bhupendra Singh, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1908 [Paras 5, 9].

Voluntary Abandonment of Service – Whether Proved – Held: No – The petitioner claimed that the respondent voluntarily left employment after accepting ₹30,000 in full settlement – Held: No proof was produced to show that the respondent took the money as a final settlement – Labour Inspector’s report of 04.12.2012 showed that the petitioner refused to reinstate the respondent, contradicting the claim of abandonment [Paras 10-12].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Compensation Upheld with Costs – The Supreme Court upheld the Labour Court’s award of ₹5,00,000 as compensation – Petitioner directed to pay ₹25,000 as costs to the respondent for litigation expenses – Payment to be made within one week [Paras 13-15].
 

Family Law – Maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. – No Proof of Husband’s Higher Income – The Family Court assessed the petitioner’s income as Rs. 20,000/- per month based on the Minimum Wages Act in the absence of any concrete evidence of actual earnings – The High Court modified this, holding that since the petitioner was only 10th class pass and not proven to be a skilled worker, his estimated income should be Rs. 18,000/- per month [Paras 16-17].

Family Law – Maintenance Distribution – Equitable Sharing of Income – The Family Court divided the petitioner’s income into five shares based on Annurita Vohra v. Sandeep Vohra, (2004) SCC OnLine Del 192, allocating two shares to the husband and three shares to the wife and children – The High Court upheld this principle while modifying the quantum based on the revised income estimate [Paras 18-19].

Legal Obligation – Able-Bodied Husband Cannot Evade Maintenance Responsibility – The Court reiterated the principle laid down in Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena, (2015) 6 SCC 353, that an able-bodied husband cannot escape his duty to maintain his wife and children, even if he claims financial constraints [Paras 12-13].

Decision – Maintenance Reduced – Monthly Award Fixed at Rs. 3,600/- Each – The High Court modified the Family Court’s order, reducing maintenance from Rs. 4,000/- to Rs. 3,600/- per month for each respondent, in light of the revised income assessment – All other conditions of the Family Court’s order remained unchanged [Paras 19-20].
 

Civil Procedure – Permanent Injunction – Plaintiff Must Prove Possession – The Court held that in a suit for permanent injunction, the plaintiff must establish possession – In this case, the plaintiffs proved possession through property tax records, assessment bills, and eviction suits against tenants – The appellant (defendant) failed to file a written statement or challenge evidence [Paras 22-24].

Property Law – Title and Possession – Mere Claims of Ownership Do Not Create a Dispute – The appellant contended that there was a cloud on the title due to alleged competing claims – The Court ruled that mere unsubstantiated assertions do not raise a valid dispute – Since the appellant failed to produce any evidence of ownership, the trial court’s decree was upheld [Paras 25-28].

Land Encroachment – Unauthorized Construction – Right of Owner to Seek Injunction – The appellant had allegedly constructed unauthorized sheds on the suit property—The Bombay Municipal Corporation (BMC) demolished these structures twice – The Court held that the landowner has the right to seek a permanent injunction against trespassers – The appellant’s claims of ownership were based on forged documents, as per police and BMC reports [Paras 30-31].

Judicial Precedent – No Need for Declaration of Title When Plaintiff is in Possession – The Court relied on Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy, (2008) 4 SCC 594, which held that when a person in possession faces interference, an injunction suit is sufficient without requiring a declaratory suit for ownership – Since the plaintiffs were paying taxes, maintaining records, and managing tenants, no further declaration was necessary [Paras 26-27].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Decree of Injunction Upheld – The High Court upheld the trial court’s decision and dismissed the appeal – The appellant was permanently restrained from trespassing, constructing, or interfering with the plaintiffs' possession – No costs imposed [Paras 33-35].
 

Criminal Law – Robbery and Murder – Sections 394, 397 IPC – Conviction and sentence upheld – The appellant was convicted for armed robbery and murder along with co-accused – The prosecution relied on the testimony of three eyewitnesses, including an injured witness – The defense argued that the witnesses were interested parties and that the investigation was defective – Held: The presence of eyewitnesses was natural, and minor inconsistencies in statements do not affect the reliability of their testimony – The trial court’s findings were upheld, and no material error was found [Paras 5, 7, 25, 26].

Eyewitness Testimony – Credibility of Interested Witnesses – Conviction based on testimony of family members of the deceased – Defense argued that such testimony was unreliable – Held: Relationship with the victim does not render a witness unreliable unless enmity or motive to falsely implicate the accused is proven – The testimony was found to be credible and corroborated by medical and forensic evidence [Paras 12-14, 17, 19, 20].

Injured Witness – Higher Evidentiary Value – Conviction upheld based on the testimony of an injured witness – Held: The testimony of an injured witness carries special evidentiary weight as they have firsthand knowledge of the incident – Unless strong grounds exist to discredit their statements, their testimony should be given due consideration – The trial court rightly relied on the injured witness’s statement [Paras 23, 24].

Conviction Under Section 460 IPC – No Specific Charge – Defense contended that the appellant was convicted under Section 460 IPC despite no specific charge being framed – Held: The court has the power under Section 222 CrPC to convict under an appropriate provision if the facts establish the offense – The trial court’s reliance on Section 460 IPC was justified in the given circumstances [Paras 8, 27].

Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction of appellant Rakshpal was upheld – The court found no legal or factual error in the trial court’s findings – The appellant’s bail bonds were canceled, and he was ordered to surrender – The conviction of co-accused Rameshwar in a related appeal was also upheld, further affirming the correctness of the trial court’s judgment [Paras 27, 28, 29].
 

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR - Prohibition Law – Validity of FIR Based on Breath Analyzer Test – FIR Quashed – The petitioner was booked under Section 37 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, based solely on a breath analyzer test showing 41 mg/100 ml blood alcohol concentration – No confirmatory blood or urine test was conducted – The Court relied on Bachubhai Hassanalli Karyani v. State of Maharashtra, (1971) 3 SCC 930, which held that mere smell of alcohol and behavioural observations are insufficient to establish consumption – Held: In the absence of confirmatory medical tests, the breath analyzer test alone is inconclusive and cannot justify prosecution – FIR quashed [Paras 2-6, 12].

Mala Fide Action – Allegations of Professional Vendetta – Petitioner’s Claim Considered – The petitioner claimed that the FIR was a result of vendetta by the District Magistrate after he raised objections regarding financial irregularities – The Court noted that the petitioner’s claims of mala fide intent were not conclusively proven but found procedural lapses in the registration of the case – Held: While the allegations of vendetta were not a primary ground, the procedural irregularities warranted quashing of the FIR [Paras 7-9].

Fundamental Rights – Violation of Articles 14 and 21 – Arbitrary Prosecution – The petitioner argued that his arrest and suspension from government service were unconstitutional as they were based on arbitrary enforcement of law without substantive evidence – The Court found that the prosecution lacked conclusive proof and amounted to an arbitrary exercise of power – Held: The FIR and subsequent departmental action were unjustified, violating fundamental rights [Paras 10-11].

Petition Allowed – FIR Quashed – The High Court held that the registration of the case solely on the basis of a breath analyzer test, without confirmatory medical evidence, was legally unsustainable – Held: Excise PS Case No. 559 of 2024 (Special Case No. 572 of 2024) quashed, and writ petition allowed [Paras 12-13].
 

Criminal Law - Bank Fraud – Criminal Conspiracy – Misuse of Credit Facility – Conviction Upheld – The accused, in conspiracy with a bank manager, obtained fraudulent credit facilities, causing wrongful loss to the bank – Loan limits were enhanced despite non-payment of earlier dues, and cheques presented by the accused were dishonored – Held: The appellants colluded with the bank official to misuse banking norms, thereby justifying their conviction under Sections 120B and 420 IPC [Paras 3-8].

Corruption Charges – Abuse of Official Position – Wrongful Gain Established – The bank manager failed to report irregularities in loan transactions and sanctioned additional credit despite knowing that previous payments were dishonored – The prosecution established that these actions resulted in wrongful gain for the accused and wrongful loss to the bank – Held: Conviction under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, was justified [Paras 9-12].

Absence of Dishonest Intention at the Inception – Defense Rejected – The appellants argued that their transactions were genuine and that loans were secured – The Court rejected this defense, noting that the fraudulent pattern of financial transactions and overdraft extensions without security indicated clear criminal intent – Held: Mere presence of collateral security does not negate the fraudulent nature of transactions [Paras 15-18].

Appeal Dismissed – Conviction and Sentence Affirmed – The Court upheld the Special Judge's decision, concluding that the evidence sufficiently proved the appellants’ guilt beyond a reasonable doubt – Held: The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence were maintained [Paras 19-25].
 

Negotiable Instruments Act – Dishonour of Cheque – Legally Enforceable Debt – The petitioners sought quashing of complaints under Section 138 NI Act on the ground that part payments were made before cheque encashment – The Court held that unless payments are directly correlated to the specific cheque, Section 56 NI Act does not apply – Held: The petitioners failed to establish a direct link between part payments and the cheques in question, making Section 56 NI Act inapplicable. The complaints cannot be quashed at the pre-trial stage [Paras 7-8].

Criminal Procedure – Scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Quashing of Complaints – The Court reiterated that quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is permissible only if the material relied upon is of “sterling quality” and of “unimpeachable character” – Held: The bank entries submitted by the petitioners were insufficient to conclusively establish discharge of liability, and the dispute over part payments requires trial evidence [Paras 3, 8].

Section 138 NI Act – Presumption of Legally Enforceable Debt – The Court relied on Dashrathbhai Trikambhai Patel v. Hitesh Mahendrabhai Patel (2022 (6) CTC 467) to hold that a cheque must represent a legally enforceable debt on the date of maturity – Held: As no endorsement was made on the cheques as required under Section 56 NI Act, the presumption under Section 139 NI Act remains valid, and the case must proceed to trial [Paras 6-7].

Expeditious Trial of Section 138 NI Act Cases – Compliance with Supreme Court Directions – The Court took judicial notice of the pendency of Section 138 cases exceeding 33 lakh in India and the failure of Magistrates to adhere to Supreme Court-mandated timelines – Held: Directions issued to all Magistrates to ensure strict compliance with SC judgments, including speedy issuance of summons, recording of evidence, and disposal within six months [Paras 10-14].

Practice Directions for Trial Courts – Section 138 NI Act Cases – The Court issued detailed procedural directions for Magistrates, consolidating Supreme Court rulings in Indian Bank Assn. v. Union of India (2014) 5 SCC 590, Meters and Instruments (P) Ltd. v. Kanchan Mehta (2018) 1 SCC 560, and Re: Expeditious Trial of Cases Under Section 138 NI Act, 1881, In re (2021) 16 SCC 116 – Held: Trial courts must follow specific timelines for scrutinizing complaints, issuing summons, securing the appearance of the accused, and completing trials within statutory limits [Para 14].

N-STEP Facility for Digital Summons – Administrative Direction – The Court directed the High Court Registry to place the order before the Hon’ble Chief Justice to consider extending the N-STEP (National Service and Tracking of Electronic Processes) system for digital service of summons in Section 138 NI Act cases, to reduce delays in service – Held: Administrative measures must be implemented to ensure efficient service of summons in cheque dishonour cases [Para 18].

Decision: Dismissal of Quash Petitions – Direction for Expeditious Trial – The Court dismissed the quash petitions, emphasizing that trial must be concluded within six months – Held: The Judicial Magistrate, Aruppukottai, directed to dispose of C.C.Nos. 122, 123, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, and 136 of 2022 within six months [Paras 9, 17].
 

Murder Trial – Common Intention – Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 – Conviction Upheld – The appellants, along with other accused, forcefully entered the victim’s house at night, dragged him outside, and brutally assaulted him with iron rods, wooden sticks, and hammers – The assault continued at multiple locations, ultimately causing the victim’s death – Evidence from multiple eyewitnesses corroborated the sequence of events – Medical report confirmed homicidal injuries – Held: The appellants acted with common intention, making them liable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC [Paras 3-5, 46-47].

Non-Framing of Specific Charge – Section 464 CrPC – No Prejudice Caused – The appellant Badal Sarkar argued that since no specific charge under Section 302 IPC was framed against him, his conviction was illegal – The Court noted that the trial order sheet clearly indicated that all accused were charged under Section 302 IPC – The appellant was represented by counsel throughout the trial and fully participated in cross-examination – Held: The absence of a specific charge did not cause prejudice or failure of justice – Conviction sustained [Paras 25-35].

Acquittal of Co-Accused – Plea of Parity – Rejected – The appellants argued that since some similarly placed accused were acquitted, they should also be acquitted – The Court, relying on Supreme Court precedents, held that a wrongful acquittal does not justify setting aside a valid conviction – Independent evaluation of evidence revealed that the appellants had a more direct and active role in the crime – Held: The plea of parity was not applicable, and the conviction of the appellants was upheld [Paras 38-50].

Reliability of Eyewitness Testimony – Nighttime Identification – No Test Identification Parade Required – The appellants challenged the credibility of eyewitnesses on the ground of nighttime occurrence and lack of Test Identification Parade (TIP) – The Court held that the witnesses were familiar with the accused and had sufficient opportunity to recognize them – Testimony of PW1, PW2, and PW3 was consistent and corroborated by medical evidence – Held: TIP was not necessary, and the eyewitness testimony was reliable [Paras 65-67].

Delay in Recording Eyewitness Statements – Effect on Credibility – The appellants contended that a delay in recording the statements of eyewitnesses affected their credibility – The Court held that delay alone does not render testimony unreliable unless it is unexplained or unsupported by other evidence – The statements of PW1, PW2, and PW3 were recorded soon after the incident and corroborated by other witnesses – Held: No adverse inference could be drawn against the prosecution [Paras 69-72].

Non-Seizure of Weapons – No Adverse Inference Against Prosecution – The defense argued that the absence of seizure of weapons and fingerprints weakened the prosecution’s case – The Court held that in cases involving common household weapons like iron rods, sticks, and hammers, non-recovery was not fatal to the case – Medical evidence and eyewitness testimony sufficiently established the weapons used – Held: Conviction cannot be set aside due to non-seizure of weapons [Paras 73-75].

Medical Evidence – Cause of Death – No Inconsistency – The defense argued that the post-mortem report did not conclusively establish that the injuries were fatal – The Court found that the medical evidence clearly indicated multiple blunt force injuries leading to hemorrhage and cardio-respiratory failure – The injuries were consistent with the eyewitness accounts – Held: Medical evidence corroborated the prosecution’s case, and there was no basis to interfere with the conviction [Paras 56-60].

Assessment of Circumstantial Evidence – Collective Assault and Common Intention – Guilt Established – The Court examined the sequence of events, corroborated eyewitness testimonies, medical evidence, and the accused’s participation in unlawful assembly – The appellants had a clear common intention to cause death – Held: The cumulative effect of the evidence conclusively established the guilt of the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC [Paras 46-50, 62-64].