Criminal Law – Conviction under Section 323 IPC – Acquittal – Inconsistency of Eye-Witnesses – Appellant convicted by the Trial Court under Section 323 IPC for causing hurt to deceased Ramdhan Biswas, while acquitted of charges under Sections 304, 447, 506 and 34 IPC – Co-accused also acquitted – Held: When the charge under Section 447 (criminal trespass) was not proved, the foundational allegation that the appellant entered the land of the deceased does not survive, and the prosecution case is demolished at its root – The Trial Court's finding that at best an intention to hurt was established, without any basis in surviving proved charges, is unsustainable – Conviction set aside [Paras 15–16].

Witness Testimony – Credibility – Glaring Inconsistencies – P.W. 2 claimed to have witnessed the incident from his verandah in a densely populated area at a distance of 7 minutes' walk from the place of occurrence, and stated that the deceased was standing on a brick wall when pushed – P.W. 3 stated that the accused entered the house of the deceased and that P.W. 2 was present at the spot (not his verandah) – These irreconcilable inconsistencies as to the place of occurrence, the manner of the incident, and the presence of the witnesses demolish the credibility of both alleged eye-witnesses – P.W. 1 was declared hostile – No sterling witness remained to establish the prosecution case [Paras 9–14].

Hostile Witness – Interested Witness – Investigation – P.W. 1 was declared hostile at the prosecution's own instance – P.W. 2 was the uncle of the complainant and admitted to bitter relations and multiple litigations between the families, rendering him an interested witness – The sketch map prepared by the Investigating Officer did not show the house of the appellant adjacent to that of the deceased, undermining the prosecution's version – The I.O. did not examine witnesses from adjacent houses and the place of occurrence as shown on the sketch map was the common passage between the deceased and his brother, with no sign of appellant's house nearby [Paras 9, 12, 14].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 323 IPC passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Hooghly in Sessions Case No. 62 of 2016 set aside – Appellant to be released forthwith upon execution of bond to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, to continue for six months under Section 437A Cr.P.C., if not wanted in any other case.

Criminal Law – Quashing of Proceedings – Section 482 CrPC – Counterblast Complaint – Abuse of Process – Petitioner, a septuagenarian retired person, executed a development power of attorney in favour of the opposite party no. 2, who allegedly sold 66 decimal of land for Rs. 40 lakhs in the petitioner's name using the power of attorney – Petitioner lodged FIR under Sections 468/471/420/406 IPC against opposite party no. 2, who was arrested and released on bail – A civil suit filed by petitioner also resulted in an interim injunction – Thereafter, opposite party no. 2 filed a complaint under Section 200 CrPC after 14 months of the alleged incident, alleging house trespass, assault, outraging modesty and theft – Cognizance taken on the same day of filing without assigning reasons – Held: Complaint is an afterthought filed out of grudge and vendetta, constitutes abuse of process, and falls within categories (1), (5) and (7) of Bhajan Lal – Proceedings quashed [Paras 13, 16–17].

Cognizance – Delay – Non-Disclosure of Prior Proceedings – Complaint filed 14 months after the alleged incident without any cogent explanation for the delay – No medical papers produced to substantiate assault – No mention of prior civil suit and interim injunction obtained by the petitioner against the complainant in the complaint or in the initial deposition – Complaint levelled against the petitioner and 5-6 unnamed persons without specifying any overt act or role attributed to any of them – Learned Magistrate took cognizance on the very day of filing without assigning any reason, which is a failure to apply judicial mind [Paras 11, 13].

Inherent Powers – Section 482 CrPC – Summoning of Accused – The power of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of process is wider in amplitude than the discharge powers available to the trial court and cannot be foreclosed merely because the accused may seek discharge – Summoning is a serious matter affecting liberty and dignity; vexatious proceedings must be weeded out to prevent harassment and unmerited prosecutions [Para 12].

Decision: Revision allowed – Entire proceeding in Complaint Case No. 343 of 2021 pending before the 2nd Judicial Magistrate, Basirhat, North 24 Parganas quashed qua the petitioner.

Specific Performance – Temporary Injunction – Power of Attorney – Fraud and Collusion – Reasoned Order – Appellant-owners executed a registered power of attorney and agreement for sale in favour of respondent nos. 2 and 3 – Both were subsequently cancelled by mutual consent – During the subsistence of the power of attorney, respondent nos. 2 and 3 allegedly executed a sub-agreement for sale of the subject property in favour of respondent no. 1 (plaintiff) without disclosing the same to the appellants – Appellants received no part of the consideration and lodged a police complaint alleging fraud – Trial Court granted temporary injunction in the suit for specific performance without adverting to the serious allegations of fraud and collusion raised in the written objection – Held: An order of temporary injunction which pays lip-service to the three cardinal tests without specifically addressing grave allegations made by the defendants cannot be sustained – Order set aside and matter remanded for fresh hearing [Paras 10–15].

Injunction – Three Cardinal Tests – Duty to Give Reasons – A court granting temporary injunction must specifically advert to the allegations and contentions of both parties, including those raised in the written objection, and must give clear reasons for its conclusion on prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury – Failure to do so renders the order unsustainable regardless of the merits of the respective contentions [Paras 11–12].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned order dated 12.12.2025 of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Third Court at Howrah in Title Suit No. 528 of 2023 set aside – Temporary injunction application remanded for fresh hearing and disposal by a reasoned order preferably by 30.06.2026 – Pending disposal, appellants restrained from selling, transferring or alienating the suit property to third parties – Merits of contentions of parties left open – No order as to costs.

Criminal Law – Bail – Rape and Extortion – Sections 64(2)(m), 308(2) and 351(2) BNS – Prima Facie Case – Accused gym trainer alleged to have administered intoxicant to prosecutrix, taken her to hotel in Mohan Nagar, Ghaziabad, raped her, clicked objectionable pictures, and thereafter repeatedly raped her under threat of circulating such pictures while also extorting Rs. 65,000 — Prosecutrix is a practising advocate aged about 30 years — Accused in custody since November 2025 — Photographs and videos produced by accused depicting consensual romantic relations admitted without objection; seized mobile phone of accused did not contain any objectionable pictures or videos of prosecutrix — Prima facie difficult to accept that prosecutrix, after losing consciousness at Dilshad Colony, could have travelled to a hotel in Mohan Nagar, Ghaziabad — Held: No reason to further deprive liberty of accused; bail granted on personal bond of Rs. 10,000 with one surety [Paras 8–13].

Bail – Morality and Religion – Irrelevant Considerations – Prosecution argued accused, being a married man with a child, does not deserve bail and also raised a communal argument based on difference of religion between accused and prosecutrix — Held: Morality must be kept separate from the offence while dealing with liberty of an individual; argument based on difference of religion simply rejected [Para 11].

Decision: Bail application allowed — Accused directed to be released on personal bond of Rs. 10,000 with one surety to the satisfaction of the Trial Court — Observations not to prejudice either side at trial.

Rent Law – Summary Proceedings – Preliminary Issue – Maintainability Objection – Section 10, U.P. Act No. 16 of 2021 – Tenant raised objections touching maintainability and sought their adjudication as a preliminary issue before final hearing — Rent Authority, noting that proceedings had been pending since February 2023 and had reached the stage of final hearing, declined to segregate the maintainability objection and directed all questions to be decided together at the final stage — Held: The Rent Authority has discretion in summary proceedings to defer consideration of maintainability objections to the final stage, particularly where the matter is ripe for hearing and segregation would delay disposal; no prejudice is caused as the objection survives for consideration in the final order.

Appeal – Interlocutory Orders – Non-Appealability – Rent Tribunal dismissed appeal against the Rent Authority's procedural order as not amenable to appellate challenge — Held: An order merely declining to frame a maintainability objection as a preliminary issue does not finally determine any right of the parties or adjudicate any jurisdictional plea; it is interlocutory in character and does not give rise to an independent statutory appeal unless the statute expressly provides otherwise.

Article 227 – Supervisory Jurisdiction – Scope – Held: Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is to keep subordinate courts within bounds of their authority and is not meant to correct every procedural order or substitute the High Court's view in discretionary matters, unless patent perversity, gross failure of justice, or jurisdictional error is demonstrated; no such case made out.

Preliminary Issue – No Indefeasible Right – Held: Raising an objection of maintainability does not confer an indefeasible right to insist on its separate trial as a preliminary issue; unless it can be decided purely on admitted facts and is capable of terminating proceedings at the threshold, the forum may examine it along with remaining issues at the final stage.

Decision: Petition disposed of on statement of petitioner's counsel not pressing the same — Liberty granted to petitioner to raise all permissible objections before the Rent Authority at the time of final hearing — No order as to costs.

Bail — Regular Bail Before Chargesheet — Prohibition Act — Bail Jurisprudence — Applicants Nos. 2 and 3 were in custody since 21.04.2026 for allegedly aiding and abetting preparation of country-made liquor — No role beyond abetment was attributed to them — No past antecedents — Substantial part of investigation complete — Nothing to be recovered or discovered — None of the offences punishable with life imprisonment or death — Held: Keeping an accused behind bars pending trial amounts to pre-trial conviction — Applying the celebrated principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, and considering the right to personal liberty under Article 21, applicants Nos. 2 and 3 are entitled to regular bail on conditions — Application allowed qua applicants Nos. 2 and 3 — Dismissed as withdrawn qua applicant No. 1 with liberty to approach the trial court after chargesheet [Paras 4–9].

Bail — Considerations — The Court reiterated the well-settled factors to be considered while deciding a bail application: (i) nature of accusation and severity of punishment; (ii) apprehension of tampering with witnesses or threat to complainant; (iii) possibility of securing presence of accused at trial or likelihood of abscondence; (iv) character, behaviour and standing of the accused; and (v) larger interest of the public or State [Para 6].

Decision: Application allowed qua applicants Nos. 2 and 3 — Released on personal bond of Rs. 25,000 each with one surety — Subject to standard conditions including non-interference with investigation, surrender of passport, territorial restriction from Ghogha Taluka for six months, and regular marking of presence — Application dismissed as withdrawn qua applicant No. 1.

Criminal Law – Murder – Section 302 IPC – Acquittal – Failure of Prosecution to Establish Presence of Accused – Deceased Mamta was found dead in her matrimonial home on 15.08.2017 – FIR alleged throttling by husband-appellant Mahipal and other family members – Trial Court acquitted all co-accused (father-in-law, mother-in-law) but convicted the appellant alone under Section 302 IPC – Appellant was a car driver who frequently remained away from home – Prosecution failed to produce any evidence establishing the appellant's presence at the matrimonial home on the date of the incident – Held: The prosecution must first discharge its primary burden of proving the accused's presence at the place of occurrence before the burden under Section 106 of the Evidence Act can be invoked – Conviction set aside and appellant acquitted [Paras 24, 27–29].

Section 106 Evidence Act – Burden of Proof – Last Seen Theory – Mere co-habitation under the same roof does not raise a presumption of guilt or attract Section 106 of the Evidence Act against the husband – Section 106 does not absolve the prosecution of its primary burden of proving its case beyond reasonable doubt – The prosecution must first lead evidence which, if believed, would sustain a conviction or make out a prima facie case, before the question of special knowledge under Section 106 arises – On the same set of evidence, co-accused were acquitted; conviction of the appellant alone is unsustainable [Paras 20–21, 27].

Medical Evidence – Throttling vs. Hanging – Post-mortem revealed ante-mortem injuries including traumatic swelling on head, ligature mark on neck, and abrasion on chest – Hyoid bone was intact – No thumb nail marks found on throat – Doctor opined that death could have been due to hanging, and the injuries could have been caused by the body falling when being taken down from a rope – No rope was found but absence of nail marks on throat was inconsistent with manual throttling – Defence witnesses consistently deposed that the deceased died by hanging with a chunni, the door was closed from inside, and the accused was away [Paras 10, 14–17, 26].

Witness Credibility – Contradictions – Non-Examination of Material Witness – Contradictions emerged between P.W.-1 (uncle) and P.W.-2 (father) as to the source of information about the death and as to who bore the medical expenses during the deceased's pregnancy – Elder sister Maldei alias Guddi, married in the same village, was a material witness who could have corroborated or negated allegations of cruelty and dowry demand, but was not produced by the prosecution – Her non-examination is a significant gap in the prosecution's case [Paras 24–25].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and order dated 07.04.2023 of the Sessions Judge, Rampur in Sessions Trial No. 372 of 2017 set aside – Appellant honourably acquitted of all charges – Sureties and bail bonds discharged – Appellant to be released forthwith if not required in any other case.

Criminal Procedure — Proclaimed Person — Section 82 CrPC — Mandatory Requirements — Non-Compliance — The petitioner was declared a proclaimed person vide order dated 14.12.2023 in an FIR involving kidnapping, extortion and cheating — The trial Court, while passing the impugned order, merely observed that the mandatory period of 30 days had expired and proceeded to declare the petitioner a proclaimed person — Neither the impugned order nor the zimni orders disclosed compliance with the mandatory requirements under Section 82(2) CrPC regarding mode and manner of publication — No statement of the serving official regarding publication and affixation was recorded — No satisfaction was recorded that the petitioner had absconded or was deliberately concealing himself — Held: The provisions of Section 82 CrPC are mandatory and any non-compliance therewith vitiates the entire proclamation proceedings — The order declaring the petitioner a proclaimed person, being passed in a mechanical manner without adherence to mandatory requirements, is unsustainable and liable to be quashed [Paras 6–10].

Proclaimed Person — Essential Requirements — Section 82 CrPC — The Court summarised the essential requirements for a valid proclamation: (i) prior issuance of warrant of arrest is a sine qua non; (ii) there must be a report before the Court that the accused has absconded or is concealing himself; (iii) the Court must be prima facie satisfied independently and cannot issue proclamation merely because the police requests it; (iv) the requisite date and place of appearance must be specified, with a minimum of 30 clear days from publication; (v) all three modes of publication under Section 82(2)(i) — public reading at a conspicuous place, affixation at the accused's residence, and affixation at the courthouse — are conjunctive and must all be complied with; (vi) the statement of the serving officer regarding date and mode of publication must be recorded by the Court; (vii) the Court must make a written statement that proclamation was duly published, which alone constitutes conclusive evidence of compliance — Any non-compliance renders the proclamation and subsequent proceedings a nullity [Para 8].

Quashing — Section 528 BNSS — Jurisdiction — Declaration of a person as proclaimed person has serious civil and criminal consequences affecting the accused's right to participate in criminal trial proceedings — Proclamation proceedings cannot be invoked in a casual and cavalier manner — Where the mandatory requirements under Section 82 CrPC have not been followed and no proper satisfaction has been recorded, exercise of power under Section 528 BNSS to quash such proceedings is appropriate — Held: Petition allowed; proclamation order and all consequential proceedings quashed — Petitioner directed to apply for bail, anticipatory or regular, within two weeks [Paras 10–12].

Contempt of Court – Unauthorised Recording of Court Proceedings – Criminal Contempt – During the course of hearing of miscellaneous petitions, Mr. Anil Suman, driver of petitioner Mr. Kamal Rathore, was found recording court proceedings on his mobile phone without permission and on being caught attempted to delete the recording — Admitted before Court — Held: Unauthorised recording of court proceedings constitutes criminal contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and amounts to serious interference with the administration of justice and lowering the dignity of the Court; Rule 3(vi) of the Rajasthan High Court Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts, 2020 expressly prohibits unauthorised recording of proceedings — Show cause notice issued to both Mr. Kamal Rathore and Mr. Anil Suman.

Directions – Seizure of Mobile Phone – Police Action – Registrar (Judicial) directed to seize the mobile phone of Mr. Anil Suman and keep it in safe custody — SHO, Police Station Ashok Nagar, District Jaipur City (West) directed to take appropriate legal action — Registrar (Judicial) further directed to lodge a report against Mr. Anil Suman for intentionally causing interruption in judicial proceedings — Matter directed to be placed before the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice for listing before an appropriate Bench excluding the present Bench.

Decision: Show cause notice issued to Mr. Kamal Rathore and Mr. Anil Suman — Directions issued for seizure of mobile phone, police action, and re-listing before appropriate Bench.