Criminal Law – Default Bail – Section 480(6) B.N.S.S. – Trial Not Concluded Within Sixty Days – Applicant in custody since framing of charges – First date fixed for evidence was 26.08.2025 – Trial not concluded within sixty days from said date – Several adjournments granted for securing presence of prosecution witnesses – Held: Accused entitled to default bail under Section 480(6) B.N.S.S. when trial before Magistrate not concluded within statutory period and accused remained in custody throughout – Order rejecting bail set aside [Paras 14, 18].

Default Bail – Misconstruction by Trial Court – Application Though Inartfully Drafted – Application filed under Section 480(6) B.N.S.S. but pleadings not happily worded – Trial Court treated it as successive regular bail application on ground of change in circumstances – Coordinate Bench had granted liberty to move application under Section 480(6) B.N.S.S. – Held: Magistrate failed to appreciate scope of statutory right under Section 480(6) – Correct provision invoked must be considered notwithstanding defective drafting – Impugned order unsustainable [Paras 15–17].

Statutory Right – Mandatory Nature – Section 480(6) B.N.S.S. – Provision mandates release on bail if trial of non-bailable offence triable by Magistrate is not concluded within sixty days from first date fixed for evidence, unless reasons recorded otherwise – In present case, no legally sustainable reasons recorded to deny benefit – Accused directed to be released on furnishing personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with one surety of like amount [Paras 14, 18].

Decision: Criminal Revision Allowed – Order dated 10.01.2026 passed by JMFC, Singrauli in R.C.T. No. 318 of 2025 set aside – Default bail granted under Section 480(6) B.N.S.S. – Applicant to be released on bail on furnishing personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with one surety of like amount – Revision disposed of [Paras 18–19].

Civil Law – Rejection of Plaint – Letters Patent Jurisdiction – Partition Suit as "Suit for Land" – Leave under Clause XII – Suit for partition of ancestral HUF properties (including land, flats and other immovable assets) situated partly within and partly outside the ordinary original jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court – Plaintiff claimed 1/7th share in the estate of her deceased father as Karta of HUF and sought partition, declaration, and injunction – Defendant Nos. 1, 3 and 4 filed Interim Application for rejection of Plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on the ground that no leave under Clause XII of the Letters Patent was obtained – Three questions framed: (A) Whether the Suit is a "Suit for land" under Clause XII; (B) Whether leave under Clause XII is required; and (C) Whether the Plaint can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 – Held: All three questions answered in the affirmative – Plaint rejected as a whole – Interim Application allowed – No order as to costs [Paras 1, 47, 65, 68].

"A Partition Suit is a Suit for Land" – Question A Answered – Whether a Suit for partition of immovable properties qualifies as a "Suit for land" under Clause XII of the Letters Patent – Division Bench of this Court in Shiv Bhagwan Moti Ram Saraoji vs. Onkarmal Ishar Dass held it is well settled that "a suit for partition of immovable properties is a suit for land" – Single Judge in Vishram Parbat H.U.F. followed the said view and further held that a suit for recovery of possession is also a Suit for land – Supreme Court in Adcon Electronics Pvt. Ltd. vs. Daulat held that "a suit for land is a suit in which the relief claimed relates to title to or delivery of possession of land or immovable property" – Supreme Court in Sumer Builders Pvt. Ltd. vs. Narendra Gorani affirmed that a controversy over possession of land falls within the conception of "suit for land" under Clause XII – In the present case, Prayer (b) of the Plaint sought both partition by metes and bounds and handing over of the Plaintiff's share, thereby establishing it as a Suit for possession and land – Held: Present Suit is a Suit for land and immovable properties under Clause XII of the Letters Patent – Question A answered in the affirmative – Orders in Jagneesh Malhotra and Dipika Hitendra Shah, relied upon by the Plaintiff, held to be mere orders granting leave with no precedential value [Paras 49-56].

Leave Under Clause XII is a Condition Precedent – It Cannot be Obtained After Institution of Suit – Question B Answered – Whether leave under Clause XII of the Letters Patent is required when part of the suit land falls outside the Court's jurisdiction – Calcutta High Court in Benoy Shankar Dhandani vs. Choteylal Dhandania held that "it is now well established that in a suit for land, if the entire land is not situate within jurisdiction, it is necessary that leave of the Court should be obtained before the institution of the suit" – Bombay High Court in Quadricon Pvt. Ltd. vs. Shri Bajrang Alloys Ltd. held that "the leave must be granted at the time of acceptance of the plaint and cannot be granted afterwards" and that "leave under Clause XII of the Letters Patent is a condition precedent to the maintenance and entertainment of the suit" – Admittedly, Plaintiff did not obtain leave prior to institution of the Suit and cannot now do so – Held: Leave under Clause XII of the Letters Patent was required and not obtained – Question B answered in the affirmative [Paras 57-61].

The Fatal Consequence of Missing Leave – Partial Partition Equally Impermissible – Question C Answered – Whether the entire Plaint stands to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC where leave under Clause XII was not obtained – Absence of leave deprives the Court of jurisdiction over properties situated outside its original jurisdiction – Suit for remaining properties within jurisdiction not maintainable as it would amount to a Suit for partial partition, which is not permissible in law – Supreme Court in Kenchegowda vs. Siddegowda Alias Motegowda firmly held that "a suit for partial partition is not maintainable" – Prayer clauses (c), (c)(i), (c)(ii) and (c)(iii) though pertaining to the Malad property (within jurisdiction) are consequential to Prayer (b) which seeks partition of the entire Exhibit 'C' properties and granting those reliefs would amount to partial partition – Held: Entire Plaint is barred by law – Plaintiff's argument that the only consequence of non-obtaining of leave would be refusal of relief at final hearing rejected – Plaint to be rejected as a whole under Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Question C answered in the affirmative [Paras 62-68].

Decision: Interim Application allowed – Plaint in Suit No. 422 of 2012 rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for want of leave under Clause XII of the Letters Patent of the Bombay High Court – No order as to costs.

Criminal Contempt – Forgery and Impersonation in Judicial Proceedings – Filing of Writ Petition and Writ Appeal in Name of Wife without her Knowledge – Attempt to Leave Country in Violation of Court Order – Apology Accepted – Respondent had instituted WP(C) No. 18665/2024 and W.A. No. 942/2024 in the name of his wife without her consent by forging her signatures on vakalat and affidavit – Registrar (Judicial) enquiry confirmed impersonation – Respondent also attempted to travel abroad in violation of interim order and was deboarded – Division Bench held conduct to be contemptuous and directed initiation of suo motu contempt – In present proceedings, respondent pleaded guilty, tendered unconditional apology in conformity with Rule 14(a) of 1988 Rules, and complied with direction to pay Rs.1,50,000/- each to Kerala Legal Services Authority and to his wife – Held: Apology found genuine and bona fide – Respondent discharged from contempt – Closure not to affect pending or future civil/criminal proceedings [Paras 2–8, 13–16].

Contempt Proceedings – Plea of Guilt – Compliance with Directions – Rule 14(a) of Contempt of Courts (High Court of Kerala) Rules, 1988 – Affidavit initially defective – Court directed filing of additional affidavit in conformity with Rules – Respondent expressly pleaded guilty, acknowledged charges, and reiterated unconditional apology – Court satisfied that apology was not a device to evade punishment but reflected genuine remorse – Discretion exercised to accept apology and discharge contemnor [Paras 11–15].

Judicial Discipline – Violation of Interim Orders – Attempted Departure from India – Despite pendency of interlocutory application and subsisting interim order dated 09.12.2024, respondent attempted to leave India and was deboarded based on report of FRRO – Conduct considered aggravating circumstance in earlier writ appeal – Nevertheless, subsequent compliance and remorse considered sufficient to close contempt proceedings with caution that other proceedings shall continue independently [Paras 7–8, 16].

Decision: Unconditional apology accepted – Respondent discharged – Contempt of Court Case closed – Clarified that order shall not affect any pending or future civil or criminal proceedings arising from the same allegations.

Limitation Law – Condonation of Delay – Second Appeal – Suit for Possession and Declaration – Dismissal Upheld – Appellant's suit for possession of DDA Slum Flat and declaration that documents dated 27.03.2000 were forged and fabricated was dismissed by Trial Court on 19.04.2017 on the grounds that the Plaintiff had failed to prove possession and the Suit was barred by limitation – Appeal was preferred only on 04.09.2021 with a delay of 1589 days, accompanied by an Application under Order XLI Rule 3-A CPC for condonation of delay – District Judge dismissed the delay condonation application on 24.09.2025 and consequently dismissed the Appeal – Appellant challenged the said order in the present Second Appeal – Held: No merit in the present Appeal – Second Appeal dismissed [Paras 1-3, 37-38].

"Selectively Active in Court" – Participation in Execution Proceedings While Ignoring the Right of Appeal – First Ground of Delay Rejected – Appellant claimed to be a senior citizen suffering from serious ailments, physical incapacity and extreme financial hardship preventing timely filing of the Appeal – No medical documents were placed on record to substantiate incapacitation – Second ground of inability to engage a legal counsel also rejected because the Appellant had appeared before the Executing Court on 13.02.2018, 20.03.2018 and 27.09.2018 in Execution Petition No. 387 of 2017 – Appellant was fully aware of the Decree and actively resisted execution till possession was taken on 18.03.2021 – Held: If the Appellant could contest Execution proceedings, there was no reason why he could not have filed the Appeal on time – "The Appellant had failed to act diligently and has remained selectively active in approaching the Court" [Paras 26-29].

Covid-19 Pandemic Cannot Rescue Delay That Pre-Dates the Pandemic – Third Ground Rejected – Third ground for condonation of delay was that the Covid-19 Pandemic had rendered the Appellant, a vulnerable senior citizen, unable to file the Appeal in time – District Judge correctly noted that even if the period of Covid-19 Pandemic was excluded in terms of the Supreme Court's Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020 (In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation), the statutory period of limitation of 90 days from 19.04.2017 had expired long before the onset of the Pandemic – No cogent explanation was furnished for the period from 19.05.2017 to 01.03.2020 – Ground rightly rejected [Paras 30-32].

Conduct, Behaviour and Attitude of Litigant Are Decisive in Condonation – Liberal Approach Cannot Override Diligence – Delay was not rejected mechanically but on account of the Appellant's conduct – Supreme Court in Esha Bhattacharjee vs. Managing Committee of Raghunath Nafar Academy & Ors. held that "conduct, behaviour and attitude of a party relating to the inaction or negligence are relevant factors to be taken into consideration" and that "courts are required to weigh the scale of balance of justice in respect of both parties" – Supreme Court in Basawaraj vs. Land Acquisition Officer held that condoning inordinate delay without sufficient cause "amounts to passing an order in violation of the statutory provisions and it tantamounts to showing utter disregard to the legislature" – No sufficient cause having been shown, the delay condonation application was rightly dismissed and no interference warranted [Paras 33-37].

Decision: Regular Second Appeal dismissed – No infirmity found in the order of the District Judge dismissing the Application under Order XLI Rule 3-A CPC for condonation of delay of 1504 days in filing the Appeal – Appeal disposed of along with pending applications.

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – Quashing of Process – Nexus with Proceeds of Crime – Property purchased between 2005-2007 – Alleged proceeds of crime generated between December 2020 and February 2021 – No material showing connection between earlier acquisition and scheduled offence – Held: Existence of “proceeds of crime” is sine qua non for offence under Section 3 PMLA – In absence of nexus between property and alleged criminal activity, ingredients of Sections 3 and 4 not made out – Process liable to be quashed [Paras 22, 25, 29, 32].

Money Laundering – Continuing Offence – Scope of Section 3 PMLA – Reliance placed on Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Pavana Dibbur – Court reiterates that offence under Section 3 arises only when a person knowingly deals with proceeds of crime derived from scheduled offence – Though offence may be continuing, there must first exist property derived from criminal activity relating to scheduled offence – In present case, property acquired much prior to alleged generation of proceeds – No prima facie material of Applicant’s involvement in laundering tainted funds [Paras 16-18, 22, 27-29].

Cognizance and Issuance of Process – Requirement of Application of Mind – “Sufficient ground for proceeding” under Section 204 Cr.P.C. – Designated Court’s order reproduced – No specific reasons demonstrating application of mind qua Applicant – Mechanical issuance of process without analysis of role attributed – Order bad in law and liable to be set aside – Reliance placed on Sunil Bharti Mittal v. CBI [Paras 6, 30-31].

Inherent Powers – Section 482 Cr.P.C. / Section 528 BNSS – Abuse of Process – Where uncontroverted allegations and charge-sheet material do not disclose commission of offence under Sections 3 and 4 PMLA against Applicant – High Court justified in exercising inherent jurisdiction to quash proceedings to prevent abuse of process of law [Paras 32-33].

Decision: Criminal Application allowed – Impugned order dated 16.09.2021 issuing process against Applicant (Accused No. 11) in PMLA Special Case No. 1089 of 2021 quashed and set aside – Complaint under PMLA quashed qua Applicant – Interim Application disposed of – No order as to costs.

Bail – Assault on Public Servant – Allegation of dragging police constable on bonnet of moving car during lawful checking – Prima facie concerted act by occupants to obstruct official duty – Seriousness of offence and stage of investigation weigh against grant of bail – Role of applicant not found minimal at this stage – Bail rejected [Paras 7, 8, 12, 27].

Bail Jurisprudence – Reliance on Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI – Principles against mechanical arrest and prolonged incarceration – Distinguished – Case involves deliberate assault on police personnel during sensitive security arrangement – Gravity and surrounding circumstances justify continued custody – No absolute rule of bail merely because investigation substantially complete [Paras 9–11].

Common Intention – Participation of Co-accused – Applicant claimed to be mere passenger – Prosecution version indicates collective act in furtherance of common intention – Specific allegations of pulling, throwing and dragging complainant – Role to be examined at trial – Discretionary relief declined [Paras 5, 7, 8].

Contempt of Court – Advocate Convicted for Criminal Contempt – Rule 16 of M.P. High Court (Conditions of Practice) Rules, 2012 – Advocate found guilty of criminal contempt and conviction affirmed by Supreme Court – No material showing purgation of contempt – Appearance before Court without compliance violative of Rule 16 – Show-cause notice directed – State Bar Council directed to inform steps taken [Paras 16, 21–24].

Regulation of Advocates’ Appearance – Inherent Powers of Constitutional Courts – Courts empowered to regulate appearance of advocates to preserve dignity and orderly functioning – Reliance on Supreme Court Bar Association, Bar Council of India v. High Court of Kerala, Mahipal Singh Rana and R. Muthukrishnan – Conduct of counsel found aggressive and bordering on defiance – Action warranted to uphold institutional discipline [Paras 17–20].

Decision: First bail application under Section 483 BNSS dismissed – Office directed to issue show-cause notice to Shri Awdhesh Singh Bhadauria regarding appearance despite subsisting conviction for criminal contempt – Notice to State Bar Council to report compliance/action – Matter to be listed under “Direction” in week commencing 06/04/2026.

Constitutional Law – Interfaith Live-in Relationship – Right to Life and Personal Liberty – Multiple writ petitions by major Hindu and Muslim couples residing together without marriage seeking police protection – State objected on ground of non-compliance with Sections 8 and 9 of U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 – Held: Right to choose a partner and to cohabit flows from Article 21 – Courts must protect life and liberty of consenting adults irrespective of religion – Police directed to ensure protection if threat perception exists [Paras 31-34, 42].

U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 – Scope and Applicability – Whether mere interfaith live-in relationship attracts Sections 3 and 5 – Definition of “Conversion” under Section 2(c) requires renouncing one’s religion and adopting another – In absence of any allegation or material of conversion or attempt by misrepresentation, force, coercion or marriage, provisions of Act not attracted – Compliance with Sections 8 and 9 required only when conversion is intended – Live-in relationship per se does not mandate prior declaration under the Act – Petitioners not shown to have committed any offence [Paras 28-30].

Personal Law – Muslim Law – Observations in Kiran Rawat regarding impermissibility of premarital relationship in Islam – Held: No penal consequences under IPC or statutory law for consensual cohabitation between adults – Religious tenets cannot override constitutional guarantees – Protection cannot be denied on basis of personal law objections [Paras 26-27].

Fundamental Rights – Equality and Non-Discrimination – Articles 14 and 15 – If live-in relationship between adults of same religion is entitled to protection, denial to interfaith couple would amount to discrimination – Law equal for all irrespective of religion – State cannot discriminate in extending protection of life and liberty [Paras 42-43].

Right to Privacy and Choice – Autonomy of Adult Individuals – Reliance placed on Lata Singh, Shafin Jahan, Shakti Vahini, K.S. Puttaswamy, Supriyo, Soni Gerry and Mayra @ Vaishnavi – Choice of partner lies within exclusive domain of individual – Social approval not condition precedent for exercise of constitutional rights – State under positive obligation to protect couples from honour-based threats [Paras 16-21, 34-36, 39-40].

Live-in Relationship – Legal Recognition – Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act acknowledges relationship in nature of marriage – Mere absence of marriage does not deprive major individuals of protection under Article 21 – Court cannot sit in moral judgment over consensual adult cohabitation [Paras 36, 46-49 of Akanksha case referred].

Decision: All writ petitions disposed of – Petitioners at liberty to live together peacefully – In case of disturbance or credible threat, petitioners may approach Commissioner of Police/SSP/SP concerned – Police authorities directed to verify majority and voluntary cohabitation and provide immediate protection – No coercive action to be taken against petitioners unless any cognizable offence is registered in accordance with law.

Arbitration – Section 11(6) – Appointment of Arbitrator – Validity of Underlying Agreement – Hospital seeking reference to arbitration alleging breach of non-compete and notice clauses by doctor – Court held that for invoking Section 11, there must exist a valid and lawful arbitration agreement – If substantive clauses are void under Sections 23 and 27 of Contract Act, arbitration clause cannot survive to enforce such void covenants – Petition dismissed [Paras 19–24, 31].

Contract – Restrictive Covenants – Non-Compete and Non-Solicitation Clauses against Doctor – Clause restraining doctor for three years post-termination from joining rival hospital within 15 km radius and from soliciting staff – Held: Doctor is an independent professional and cannot be equated to employee – Such restrictive covenants opposed to public policy and hit by Section 23 – Also void under Section 27 as restraint of lawful profession – Hospitals cannot treat other hospitals as “rivals” in commercial sense – Clauses unenforceable and void ab initio to that extent [Paras 9–18, 22–23].

Professional Autonomy – Doctors and Hospitals – Court emphasized that hospitals utilize services of doctors and cannot curtail their professional independence through restrictive commercial clauses – A doctor cannot be prevented from practicing in another hospital or attending patients who repose confidence in him – Non-compete clauses in such context legally impermissible [Paras 11–18].

Termination Clause – Compliance with Notice Requirement – Clause 10.2 required three months’ notice or payment in lieu – Respondent had issued resignation on 29.01.2024 giving three months’ notice till 29.04.2024 – Subsequent continuation of service at request of hospital cannot nullify earlier notice – No breach made out – No arbitrable dispute survives [Paras 25–27, 31].

Costs – Abuse of Process – Petition found to be attempt to “witch-hunt” doctor by initiating arbitration despite compliance with contractual terms – Petition dismissed with costs of Rs.1,00,000/- payable by hospital to respondent [Paras 30–32].

Decision: Petition under Section 11(6) dismissed – Restrictive covenants held void and unenforceable – No subsisting arbitrable dispute – Costs of Rs.1,00,000/- imposed on petitioner hospital.

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR - Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 – Section 2 – Essential Ingredients – Statutory provision penalizes burning, mutilating, defacing, trampling upon or otherwise showing disrespect to the National Flag in public view – Explanation 4 clarifies instances of “disrespect” including allowing the Flag to touch the ground intentionally – Held: Mens rea is sine qua non – Disrespect must be deliberate and intentional – Absence of intention vitiates prosecution [Paras 9, 44, 47].

National Flag – Alleged Disrespect – Edited Photograph Circulated on WhatsApp – Complaint alleged that petitioner stood with slippers on National Flag during Gandhi Jayanthi celebration – Material on record disclosed that original photograph of petitioner was edited by student and superimposed on image of National Flag – Student admitted mistake and tendered apology – Held: Inherent improbability of petitioner intentionally insulting National Flag – No prima facie material of deliberate act [Paras 3, 10].

Flag Code of India, 2002 – Nature and Enforceability – Flag Code is executive instruction and not “law” within meaning of Article 13(3)(a) – Violation of Flag Code per se does not attract penal consequences under Section 2 of the Act – Relied on Union of India v. Naveen Jindal and consistent High Court precedents [Paras 9.1, 39, 42].

Criminal Jurisdiction – Quashing of FIR – Scope of Interference – Applied principles in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal – Where allegations, even if taken at face value, do not disclose ingredients of offence – Continuation of investigation amounts to abuse of process – Court can exercise inherent powers to secure ends of justice [Paras 10, 102 Bhajan Lal extracted].

Patriotism and Criminal Liability – Intention as True Test – Patriotism not determined by gross physical act alone – Intention behind act is decisive – Criminal law cannot be invoked for innocuous or unintended acts lacking malafide intent – Courts must guard against frivolous or malicious prosecution under national honour legislation [Paras 47, 61-63 (Madras HC principles referred)].

Decision: Criminal Petition allowed – FIR in Crime No.377 of 2024 registered by Bagalagunte Police Station for offence under Section 2 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 quashed – All further proceedings before the XXXI Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City set aside.