Civil Law - Land Acquisition – Minority Educational Institution – Article 30(1A) of the Constitution – Colourable Exercise of Power – Acquisition Set Aside – The State, being constitutionally barred from directly acquiring the land of a linguistic minority school without a special law under Article 30(1A), entered into a compromise to acquire adjacent landowners’ property instead, to compensate the school – Held: Such acquisition, based on a private arrangement, does not qualify as a “public purpose” under Section 3(f) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – The proceedings amounted to a dubious method to circumvent constitutional restrictions – Entire acquisition proceedings including notification under Section 4(1) set aside [Paras 6, 10–11].

Public Purpose – Scope under Section 3(f) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Limited to schemes by Government or statutory authorities – Acquisition for a private school cannot be deemed as public purpose – Reliance on compromise to acquire adjacent private land invalid – Distinction drawn with cases where public purpose was accepted for religious or community needs [Paras 7–9].

Compensation – Applicability of 2013 Act – Though acquisition is invalid, possession already taken and land handed to school – Appellants entitled to compensation in accordance with the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – State directed to calculate and pay compensation, upon which appellants to execute conveyance deed at State’s expense [Paras 11–12].

Decision – Writ Appeal allowed – Land Acquisition proceedings and award in OP(C) No. 1802 of 2011 set aside – Compensation to be paid under 2013 Act [Para 12].

Domestic Violence Act - Limitation – Application under Section 12 DV Act – Not Barred by Limitation – Application Maintainable - Petitioner sought quashing of complaint filed under Section 12 DV Act on the ground that the incident of domestic violence dated back to July 2019 and complaint was filed in February 2022, allegedly beyond the period of limitation under Section 468 CrPC – Held: Section 468 CrPC applies only to penal proceedings under Section 31 of DV Act and not to civil reliefs under Section 12 – Complaint is not time-barred and is maintainable [Paras 6, 14-15, 17].

Nature of Proceedings under DV Act – Civil in Nature – Proceedings under Section 12 Distinguished from Criminal Complaints - Court reiterated that application under Section 12 of DV Act is civil in nature and not a "complaint" under Section 2(d) of CrPC – Cognizance procedures under Section 190 and Chapter XV CrPC do not apply to Section 12 applications – Section 28 allows the court to lay its own procedure for such applications [Paras 10-12].

Quashing under Section 482 CrPC – Exercise of Inherent Powers – Interference Warranted Only in Exceptional Cases - Though petition under Section 482 CrPC is maintainable, court held that such power should be exercised sparingly and only in cases of gross injustice – No illegality or abuse of process found in the present complaint to warrant quashing [Paras 16, 18].

Relief – Petition Dismissed – Complaint under Section 12 and Application under Section 23 of DV Act to Proceed - Since limitation bar under Section 468 CrPC does not apply and allegations raised triable issues under the DV Act, the petition was dismissed as misconceived and devoid of merit [Paras 17-18].

Civil Law - Limitation – Recovery of Possession – Article 65 of the Limitation Act – Suit Barred – Plaintiff filed suit in 2010 claiming recovery of possession based on title – Defendant relied on continuous possession since 1996 based on unregistered agreement of sale – Revenue records from 1997 supported defendant’s possession – Plaintiff admitted knowledge of such possession – Held: Suit for possession filed after 13 years was barred under Article 65 of the Limitation Act – Trial Court erred in presuming dispossession in 2002 without evidence – Decree set aside [Paras 25-26, 43-45, 47].

Part Performance – Section 53-A of Transfer of Property Act – Protection Denied – Defendant claimed protection under Section 53-A relying on Ex.B1 (agreement of sale) – Agreement was unregistered, lacked attesting witnesses, and did not contain recital for execution of sale deed – Plaintiff denied executing it, and PW2 (defendant’s own father) testified agreement was fabricated – Held: Defendant failed to establish valid possession under Ex.B1 – No protection available under Section 53-A [Paras 21-23, 27.1–27.5].

Ownership Claim – Boundaries and Extent – Plaintiff admitted alienation of 32 guntas – However, continued to claim title over remaining 6 acres – Trial Court declared plaintiff as owner of 6 acres – Held: Boundaries largely consistent – Sale of 32 guntas did not alter suit boundaries – But suit ultimately barred by limitation, and title claim not adjudicated [Paras 27.10, 28.1, 41].

Previous Litigation – No Res Judicata – Earlier suit for injunction dismissed on finding of possession with defendant – Present suit for title and recovery not barred – Earlier judgment did not conclusively adjudicate ownership or bar new suit – Held: Trial Court rightly found no res judicata – However, claim failed on limitation [Paras 5.4, 27.5, 44].

Final Decision – Decree Set Aside – Appeal Allowed – Held: Plaintiff failed to file suit within 12 years from when defendant’s possession became adverse – Suit barred by limitation – Decree of Trial Court reversed – Plaintiff’s suit dismissed without costs [Paras 45, 47, 48].

Criminal Law – Cheating & Breach of Trust – Settlement through MOU – Complainant alleged misuse of signatures and cheating of ₹4 crores – FIR 355/2008 registered – During investigation, parties entered into MOU (14.06.2008) where petitioners paid ₹5 crores in full and final settlement, both agreed to withdraw civil/criminal cases – Once complainant accepted benefit, he cannot later approbate and reprobate by filing fresh complaints – Criminal proceedings for same allegations unsustainable [Paras 7-11].

Closure Report – Effect – FIR 355/2008 closed as civil in nature, accepted by Trial Court on 05.08.2011 – Protest petition later dismissed for default – Subsequent protest petition after long delay impermissible – Once closure report accepted, criminal proceedings attain finality – Fresh complaints barred [Paras 9, 12, 13].

Further Investigation – Limits – Trial Court ordered reinvestigation u/s 156(3) CrPC in 2018 – Held improper – Power to direct further investigation is extraordinary and sparingly exercisable – Where closure report based on settlement already accepted, directing reinvestigation defeats finality – Reliance placed on Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali (2013) 5 SCC 762 [Paras 12, 13].

Doctrines – Estoppel & Approbate/Reprobate – Complainant, having received ₹5 crores in settlement, estopped from denying binding effect of MOU – Cannot blow hot and cold – Repeated complaints constitute abuse of process [Para 11].

Standard for Discharge – At charge stage, Court must examine if prima facie case exists – Here, entire case rested on allegations already settled – No new evidence unearthed in further investigation – Cognizance by Magistrate held mechanical without considering earlier closure and settlement – Discharge warranted [Paras 12-14].

Decision – Order of XI Metropolitan Magistrate dated 22.11.2024 dismissing discharge petition set aside – Petitioners discharged in C.C. No. 1163 of 2023 – Criminal revision allowed – Connected miscellaneous petitions closed [Para 14].

Criminal Revision – Service of Notice on Foreign Entity – Section 105 CrPC – Not Mandatory – UBS Switzerland AG, de facto complainant in a criminal case involving misappropriation of pledged goods worth Rs. 55 crores, challenged the order dispensing with notice under Section 105 CrPC on ground of international reciprocity – Held: Section 105 CrPC deals with processes relating to search, seizure, warrants, and attachment in cases with extraterritorial elements – It does not mandate service of notice to an opposite party/complainant in criminal revision – No statutory requirement exists to serve foreign parties through diplomatic channels in such proceedings – Failure to invoke Section 105 CrPC does not vitiate revision proceedings [Paras 10–13, 16].

Fair Hearing – Procedural Requirement – Mere Representation by Counsel Not Equivalent to Valid Service – Court held that appearance of complainant’s counsel before trial court cannot substitute independent service of notice – Representation does not waive statutory service requirements – However, in this case, notice was sent by registered post to petitioner’s correct address, ensuring no prejudice – Hence, proceedings remain valid [Paras 13–15].

Judicial Review – Correctness of Reasoning vs. Conclusion – While Additional Sessions Judge’s reasoning (dispensing with service solely due to past representation by counsel) was unsustainable, his ultimate conclusion refusing issuance of notice under Section 105 CrPC was correct – High Court substituted proper reasoning but upheld conclusion [Paras 14, 17].

Decision – Criminal revision dismissed – Order of Additional Sessions Judge upheld though on different reasoning – No merit in petitioner’s challenge [Paras 18–19].

Temporary Injunction – Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC – Trespasser vs. True Owner – Refusal of relief – Plaintiff sought injunction on basis of alleged long possession over Survey No.643; no sale deed or lawful title produced; Khasra entry of 1990–91 held baseless—Held: Injunction cannot be granted to protect unlawful possession against true owner; concurrent findings of Civil Court and Appellate Court upheld [Paras 14–20].

Revenue Entries – Section 115 MP Land Revenue Code – Collector’s permission mandatory – Orders quashed – SDO ordered correction of entries without Collector’s recommendation; appellate orders affirmed same—Held: Though findings justified on merits, procedure under Section 115 must be complied with; orders of 26.11.2019 and 05.04.2021 quashed; matter remanded to SDO to obtain Collector’s permission and pass fresh orders [Para 21].

Decision – M.P. No.1564/2022 dismissed (no injunction) – M.P. No.1722/2021 partly allowed by quashing revenue appellate orders; case remanded to SDO for fresh decision [Para 22].

Criminal Law - Kidnapping – Enticing Minor Girl – Section 363 IPC – Conviction Upheld - The appellant enticed the 15-year-old victim from her father’s shop on the pretext of watching a movie with false representation of parental consent – Thereafter, he threatened her and took her to another city – Held: The act constitutes kidnapping from lawful guardianship under Section 361 IPC and punishable under Section 363 – Documentary evidence like high school marksheet proving minority prevails over medical opinion – Conviction under Section 363 upheld [Paras 3-6, 13, 20-21].

Kidnapping to Compel Marriage – Section 366 IPC – Threat and Confinement – Offence Established - After taking the girl to Agra and watching a movie, the appellant proposed marriage and issued threats to compel her – Victim was confined in the house of appellant’s relative under false identity – Escaped and lodged FIR – Held: Compulsion, threat and intent to marry make out offence under Section 366 IPC – Conviction and sentence sustained [Paras 7, 14, 20-21].

Minor’s Age – Evidentiary Value – High School Certificate Prevails Over Medical Opinion - Appellant claimed victim was above 18 and had gone voluntarily – Court held that high school marksheet clearly indicated victim was 15 at time of incident – Medical opinion indicating 16-18 years not decisive in light of documentary proof – Victim’s minority proved [Paras 4, 13, 21].

Free Consent – Not Applicable to Minor – Threat Perception Evident - Despite absence of resistance during public travel, victim’s testimony revealed coercion and fear – Once minor, her “consent” is legally immaterial – Passive compliance under threat cannot negate offence – Conduct of victim consistent with fear-induced obedience until she found opportunity to escape [Paras 13-14, 20].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Conviction and Sentence Affirmed – Appellant to Surrender - The Court upheld the conviction under Sections 363 and 366 IPC – Found no illegality or perversity in Trial Court’s judgment dated 24.08.1983 – Directed Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra to take the appellant into custody to serve remaining sentence – Appeal dismissed [Paras 21-23].

Advocates Act, 1961 - Professional Misconduct – No Advocate-Client Relationship – Complaint Dismissed – The appellant alleged professional misconduct against advocates representing opposing parties in an NI Act case – Bar Council of Delhi dismissed the complaint for lack of fiduciary relationship – The BCI affirmed that no professional misconduct is made out as the advocates acted per their client's instructions and no duty exists to verify client claims – Dismissal upheld [Paras 1.1–1.2, 6].

Advocate’s Duty – Representation Based on Client Instructions – No Obligation to Investigate Case Merits – The Court reiterated that an advocate cannot be faulted for representing a client without independently verifying the client’s version – Held: The duty of truth verification lies with the Court, not the advocate – No misconduct for representing a client whose case may later be held untrue [Paras 1.2–1.3, 7].

Rule 4, BCI Rules – Not a Bar on Representation – Rule Misinterpreted – The appellant argued that Rule 4 prohibits being a ‘mere mouthpiece’ – Court clarified that this rule does not mandate preliminary inquiry into a client's claims – No violation of ethical standards found [Para 1.3].

Fiduciary Duty – Opposing Counsel Not Bound – The Court held that lawyers representing adverse parties owe no fiduciary duty to the appellant – No professional breach arises without a lawyer-client relationship – Complaint under Section 35 of Advocates Act found untenable [Paras 4, 6].

Alleged Perjury – Independent Criminal Remedy Available – Allegations of fabricated evidence already subject to proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. – Held: Such issues are for determination by the concerned court, not through disciplinary action against opposing counsel [Para 5].

Decision – Intra-Court Appeal Dismissed – No Interference Warranted – The High Court found no illegality in the Single Judge’s order rejecting writ petition against Bar Council orders – Appeal dismissed with no order as to costs [Paras 8–9].

Family Law - Maintenance – Widow’s Right – Estate of Father-in-Law – Enforceable Right – The Appellant, a widowed daughter-in-law, claimed maintenance from the estate of her predeceased father-in-law – The Family Court dismissed the petition as non-maintainable under Section 22 of HAMA – Held: Under Sections 19(1), 21(vii), 22(2), and 28 of HAMA, a widowed daughter-in-law has a statutory right to claim maintenance from her father-in-law’s estate in absence of other means – Appeal allowed; order of Family Court set aside [Paras 1-3, 6-10].

Statutory Interpretation – HAMA is a Welfare Legislation – Liberal and Purposeful Construction – The Court emphasized that HAMA must be interpreted in a manner advancing social protection to vulnerable dependants like widowed daughters-in-law – The right of maintenance survives as an enforceable claim against the estate and transferees under Section 28 – Held: Narrow interpretation would defeat the object and intent of the statute [Paras 8, 11-12].

Definition of Dependant – Section 21(vii) of HAMA – Applicability – The Court held that the term “dependant” under Section 21(vii) includes the widow of a son, entitled to maintenance from the estate of her father-in-law, provided she has no other source of maintenance – Held: Her claim survives against legal heirs who inherited the estate [Paras 6-7, 10].

Family Court Judgment – Error of Law – Incorrect Interpretation of Section 22 – The Family Court wrongly held the claim to be barred under Section 22 – The High Court clarified that Section 22 enables enforcement of maintenance claims against heirs who inherited estate from the deceased, and does not bar claims under Section 19 against the estate – Held: Impugned judgment set aside [Paras 5, 10].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Family Court Directed to Expedite Disposal – The High Court remanded the matter for further proceedings and assessment of maintenance quantum – Held: Appeal disposed of with directions for early disposal [Paras 14-16].