Civil Law - Partition Suit – Proof of Ownership and Possession – Concurrent Findings – The plaintiffs, being legal heirs of late A.R. Lakshmaiah Naidu, sought partition and separate possession of the plaint schedule properties. The trial court decreed the suit based on evidence, including oral testimony and 35 exhibits, which proved the plaintiffs' entitlement. The defendant’s claim of ownership through a will was unsupported by evidence. The appellate court upheld the trial court’s findings. – Held: Plaintiffs entitled to partition and possession; judgments of lower courts affirmed. [Paras 18–26]

Second Appeal – Scope of Section 100 of CPC – No Substantial Questions of Law – The High Court emphasized that it can interfere in a second appeal only when substantial questions of law arise. The appellant failed to show that the concurrent findings of the lower courts were based on inadmissible evidence, contrary to law, or perverse. – Held: No substantial questions of law raised; appeal dismissed. [Paras 15–28]

Will – Proof of Execution – Burden of Proof on Propounder – The appellant claimed title to the property through a will but failed to produce the will or call attesting witnesses. The court applied the settled principle that where the propounder fails to prove the will in accordance with law, the claim must fail. – Held: Will not proved; appellant’s claim dismissed. [Paras 20–23]

Patta Claim – No Evidence to Support Ownership – The appellant argued that a DKT patta was issued for the property, but no patta or evidence was produced to substantiate the claim. The court reiterated that unsubstantiated oral claims cannot overturn concurrent findings based on evidence. – Held: Appellant’s claim of patta rejected. [Paras 24–25]

Decision: The second appeal was dismissed at the stage of admission, confirming the concurrent findings of the trial and first appellate courts. No substantial questions of law were found to warrant interference.
 

Negotiable Instruments Act – Dishonour of Cheque – Compounding of Offence – Effect on Conviction – The petitioner was convicted under Section 138 NI Act for dishonour of a cheque for ₹8,85,000/- – The conviction and sentence were upheld by the appellate court – During pendency of the revision, parties amicably settled the dispute and entered into a Joint Memorandum of Compromise – Held: As the offence under Section 138 NI Act is compoundable under Section 147, the conviction and sentence are set aside – The petitioner is acquitted on account of the compromise [Paras 44-48].

Power of High Court to Compound Offences at Revisional Stage – Scope of Section 147 NI Act – The High Court has the power to permit compounding at any stage of proceedings, including during revision, as Section 147 NI Act overrides Section 320 Cr.P.C. – Judicial precedents support the view that compounding can be allowed even after conviction to meet the ends of justice – Held: The High Court, in exercise of its inherent powers, can permit compounding and quash the conviction [Paras 33-38, 46].

Withdrawal of Deposited Amount – Direction to Trial Court – The petitioner had deposited ₹4,42,500/- before the trial court as part of the appellate process – The respondent is permitted to withdraw the amount with accrued interest, if any, within four weeks [Paras 51-52].

Decision: The Criminal Revision Case is disposed of in terms of the Memorandum of Compromise – The conviction and sentence imposed by the XX Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai, and confirmed by the V Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, are annulled – The petitioner is acquitted – The respondent is permitted to withdraw ₹4,42,500/- from the trial court with accrued interest [Paras 48-53].
 

Civil Law - Permanent Injunction – Possession and Title – Concurrent Findings – The plaintiff sought a permanent injunction against the defendant, claiming possession and ownership of the plaint schedule property. Both the trial and first appellate courts found that the plaintiff had proven possession and ownership through documentary evidence, including registered sale deeds and a mortgage with the State Bank of India. The courts rejected the defendant’s claim of title to a different property and found no misrepresentation of the suit schedule property. – Held: The plaintiff is entitled to a permanent injunction; appeal dismissed. [Paras 18–21]

Second Appeal – Scope of Section 100 of CPC – No Substantial Questions of Law – The High Court reiterated that it can interfere in a second appeal only when the findings of the lower courts are perverse, based on inadmissible evidence, or contrary to law. The findings of the trial and appellate courts were based on admissible evidence, and the appellant failed to establish any substantial questions of law. – Held: No grounds for interference; judgments of lower courts upheld. [Paras 16–21]

Admissions in Evidence – Boundaries of Suit Property – Defendant’s Admissions Affirm Plaintiff’s Case – The defendant admitted during cross-examination that the boundaries of the plaint schedule property matched the registered sale deed (Ex.A-1), supporting the plaintiff’s possession and ownership claims. These admissions further weakened the defendant's case. – Held: Plaintiff’s evidence corroborated; defendant’s case unsustainable. [Paras 18–20]

Decision: The second appeal was dismissed. The judgments and decrees of the trial court and first appellate court granting a permanent injunction in favor of the plaintiff were upheld.
 

Criminal Law - Adjournments – Excessive and Repeated Requests – Court’s Duty to Prevent Abuse of Process – Repeated adjournments sought by the petitioner/accused for leading defence evidence were granted, including a final opportunity on 11/11/2024 – Despite this, no evidence was produced on 21/12/2024 – Held: The petitioner’s conduct was aimed at delaying proceedings, and the order of the trial court closing the defence evidence is proper and justified [Paras 4-6, 9].

Fair Trial – Right to Lead Defence Evidence vs. Timely Justice – While the right to lead defence evidence is a fundamental component of a fair trial, it cannot be used as a tool to delay justice – The petitioner’s repeated failure to comply with court orders to produce defence evidence demonstrated gross negligence, justifying the closure of his right to lead evidence [Paras 7, 9].

Judicial Responsibility – Addressing Adjournment Culture – Courts have a duty to discourage adjournments granted in a mechanical or routine manner, which harm the justice delivery system – Reiterating the principles in Ishwarlal Mali Rathod vs. Gopal, (2021) 12 SCC 612, the Court emphasized the need to avoid delays that erode public trust in the judicial process and undermine the rule of law [Paras 7-8].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Speedy Remedy Undermined by Delays – The petitioner’s dilatory tactics in a case under the Negotiable Instruments Act undermined the efficacy of the Act, which is designed to provide a speedy remedy – Held: The trial court rightly refused to tolerate delays that obstruct the purpose of the law [Para 10].

Decision: The criminal revision petition is dismissed, and the impugned order dated 21/12/2024, closing the petitioner’s right to lead defence evidence, is upheld.
 

Panchayat Law - Resignation of Upa-Sarpanch – Procedural Compliance under Section 34 and Rule 3 – Section 34(2) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act mandates that a resignation by the Upa-Sarpanch must be submitted to the Sarpanch and acknowledged in Form II as prescribed under Rule 3 of the Bombay Village Panchayat (Delivery of Notice of Resignation) Rules, 1965 – Held: Failure to comply with mandatory procedures, including acknowledgment of the resignation in Form II, rendered the resignation invalid. Mere signatures of witnesses to the resignation letter could not substitute strict compliance with the statutory methodology [Paras 14-17, 26-27, 29].

Dispute Regarding Genuineness of Resignation – Emphasis on Strict Compliance – Petitioner emphatically denied tendering the resignation letter and alleged forgery of his signature – Evidence revealed a lack of proper inquiry by the Collector and Divisional Commissioner into the manner of submission and acknowledgment of the resignation – Held: Without adherence to mandatory procedural requirements and proper inquiry into the allegations of forgery, the resignation could not be treated as valid [Paras 18-20, 23, 31].

Non-Compliance with Form II Acknowledgment – Impact on Effectiveness of Resignation – Rule 3(3) of the Bombay Village Panchayat (Delivery of Notice of Resignation) Rules requires acknowledgment in Form II for a resignation to take effect – Held: The absence of Form II acknowledgment and failure to identify the person who accepted the resignation letter violated statutory requirements, invalidating the resignation process [Paras 17-18, 26-27].

Judicial Precedents – Resignation under the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act – Mandatory Nature of Procedural Requirements – The Court invoked the principle in Taylor v. Taylor that when a statute prescribes a specific procedure for performing an act, it must be followed strictly – Held: Compliance with statutory provisions under Sections 29 and 34 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act and Rule 3 of the Resignation Rules is mandatory, especially when the resignation of an elected official is disputed [Paras 24-25, 28].

Right to Hold Elected Office – Democratic Principles and Judicial Oversight – Acceptance of resignation without adherence to mandatory procedures unseats a democratically elected representative, warranting strict judicial scrutiny – Held: The orders of the Collector and Divisional Commissioner rejecting the Petitioner’s challenge to his resignation were perverse and based on non-application of mind – Resignation deemed ineffective, and the Petitioner restored to the position of Upa-Sarpanch [Paras 30-32].

Decision: The Writ Petition was allowed with the following directions: The orders dated 24 October 2024 (Additional Collector, Nashik) and 10 December 2024 (Additional Divisional Commissioner, Nashik) were set aside. The Petitioner’s Dispute Application No. 51/2023 was allowed, holding that the alleged resignation dated 10 November 2023 had not taken effect.The Petitioner continues to hold the office of Upa-Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Rasegaon.

Bail Application – NDPS Act – Long Incarceration – Section 439 Cr.P.C – Sections 18, 21, 25, and 29 of NDPS Act – Petition filed seeking regular bail citing prolonged incarceration (over 2.5 years) and non-compliance with procedural requirements in the investigation – Held: Restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act are outweighed by the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution – Bail granted [Paras 40-43].

NDPS Act – Compliance with Section 52A – Delayed Sending of Samples – Procedural Irregularity – Delay of 13 days in sending samples for FSL analysis argued as violative of Standing Order 1/88 – Held: Delay is procedural and does not vitiate trial or automatically entitle the accused to bail – Subject to trial evaluation whether serious prejudice was caused to the accused [Paras 24-26].

Search Procedure – Section 50 NDPS Act – Compliance with Rights of Accused – Challenge on grounds that notice under Section 50 used "any" Magistrate instead of "nearest" Magistrate – Held: The word "any" does not negate compliance with Section 50 – Petitioner was adequately informed of rights and declined to exercise the option of being searched before a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer – Compliance upheld [Paras 28-30].

Non-Joinder of Independent Witnesses – Lack of Videography – Impact on Prosecution – Argument raised that no independent witnesses were included in the investigation despite the alleged apprehension occurring at a crowded location and no videography of the raid – Held: Non-joinder of witnesses is not fatal to the case, but the prosecution must justify this omission during trial – Combined absence of witnesses and videography raises a reasonable doubt, entitling the petitioner to the benefit during bail evaluation [Paras 31-34].

Right to Speedy Trial – Prolonged Incarceration – Petitioner incarcerated for over 2.5 years with no witnesses examined and trial unlikely to conclude soon – Held: Article 21 of the Constitution mandates a right to a speedy trial – Restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act cannot override this constitutional guarantee – Bail granted considering inordinate delay and absence of criminal antecedents under the NDPS Act [Paras 36-40].

Decision – Bail Granted – Petitioner directed to furnish a personal bond of ₹20,000 with a surety – Conditions imposed to ensure attendance at trial and prevent tampering with evidence – Observations not to affect the merits of the trial [Paras 42-44].

Suo Motu - Digital Arrest Scams – Modus Operandi – Psychological Manipulation and Technology Exploitation – Scammers posing as law enforcement officials deceive victims into believing they are under "digital arrest" for alleged crimes – Fraudsters employ psychological tactics like fear, urgency, and isolation while exploiting tools such as AI to mimic voices and counterfeit documents – Victims are coerced into paying money under threat of arrest – Held: These scams have no legal standing in India, and comprehensive measures are required to address this menace [Paras 2-7, 26].

International Best Practices – Collaborative Efforts – Legal and Technological Innovations to Combat Cybercrime – Various countries like Singapore, Australia, and the USA have adopted advanced technologies, public awareness campaigns, and legislative measures to combat such scams – Examples include AI-driven call blocking in Singapore and joint operations by INTERPOL and EUROPOL – Held: India must learn from these global practices to adopt robust measures for preventing digital arrest scams [Paras 10, 23].

Role of Government Agencies – Steps Taken and Directions Issued – Agencies such as I4C under the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), Reserve Bank of India (RBI), and State Governments have taken steps to address cybercrimes, including creating cybercrime hotlines, public awareness campaigns, and blocking fraudulent accounts – Directed: MHA and State Governments must submit detailed reports on steps taken to curb digital arrest scams – RBI and financial institutions must develop mechanisms to stop payments to scammers upon complaints [Paras 13-28].

Public Awareness Campaigns – Essential for Prevention – Court emphasized the need for mass awareness campaigns through print, electronic, and social media, as well as radio and television, to educate citizens about the non-existence of digital arrests in Indian law – Directed: Daily public campaigns must highlight that digital arrests are scams, and citizens should report such incidents immediately [Paras 9, 26].

Legal Framework and Financial Safeguards – Strengthening Mechanisms to Combat Fraud – Emphasized the use of Section 63 of BNSS for secure and verified electronic summons – Directed: RBI and National Payment Corporation of India (NPCI) to develop mechanisms to block fraudulent transactions upon receiving complaints – Importance of financial institutions acting promptly to safeguard victims’ funds [Paras 27-28].

Directions and Notices Issued – Multi-Stakeholder Coordination – Suo motu case registered, and notices issued to Union and State Governments, Reserve Bank of India, and other key agencies to file their responses on combating digital arrest scams – Directed: Central and State Governments to coordinate and take necessary steps to address the issue holistically – Matter referred to Hon’ble Chief Justice for listing before an appropriate Bench [Paras 29-33].
 

Service Law - Regularization of Contractual Employees – Applicability of 2003 Policy – Employees Entitled to Consideration – Petitioners, engaged on an ad-hoc, daily wage, or contractual basis for over two decades, sought regularization under the 2003 policy – The State argued that the policy was withdrawn in 2007 in compliance with Uma Devi (2006) – However, a 2014 notification restored the benefit to eligible employees who were denied regularization due to administrative reasons – Held: The State is bound by its 2014 notification – Petitioners eligible under the 2003 policy must be considered for regularization within six months – Arrears to be granted from the date of petition filing, without interest [Paras 26-30].

Regularization Under 2011 Policy – Marginal Shortfall in Service Period – Consideration Directed – Petitioners who fell short of the 10-year continuous service requirement by a few months were denied regularization under the 2011 policy – Held: The State should consider condoning shortfall of up to three months, subject to the outcome of pending Supreme Court litigation (SLP (C) No. 18374 of 2022) – If found eligible, petitioners are entitled to arrears from the petition filing date, without interest [Paras 31-34].

Regularization of Employees Already Regularized in 2014 – No Retrospective Benefit – Petitioners who accepted permanent appointments in 2014 after a walk-in interview sought retrospective regularization from 2003 – Held: These employees waived their earlier claims by accepting appointment terms and furnishing affidavits – They cannot now claim retrospective regularization – Relief denied [Paras 35-40].

Application of the Haryana Contractual Employees (Security of Service) Act, 2024 – Petitioners not eligible under 2003 or 2011 policies sought protection under the 2024 Act, which grants security of tenure until superannuation – Held: Petitioners to be considered under the 2024 Act for service continuation and benefits like gratuity and leave encashment [Paras 41(vii)].

State’s 2014 Notification – Inconsistent with Uma Devi (2006) – Requires Review – The Court noted that the 2014 notification contradicted the Uma Devi (2006) ruling, which prohibited backdoor regularization – However, given binding precedents from this Court, relief was granted to petitioners per existing notifications – The State may reconsider the notification’s validity in the future [Para 43].

Decision: No petitioner would be regularized as per the 1996 policy. The respondent shall consider and decide the claim of petitioners, within six months from today, who are claiming regularization as per the policy of 2003. If any of the petitioners is found eligible for regularization as per the policy of 2003, he shall be entitled to arrears from the date of filing the petition before this Court. The arrears shall not carry interest. If any petitioner has already retired, his/her pensionary benefits will also be fixed/revised apart from arrears from the date of filing the petition before this Court. It is made clear that this Court has not declared that the policy of 2003 is applicable to each instrumentality of the State Government. The competent authority of each organization would independently examine this aspect, and the employee would be granted an opportunity of hearing if any adverse opinion is formed.

Criminal Procedure – Recording of Second Statement under Section 164 CrPC – Legal Validity – The prosecutrix's father moved an application for recording her second statement under Section 164 CrPC, claiming that the earlier statement was false and implicating the applicant would amount to abuse of process – Held: While the law permits recording of multiple statements under Section 164 CrPC, such requests must not be used to negate or defeat the earlier statements, especially when not sponsored by the investigating agency – Application dismissed [Paras 6–10].

Section 164 CrPC – Role of Investigating Agency in Requesting Statements – Statements under Section 164 CrPC should ideally be recorded when sponsored by the investigating agency – Allowing unsponsored applications may derail the investigation and result in the misuse of the provision – Magistrates have discretion to reject such applications when unsupported by valid reasons – Held: The Trial Court rightly dismissed the application for recording the prosecutrix’s second statement [Paras 7–9].

Protection of 164 CrPC Statements – Sanctity of Evidence – Safeguards Against Misuse – Recording multiple statements under Section 164 CrPC should be exceptional and subject to proper safeguards – Repeated statements risk diluting the evidentiary value and sanctity of the process – Held: The Court must balance the legal rights of witnesses with the sanctity of investigation – The application for recording a second statement was rightly rejected by the Trial Court [Paras 6–10].

Judicial Caution – Statements Without Investigating Agency’s Sponsorship – Supreme Court Guidance – Following precedents from Jogendra Nahak v. State of Orissa and Ajay Kumar Parmar v. State of Rajasthan, the Court reiterated that Magistrates should exercise caution in recording unsponsored statements under Section 164 CrPC – Held: The Magistrate was justified in rejecting the unsponsored application, as the investigating agency did not support the request for the second statement [Paras 7–10].

Decision: The application under Section 482 CrPC is dismissed. The Trial Court's decision rejecting the application for recording the second statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 CrPC is upheld. The Court emphasized that statements under Section 164 CrPC must not be misused to negate earlier statements and should be recorded only in exceptional circumstances when supported by the investigating agency [Paras 10–11].