Criminal Law - Murder and Criminal Conspiracy - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Sections 302, 307, 379, 120B and 34 - Appellants Paulus Surin and Jetha Kachhap challenged the Trial Court judgment convicting them for the murder of Bhushan Singh and Ram Govind Singh by PLFI extremists - Prosecution alleged that Surin, a local MLA, conspired with extremists to kill the deceased because the deceased was acting as a police spy and was involved in a rape case - Jetha Kachhap was identified as one of the shooters - Trial Court relied on the testimony of PW-1 and PW-4 and a statement by Kachhap under Section 164 CrPC - High Court found that PW-1 and PW-4 were actually inside their house during the firing and only reached the spot after the miscreants fled - Identification of the appellants was based on photographs shown previously and was not credible - Alleged previous threats were not corroborated by independent witnesses - Held - Identification of appellants as perpetrators was not proved beyond reasonable doubt - Conviction set aside - Appeals allowed - [Paras 1-24].

Evidence Law - Criminal Conspiracy - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Section 120B - Proof and Acquittal of Co-conspirators - Appellant Surin was convicted for conspiracy while all other alleged co-conspirators named in the FIR were acquitted by the Trial Court - High Court observed that the prosecution case was based on simple suspicion without concrete facts proving a meeting of minds - A letter from 2011 regarding threats was found to be stale and lacked a causal connection to the 2013 incident - Held - An individual cannot be attributed to entering into a conspiracy with himself in the absence of other persons - Charge of conspiracy failed - [Paras 15, 18-20].

Evidence Law - Confessional Statement - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 164 - Exculpatory nature - Prosecution relied on the statement of appellant Jetha Kachhap recorded before a Magistrate - High Court noted the statement was exculpatory as it did not admit involvement in the firing but merely placed the appellant at a distance - Procedural safeguards regarding voluntariness and time for reflection were not followed - Held - An exculpatory statement cannot be treated as a confession of guilt or used as evidence against the maker or co-accused - [Paras 15, 18].

Criminal Law - Ocular Evidence - Reliability - PW-1 claimed to have seen the firing while playing cards - Evidence surfaced showing 35 bullet marks on the wall of the house where PW-1 fled - High Court found it impossible for PW-1 to have fled safely from the chabutra to the house under such heavy firing - Held - Factual scenario indicates witnesses were already inside the house and did not witness the actual commencement of the crime - Evidence of identification is unreliable - [Paras 13, 15, 18].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court set aside – Appellants acquitted of all charges and directed to be released forthwith.

Civil Law - Real Estate - Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act 2016 - Section 58 - Second Appeal - Appellant developer challenged order of Haryana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal enhancing interest period for delayed possession - Possession was due in 2016 but offered in 2022 - RERA Authority granted interest until July 2022 - Appellate Tribunal extended period to October 2023 based on evidence of incomplete work - Appellant contended Tribunal wrongly relied on email showing partial work - High Court observed that filing of complaint post-offer indicated incompleteness - Held - The dispute regarding completeness of the flat on a specific date is a pure question of fact - No substantial question of law arose for consideration - Appeal dismissed - [Paras 1-9].

Civil Law - Substantial Question of Law - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 100 - Fact-finding - Appellant sought to challenge factual finding regarding completion status of property - High Court held that under Section 58 of RERA Act read with Section 100 CPC an appeal lies only on a substantial question of law - Determination of whether a flat was complete in all respects is a pure factual inquiry - Held - Absent a substantial question of law the court cannot interfere with the findings of the Appellate Tribunal - [Paras 7-8].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – The challenge to the Appellate Tribunal's findings of fact regarding property completion was rejected as it did not raise any substantial question of law.

Criminal Law - Murder - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Sections 302 and 34 - Arms Act 1959 - Section 25 - Appellants convicted for the murder of deceased while he was sleeping in front of his gher - Prosecution case based on testimony of brother (PW-1) and mother (PW-2) as eyewitnesses - Trial Court convicted appellants and sentenced them to life imprisonment - High Court observed material contradictions between ocular testimony and medical evidence - Eyewitnesses claimed two shots were fired by two accused while post-mortem report by PW-6 confirmed only one gunshot entry wound - Conduct of PW-1 found unnatural as he claimed to be sleeping on the same two-feet wide cot with the deceased but his clothes remained free of bloodstains - Identification of accused at 2:15 AM under alleged illegal electricity from a distant temple found doubtful - Recoveries of country-made pistols (tamanchas) were made from open fields accessible to the public ten days after the incident - Ballistic report failed to link the recovered weapons with the bullet found in the deceased's body - Held - Prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt due to unreliable eyewitness testimony and lack of forensic link - Conviction set aside - Appellants acquitted - [Paras 1-53].

Evidence Law - Ocular vs Medical Evidence - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 3 - Conflict regarding number of injuries - Eyewitnesses PW-1 and PW-2 explicitly stated that two accused persons fired shots at the deceased - Medical officer PW-6 found only one firearm injury on the body - Ratio in Khambham Raja Reddy v. Public Prosecutor (2006) 11 SCC 239 applied - Ocular testimony that cannot be reconciled with medical evidence regarding the number of injuries creates reasonable doubt - Held - Inconsistency between ocular and medical evidence renders the prosecution version suspicious and unworthy of credit - [Paras 39-42].

Evidence Law - Recovery of Weapon - Arms Act 1959 - Section 25 - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 27 - Recovery of weapons from open and accessible areas - Weapons recovered ten days after incident from a maize field and under a Jamun tree - Forensic examination showed the cartridge found at the spot was not fired from the recovered weapon - Held - Mere recovery of an incriminating article is insufficient to establish guilt unless the article is directly connected with the commission of the crime - Recovery from open fields accessible to everyone raises doubt regarding genuineness and suggests potential planting by police - [Paras 43-47].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Judgment and order of conviction dated 02.06.2022 set aside – Appellants acquitted of all charges – Direction issued for immediate release of appellants from jail.

Criminal Law - Prevention of Corruption - Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 - Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) - Disproportionate Assets - Appellants husband and wife both public servants - Prosecution alleged acquisition of assets worth Rs 44,79,283.32 disproportionate to known sources of income during the check period 01.03.2000 to 30.01.2008 - Trial Court convicted appellants and sentenced them to two years rigorous imprisonment with fine - High Court observed that the initial check period in FIR was 2001-2008 but was later altered to 2000-2008 without giving the accused an opportunity to explain properties acquired in the extended period - Investigating Officer failed to consider legal sources including bank loans from IDBI and Central Bank of India and rental income supported by statutory documents like Form 16 and Income Tax returns - Evidence showed properties were gifted by relatives which was ignored by the prosecution - Held - Prosecution failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt as the Investigating Officer did not conduct a proper enquiry into the rendered accounts - Conviction and sentence set aside - [Paras 1-28].

Criminal Law - Investigation Procedure - Opportunity to Explain - Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 - Section 13(1)(e) - Statutory Requirement - Public servant must be given an opportunity to account for pecuniary resources or property - Investigating Officer failed to call for explanation after altering the check period - Selection of assessment period without considering anterior legal income is arbitrary - Held - Failure to give an opportunity to the accused to explain disproportionate wealth is fatal to the prosecution - [Paras 19-23].

Criminal Law - Evidence Law - Burden of Proof - Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 - Section 13(1)(e) - Possession vs Account - Primary burden lies on the prosecution to establish that the public servant was in possession of disproportionate assets - Burden shifts to accused to satisfactorily account for the same only after prosecution discharges its initial burden - Held - In the absence of proof of allegation the public servant cannot be compelled to furnish an explanation - [Paras 21-25].

Criminal Law - Investigation Standards - Calculation of Expenditure - Standing Instructions - Investigating Officer deducted one-third of the gross salary for household expenditure - High Court held that investigating agency cannot be allowed to deduct one-third as a matter of routine - In the interest of justice only 10 percent of gross salary should be deducted under the head of kitchen expenses as per standing instructions - Held - Investigating Officer failed to follow proper norms for quantifying unverifiable expenditure - [Paras 22-26].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of the Trial Court set aside – Appellants acquitted of all charges – Fine amount to be refunded – Bail bonds cancelled.

Civil Law - Hindu Undivided Family - Hindu Law - General Principles - Proof of Nucleus - Plaintiffs sought interim injunction claiming suit properties belonged to Jotumal HUF based on 1956 partnership dissolution deed - Alleged subsequent acquisitions in 1973 and 1978 were from joint family funds - Court found no evidence of continuing ancestral fund or flow of money from 1956 nucleus to later acquisitions - Held - Legal position settled that mere existence of joint family does not lead to presumption of joint property - Burden lies on person asserting HUF character to first establish existence of joint family nucleus of sufficient strength and further demonstrate reasonable nexus between such nucleus and acquisition of properties - Plaintiffs failed to produce books of account or income tax records - Case founded on inference and conjecture - Prima facie case not established - [Paras 43-48, 59-62].

Civil Law - Pleadings - Inconsistent Pleas - Destructive Pleas - Plaintiffs simultaneously asserted that properties were HUF assets and alternatively claimed title via mother's registered Will - Court observed that these foundations are fundamentally destructive of each other - If properties were truly coparcenary the mother could not claim absolute testamentary authority over them - Conversely if rights flow under a Will the premise is that properties were self-acquired and capable of testamentary disposition - Held - Plaintiffs cannot approach the Court with mutually inconsistent and destructive pleas - Such approach weakens credibility at interlocutory stage - Interim protection cannot be granted on such basis - [Paras 50-52, 63].

Civil Law - Partition - Necessary Parties - Non-joinder - Plaintiffs sought partition of HUF property originating from common ancestor Jotumal but impleaded only the branch of Newandram - Contended other branches were not necessary - Held - If properties belong to an HUF originating from a common ancestor any adjudication regarding its existence and assets would affect every branch - Every branch claiming through the common ancestor is a necessary party - Partition of only one branch of an alleged larger HUF is conceptually incompatible with the foundation of Hindu law - [Paras 12, 53-55].

Civil Law - Interim Injunction - Prima Facie Case - Balance of Convenience - Application for protective relief against third-party purchasers of a flat - Plaintiffs alleged fraud in a 2017 Gift Deed but challenged it only in 2025 - No explanation for delay - Held - Jurisdiction to grant interim injunction cannot be exercised on speculative or conjectural claims - Plaintiffs failed to cross the threshold of establishing a credible and legally sustainable prima facie right - Balance of convenience tilts in favour of title holders rather than restraining them on unsubstantiated claims - Interim application dismissed - [Paras 56-58, 61-63].

Decision: Interim Application dismissed – No order as to costs.

Civil Law - Commercial Suits - Commercial Courts Act 2015 - Section 12A - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order VII Rule 11 and Order VIII Rule 6A - Pre-institution Mediation for Counter-claims - Appellant-defendant filed a counter-claim in a pending commercial suit - Original suit by Respondents was filed without pre-institution mediation citing urgent interim relief - Respondents sought rejection of counter-claim under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for failing to independently comply with Section 12A CC Act - Trial Court rejected the counter-claim relying on Aditya Birla Fashion - Appellant contended that counter-claims are not suits under Section 12A and are intended to avoid multiplicity - High Court observed that Section 12A is mandatory as per Patil Automation unless urgent relief is sought - Court held that a counter-claim is a cross-suit and theoretically falls under Section 12A - However a rigid application is avoided if disputes were previously disclosed in a prior mediation process - In this case no mediation occurred for the main suit and counter-claim issues were never subjected to statutory resolution attempts - Held - Rejection of counter-claim for non-compliance with Section 12A upheld - appeal dismissed - [Paras 1-36].

Civil Law - Interpretation of Statutes - Commercial Courts Act 2015 - Section 12A - Definition of Suit - Scope of Counter-claim - Appellant argued that the term suit in Section 12A excludes counter-claims - Court held that the scheme of CPC recognizes counter-claims as cross-suits with incidents of independent actions - The objective of Section 12A is to afford parties a meaningful opportunity for amicable resolution before adversarial litigation - Held - Counter-claims are amenable to the mandate of Section 12A to further the legislative object of the CC Act - [Paras 27-29].

Civil Law - Mediation - Commercial Courts Act 2015 - Section 12A - Duplication of Process - Court examined if every counter-claim requires separate mediation - Held - Where counter-claim disputes were already part of or disclosed during a prior Section 12A mediation for the main suit a second round is not required as it would delay adjudication - Conversely if no mediation occurred or the specific counter-claim disputes were never disclosed independent compliance with Section 12A is mandatory before instituting the counter-claim - [Paras 15-22].

Civil Law - Limitation and Procedure - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order VIII Rule 6A - Commercial Courts Act 2015 - Section 12A - Impact on timelines - Appellant argued that mediation timelines could exceed the limit for filing written statements - Court held this is a misreading of Order VIII Rule 6A - Counter-claims need not always accompany the written statement - Section 12A provides for exclusion of mediation period for limitation purposes - Held - Defendant right to file a counter-claim is not defeated by requiring recourse to mediation - [Paras 28-30].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – The order of the Commercial Court rejecting the counter-claim for non-compliance with Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act 2015 is affirmed.

Criminal Law - Vicarious Liability of Directors - Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 - Sections 138 and 141 - Quashing of prosecution - Accused company OSIA Hyper Retail Limited entered into sale and purchase agreement with complainant for supply of agricultural produce - Cheques issued for discharge of liability were dishonoured for insufficient funds - Complainant initiated five cases against the company and its directors who were husband and wife - Petitioner-wife Kavitha Chopra sought quashing on grounds that she was a non-signatory director not involved in day-to-day management - Petitioner-husband Dhirendra Chopra sought quashing where he was not a signatory to specific cheques - High Court analyzed extensive jurisprudence on Section 141 NI Act - Held - Vicarious liability is a departure from the general rule of criminal law and must be strictly construed - Merely being a Director does not automatically attract liability - Complaint must contain clear and specific averments demonstrating that the director was in charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of its business at the time of the offence - Managing Director or Joint Managing Director is presumed to be in charge by virtue of office but other directors require specific allegations of involvement - Repetition of statutory language like a mantra is not mandatory if the substance of the complaint discloses necessary facts - Administrative roles are within special knowledge of the company and directors must establish they were not in charge during trial if specific averments exist - Proceedings against wife quashed due to absence of specific role attribution and her non-signatory status - Proceedings against husband sustained as he was Managing Director and signatory - [Paras 1-54].

Criminal Law - Joint Account Holder Liability - Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 - Section 138 - Signatory requirement - One petition involved a cheque issued from a joint account of husband and wife - Cheque was not signed by the wife - Held - A joint account holder cannot be prosecuted under Section 138 unless they have actually signed the cheque - Principle of vicarious liability under Section 141 does not apply to individuals in their personal capacity regarding joint accounts - Culpability is attached only to the drawer who signs the instrument - [Paras 10-53].

Decision: Criminal petitions by Kavitha Chopra allowed – Proceedings in C.C. Nos. 13525/2025, 13260/2025, and 13527/2025 quashed – Criminal petitions by Dhirendra Chopra dismissed – Pending applications disposed.

Writ Law - Land Acquisition - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 - Section 94 - Acquisition of part of house or building - Petitioner owned 2.05 Ares of land in Sy. No. 20/5 of Alappuzha West Village along with a building - Government notified 1.65 Ares for widening Shavakotta Bridge leaving behind 40 Square Metres of triangular land - Petitioner requested acquisition of the entire plot on 18.04.2022 claiming the leftover portion would be of no practical use - Special Tahsildar rejected the request via Ext.P7 communication stating that the balance land was not required as per the current project alignment - Possession was subsequently taken and an award was passed only for the notified portion - High Court observed that Section 94(1) contains a statutory prohibition against acquiring only a part of any house or building if the owner desires the whole to be acquired - Court found that while no specific rule prescribes the stage for expressing such desire the petitioner had submitted objections well before possession was taken - Held - The option under Section 94 is available to the person losing the land and is not an option for the Requisitioning Authority - The Authority cannot refuse acquisition of the entire property on the grounds that the balance is not required for the project - Action of respondents in taking possession without referring the question to the appropriate authority was contrary to law - Ext.P7 set aside - District Collector directed to refer the question regarding the balance land to the appropriate authority within six weeks - [Paras 1-6].

Writ Law - Statutory Procedure - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 - Section 94(1) Proviso - Reference to Authority - Petitioner raised a question regarding the acquisition of the whole building before possession was taken - Collector proceeded to take possession and pass an award without making a reference - Held - Proviso to Section 94(1) mandates that if a question arises whether land forms part of a house or building the Collector shall refer the matter for determination and shall not take possession until the question is determined - Failure to refer the matter and taking possession for the notified extent alone was clearly against statutory provisions - [Paras 4-6].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Ext.P7 set aside – District Collector Alappuzha directed to refer the question regarding the balance land of 40 Square Metres to the appropriate authority within six weeks – Authority directed to decide the reference within four months after hearing the petitioner.

Criminal Law - Framing of Charge - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Sections 302 and 304 - Petitioners challenged the order framing charges for murder by strangulation - Complainant alleged the deceased was strangulated by the first petitioner while others held him - Medical reports and post-mortem examination showed no injuries on the neck of the deceased - Board of Doctors opined the cause of death was failure of heart and lung functions sufficient in the ordinary course of nature - Petitioners moved an application for discharge - Trial Court passed an order framing charges without adverting to the medical evidence or the specific contentions in the discharge application - High Court found the impugned order to be mechanical and non-speaking - Held - The trial Court was duty bound to record sufficient reasons to establish a prima facie case before taking cognizance - Order and charge sheet set aside and remanded for a fresh speaking order - [Paras 1-10].

Criminal Law - Requirement of Reasons - Speaking Order - Judicial Precedents - Judicial and quasi-judicial orders must indicate the application of judicial mind - Reasons serve as the live link between the mind of the decision maker and the conclusion arrived at - Failure to provide reasons amounts to a denial of justice and renders the decision inscrutable for appellate review - The trial Court cannot frame charges based on suspicion alone and must record findings that the material on record justifies the framing of charge - Held - The impugned order lacked the necessary legal reasoning and failed to appreciate the conflict between oral testimony and medical evidence - [Paras 8-10].

Decision: Revision petition allowed – Impugned order and charge sheet dated 10.01.2023 set aside – Matter remanded to the trial Court to pass a fresh speaking and well-reasoned order after considering all material on record