Criminal Law – Murder – Circumstantial Evidence – Appeal against conviction – Appellant (A1) convicted by Trial Court under Sections 302, 201, 420, 380, and 120-B IPC for the alleged murder of the deceased, his employer and relative – Allegation of staging accident using a car to eliminate deceased due to business rivalry – High Court found major contradictions in witness testimonies, missing crucial link in chain of circumstances – Prosecution failed to establish the seizure of the alleged crime vehicle (MO.1) at the instance of A1 – Hostile and unreliable witness (PW.21) and conflicting testimonies of PW.12 and PW.25 regarding vehicle repair and seizure – Delay and gaps in investigation, non-examination of key witnesses like the real car buyer, and discrepancies regarding the vehicle number and possession – Held: Prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 16 to 47].

Witness Testimony – Contradictions – PW.1 (wife of the deceased) alleged motive based on financial disputes and missing diary – PW.1's deposition found to be improved during trial compared to earlier statements to police – PW.2 and PW.4’s statements about disputes and missing diary also marked by improvements and contradictions – Evidence of PW.8 and PW.16 about alleged collection of Rs. 3 lakhs after the deceased’s death inconsistent and contradicted by their own depositions – Suspicion cannot substitute legal proof – Benefit of doubt granted [Paras 48 to 54].

Circumstantial Evidence – Seizure of MO.1 Vehicle – Seizure allegedly based on A1's confession – PW.21, one of the panch witnesses, turned hostile – PW.25’s version about seizure location contradicts prosecution case – PW.9 clarified that A1 was not the owner of the shop from where the car was allegedly seized – PW.13 testified that A1 had sold the car long before the incident – Delay in vehicle inspection and unexplained circumstances surrounding its possession raised serious doubt – Evidence insufficient to prove that MO.1 was used in the crime or linked to A1 – Held: Chain of circumstantial evidence incomplete [Paras 20 to 46].

Motive – Disputes regarding financial dealings, alleged recovery of Rs. 20 lakh, and alleged theft of diary – No documentary evidence submitted regarding loan to Madhusudhan Reddy or recovery from A1 – Failure to recover the diary or prove A1’s exclusive access to it – Alleged motive remained uncorroborated and speculative – Held: Absence of motive further weakens the prosecution case [Paras 48 to 54].

Principle of Law – Circumstantial Evidence – Reaffirmed that suspicion, however grave, cannot replace proof – The chain of circumstances must be complete and lead only to the hypothesis of guilt – Relying on Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra and Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam – Held: Prosecution failed to establish conclusive proof [Paras 55-56].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellant (A1) acquitted – Bail bonds discharged [Para 58].
 

Criminal Law – Dishonour of Cheque – Conviction under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act – Accused issued cheque for ₹5 lakh towards repayment of debt, which was dishonoured due to insufficient funds – Complainant issued legal notice but cheque remained unpaid – Trial Court convicted accused, sentenced him to 6 months simple imprisonment and fine – Appellate Court upheld conviction – Revision petition filed challenging conviction on various grounds including non-service of legal notice, invalidity of bank return memo, and absence of loan entries in income tax returns or account books – Held: Conviction valid [Paras 1-5].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Presumption of Legal Liability – Sections 118 and 139 – Statutory presumption of consideration arises when signature on cheque is admitted – Presumption is rebuttable, but accused failed to rebut by preponderance of probabilities – Accused merely claimed absence of loan in complainant's accounts but offered no credible evidence – Presumption of legally enforceable liability not displaced – Conviction upheld [Paras 12-20].

Income Tax Returns – Non-reflection of Loan – Non-mention of loan in income tax returns or account books does not invalidate debt – Held: Presumption under NI Act cannot be negated solely because loan is unaccounted in tax documents – Non-disclosure may invite action under tax laws but does not defeat complainant's case under Section 138 – Support drawn from Uttam Ram vs Devinder Singh Hudan and Ganga Prashad vs Lalit Kumar [Paras 18-22].

Service of Legal Notice – Validity – Registered Notice returned unclaimed – Presumption of valid service under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act applies – Non-service due to absence of accused at address does not invalidate notice – Complaint not rendered premature – Held: Accused had opportunity to pay after receiving court summons as well [Paras 23-25].

Bank Return Memo – Validity without Stamp – Section 146 NI Act – Return memo need not bear bank’s stamp if it carries official signature and branch details – Purpose is to relieve bank officers from entering witness box in every case – Return memo valid and admissible – Held: Objection to absence of stamp rejected [Paras 26-30].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Limits – Revisional Court cannot re-appreciate evidence to act as second appellate court – Held: Findings of conviction and sentence passed by Trial Court and affirmed by Appellate Court are based on correct appreciation of law and evidence – No jurisdictional error or perversity found – Revision dismissed [Paras 9-11, 32].

Conduct of Accused – Offer to Compound – Accused offered partial settlement post-conviction but withdrew when asked to pay fair amount considering interest since 2003 – Held: Conduct displays intent to evade liability rather than genuine defence – Supports prosecution version [Para 25].

Decision – Revision Petition Dismissed – Conviction and sentence confirmed – Trial Court directed to issue necessary warrants to secure custody of accused for serving sentence [Para 32].
 

Criminal Law - Quashing of Proceedings – Serious Non-Compoundable Offences – Sections 376 IPC and U.P. Conversion Act – Quashing Denied – Application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of proceedings on the basis of compromise between accused and victim – The Court reiterated that offences involving serious crimes like rape and unlawful religious conversion cannot be quashed merely because of a compromise – Such offences have a societal impact and are not just private disputes – Held: Quashing refused, proceedings to continue [Paras 15, 19, 31-38, 47-57]. 
 
Inherent Powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Scope and Limitations – Only to be Invoked in Exceptional Circumstances – The Court explained that while the High Court has wide powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., such powers must be exercised sparingly and not in cases involving heinous crimes – Compromises in such cases may be obtained by coercion or may undermine public confidence in justice delivery [Paras 17-20, 34-38, 47]. 
 
Religious Conversion and Consent – U.P. Conversion Prevention Act, 2020 – Conversion Without Free Will is Illegal – The Court highlighted that conversion for the purpose of marriage without genuine change of faith is illegal – Any such conversion prompted by coercion, allurement, or fraudulent means will not be protected by law – Held: Allegations under the U.P. Conversion Act are grave and proceedings cannot be quashed on compromise [Paras 49-56]. 
 
Compromise in Rape Cases – No Legal Sanctity – Cannot Override Public Interest – The Court firmly held that rape is an offence against society and not just an individual – Compromise or settlement between the accused and victim in rape cases cannot be a basis for quashing proceedings – Such offences must be adjudicated irrespective of any private settlement [Paras 38-45, 57]. 
 
Decision – Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Dismissed – The Court dismissed the application refusing to quash the charge-sheet and proceedings on the basis of compromise, considering the seriousness of allegations involving rape and unlawful conversion [Para 57]. 
 

Matrimonial Law - Permanent Alimony – Requirement of Formal Application – Mandatory – The Trial Court awarded permanent alimony to the respondent-wife under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act without there being any formal or oral application by the wife – Held: In view of binding precedents of Madhya Pradesh High Court, including Abhishek Parashar v. Neha Parashar, it is mandatory to have an express application for claiming permanent alimony – Such application may be through a separate application or incorporated in the written statement – Absence of such application renders the award unsustainable [Paras 5-11].

Conflicting Views Harmonized – Earlier Binding Precedents Prevail – The Court clarified that although certain judgments like Rituraj Singh and Dharmendra Tiwari held that no formal application is required, these were rendered per incuriam as they did not consider earlier binding precedents such as Jitbandhan and Chhaya Kshatriya – Applying the principle of judicial discipline, the Court followed the earlier binding view requiring a formal application for permanent alimony [Paras 9-10].

Assessment of Alimony – Relevant Factors – The Court reaffirmed the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Vinny Parmar v. Paramvir Parmar, highlighting that fixing of permanent alimony requires considering the financial status of both parties, conduct, needs, and standard of living – In the present case, no such assessment was done due to absence of a proper application [Para 12].

Final Decision – Decree for Alimony Set Aside – The order granting permanent alimony (Para 17(2) of the impugned judgment) was quashed – Matter concluded by modifying the decree accordingly [Para 13].
 

Criminal Law – Appeal against acquittal - Abetment of Suicide – Essentials of Section 306 IPC – Acquittal Upheld – The Court reiterated that mere harassment or disputes over financial transactions are insufficient to constitute abetment unless direct or indirect incitement to commit suicide is proved – The deceased had the option to seek recovery of debt legally – Absence of instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid by the accused – Ingredients of Section 306 IPC not satisfied [Paras 15-19].

Suicide Note – General Allegation Not Sufficient – The suicide note vaguely referred to harassment by Subhash and the police without naming any officer or detailing specific acts of abetment – No nexus between the alleged harassment and the act of suicide was established – Suicide due to loan dispute does not by itself constitute abetment [Paras 18-19].

Delay and Absence of Proof – No Evidence of Finance Business or Loan Transaction – The prosecution failed to prove that the deceased was actually running a finance business or that a loan was advanced to the accused – Absence of documentary or reliable oral evidence regarding the alleged debt transaction and threats – Defence plea of false implication accepted [Paras 18-19].

Temperament of Deceased – No Proof of Prudence or Instigation – No evidence produced by the prosecution to establish that the deceased was prudent and was compelled to commit suicide due to unbearable harassment – Suicide attributed to hypersensitivity rather than actionable abetment – Courts must be cautious to avoid penalizing routine disputes as abetment [Paras 17-19].

Final Decision – Revision Petition Dismissed – No merit found in the challenge to the judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court – Petition dismissed with no relief granted [Para 20].
 

NDPS Act – Compliance with Section 50 – Search Procedure Properly Followed – Bail Denied - The petitioner alleged non-compliance of Section 50 NDPS Act, claiming he was not informed about his right to be searched before the nearest Gazetted Officer or Magistrate – Court held that the petitioner was informed in English of his right under Section 50 and refused to avail it in writing – Referring to Supreme Court rulings, the Court held that “nearest” does not mandate proximity, only intent to ensure fair procedure – Thus, compliance with Section 50 was held to be sufficient [Paras 15-16].

Constructive Possession – Recovery from Rented Premises – Exclusive Possession Proven – Bail Rejected - Petitioner challenged the recovery of 205 gms of contraband from his rented room, arguing lack of exclusive possession – Court relied on landlord’s statement under Section 161 CrPC confirming petitioner was sole occupant of the room – Held: Recovery attributable to the petitioner – no benefit of doubt at bail stage [Paras 17-18].

Procedural Lapses – Sections 57 and 52A NDPS Act – Delay in Sampling Not Fatal – Procedural Irregularities Do Not Entitle Bail - Petitioner argued non-compliance of Sections 52A and 57 due to delay in presenting the accused and drawing of sample – Court held that such procedural irregularities are not grounds for bail unless serious prejudice is shown – Sampling conducted next day held permissible – Supported by Supreme Court judgments in NCB v. Kashif and UOI v. Mohan Lal [Paras 19, 22-25].

Presence of ACP – Non-Signing of Seizure Memo Not Material – No Ground for Bail - Petitioner contended the ACP’s presence was doubtful as his signature was not on seizure memo – Court rejected this, noting the seizure memo was signed by IO and witnesses and presence of ACP was otherwise established [Paras 20-21].

Section 37 NDPS Act – Commercial Quantity Recovery – Bail Denied – Petitioner in Custody Since 15.06.2023 – No Grounds Made Out to Satisfy Twin Conditions - Charges framed, trial ongoing, and commercial quantity of contraband recovered – No material before Court to infer petitioner is unlikely to reoffend or that case is prima facie not true – Bail application dismissed in view of Section 37 embargo [Paras 26-27].

Decision – Bail Application Dismissed – Commercial Quantity Recovery Attracts Section 37 NDPS Bar – Court found that the recovery from the petitioner’s person and exclusive rented premises amounted to commercial quantity – No procedural violations that would vitiate the trial were made out – Held: No case for bail is made out under the stringent conditions of Section 37 – Application dismissed [Para 27].
 

Land Acquisition – Apportionment Dispute – Collector’s Refusal to Refer Case – Quashed – Petitioner Claimed Share in Ancestral Property - The petitioner, asserting a claim through lineage from a common ancestor, challenged the Sub-Divisional Officer’s order disbursing ₹34 crore compensation without referring the apportionment dispute to the authority under Section 35 MIDC Act – Held: Petitioner’s interest could not be dismissed as frivolous merely due to lack of interim relief or absence in revenue records [Paras 5, 20-22, 41-44].

Section 35 MIDC Act – Discretionary Power to Refer Disputes – Not Absolute – Collector Must Refer Disputes in Case of Competing Claims – The High Court held that while Section 35 uses the term “may,” discretion must be exercised judiciously—if a genuine apportionment dispute exists, Collector is obliged to refer – Decision of SDO in refusing reference without proper consideration of rival claims held to be perverse [Paras 38-40, 44-45].

Judicial Function of Apportionment – SDO Not Competent to Decide Complex Ownership Issues – Reference Mandatory - Referring to Vinod Kumar v. District Magistrate and Rukminibai v. Krishnath, the Court reiterated that apportionment involves valuation of extinguished interests and must be decided by a judicial authority, not by revenue officers or the Collector/SDO [Paras 30-35, 37-39].

Revenue Records – Not Determinative of Title – Premature Disbursal Based on Survey Entries Invalid – SDO Erred - Court held SDO placed undue emphasis on names in revenue records and absence of injunction from civil suit—this approach ignored the genealogical linkage and pending partition suit, which established at least a prima facie claim [Paras 43, 44].

Direction to Refer – Writ of Mandamus Issued – Authority to Decide Apportionment – SDO Directed to Transfer Funds - Court directed the SDO to refer the apportionment dispute to the designated authority under Section 35 of MIDC Act within one month and deposit the compensation amount along with accrued interest—authority to decide entitlement of each party in accordance with law [Paras 55-57].

Decision – Writ Petitions Allowed – SDO’s Order Set Aside – Apportionment Dispute to Be Referred to Competent Authority – High Court held refusal to refer dispute was based on irrelevant considerations—directed SDO to forward compensation amount to authority for adjudication and equitable apportionment—Rule made absolute [Paras 55-60].

Civil Law – Mortgage by Conditional Sale – Redemption – Appellant filed a suit for redemption of mortgage and possession of land mortgaged by his father – Trial court and First Appellate Court dismissed the suit treating the document (Ex.P/1) as an absolute sale deed – High Court held that Ex.P/1 is a "Shartiya Farokhtnama" i.e., mortgage by conditional sale – Substantial question of limitation resolved in favor of appellant as redemption period is 30 years under Article 61(a) of Limitation Act – Suit filed within limitation – Appellant being Karta of Hindu Undivided Family is competent to file suit alone without impleading other heirs – Estoppel under Section 115 of Evidence Act not applicable [Paras 1-40].

Mortgage Deed – Nature of Document – Courts below erred in construing Ex.P/1 as an absolute sale ignoring clear recital of condition of redemption within five years – Comparison with contemporaneous transactions showed Ex.P/1 was not an outright sale but a mortgage – Consideration amount disproportionate to area compared to other sale deeds suggesting mortgage nature – Courts failed to apply Section 58(c) of Transfer of Property Act defining mortgage by conditional sale [Paras 17-19].

Limitation – Period for Redemption – Suit for redemption governed by Article 61(a) of Limitation Act – Period of limitation is 30 years from the date of right to redeem accrued – Right accrued on 17.03.1974, suit filed in 2002 well within limitation – Courts below erred in applying 3 years limitation treating transaction as sale [Paras 29-33].

Locus Standi – Right of Karta – Appellant as Karta of Joint Hindu Family entitled to sue alone – Non-joinder of brothers does not affect maintainability – No objection raised by other heirs – Courts below wrongly held suit defective for non-joinder [Paras 34].

Estoppel – Applicability – Doctrine of estoppel under Section 115 of Evidence Act not applicable where transaction adjudged as mortgage and suit within limitation – Redemption right cannot be estopped [Paras 35].

Decision: Second Appeal allowed – Judgments and decrees of Trial Court and First Appellate Court set aside – Suit decreed for redemption and possession – Respondent directed to execute redemption deed on payment of Rs. 11,000/- within stipulated period – Parties to bear their own costs [Paras 40-41].

Limitation – Applicability of Extended Limitation due to COVID-19 – Petition and Appeal held to be within time - Appellant’s original petition filed during the Covid-19 limitation relaxation period as per Supreme Court directions – The Appeal filed within 90 days as provided by Section 28(4) of the Hindu Marriage Act was also within limitation despite Section 19(3) of Family Courts Act prescribing a shorter limitation – Appeal held to be maintainable [Paras 15-23].

Customary Divorce – Burden of Proof – Customary Divorce not Proved – Respondent failed to lead any documentary or oral evidence to establish customary divorce from first wife as required under Section 29(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act – Mere pleading without proof rejected – The Trial Court erred in not framing an issue regarding the existence and validity of customary divorce – Appellant entitled to succeed on this ground [Paras 24-39].

Impleadment of First Wife – Rule 8 of the Rules Under Hindu Marriage Act – Impleadment Not Mandatory – Court held that the first wife need not be impleaded as a co-respondent since the question was one of legal validity of marriage and not of her personal rights – The Trial Court's reliance on non-impleadment was misplaced – Appellant’s petition not defective for want of co-respondent [Paras 40-52].

Maintenance/Alimony – Maintainability of Claim by Second Wife – Though Appellant did not press for alimony, Court clarified that second wife is entitled to claim maintenance under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act even where the marriage is declared void – Reference made to Sukhdev Singh v. Sukhbir Kaur, 2025 INSC 197 – The Trial Court’s contrary view was incorrect [Para 53].

Offence of Rape – Misconception of Marriage – Respondent liable under Section 375 IPC / Section 63 BNS – Consent of appellant obtained on mistaken belief of valid marriage – Respondent’s conduct falls under ‘Fourthly’ clause of Section 375 IPC and Section 63(d)(iv) of BNS – Appellant’s mistaken belief of lawful marriage proved – Respondent committed rape punishable under Section 375/376 IPC and corresponding BNS provisions [Paras 54-58].

Desertion – Respondent’s Conduct Amounts to Desertion – Respondent failed to prosecute his restitution petition and remained unrepresented before the High Court despite due service – Court concluded that Respondent deserted the appellant and wilfully abstained from proceedings [Paras 59-62].

Trial Court Judgment – Improper Appreciation of Evidence – Judgment Set Aside – Trial Court wrongly presumed appellant’s knowledge of first marriage, failed to frame necessary issues, and misapplied rules on maintenance and impleadment – Findings were contrary to settled law and unsupported by evidence – Impugned order dated 19.11.2024 set aside and appeal allowed [Paras 63-72].