Criminal Law - Conviction under Section 366A IPC – Assessment of Evidence – Lack of Corroboration – Prosecution relied on inconsistent statements by witnesses and failed to present corroborative evidence from independent witnesses or reliable medical findings – Held: Inconsistencies in testimony of the victim (PW-1) and informant (PW-2) undermine the prosecution’s case. No injuries were reported on the victim’s body, and the victim's age was determined to be on the borderline of adulthood, further complicating the charge of procuration of a minor girl [Paras 17-19].

Credibility of Prosecution Case – Eyewitnesses Not Examined – The prosecution failed to examine critical eyewitnesses, including school staff and students, despite the alleged abduction occurring in broad daylight outside a school – Held: Non-examination of key witnesses raises serious doubts about the reliability of the prosecution’s case [Para 19].

Ante-Dated FIR and Informant's Knowledge – Question of Reliability – FIR appeared ante-dated as the informant (PW-2) claimed to file the report based on details shared by the victim the day after the alleged incident. Further, the informant admitted he did not know the accused personally before filing the complaint – Held: Such discrepancies render the prosecution’s case untrustworthy [Para 18].

Age Determination of the Victim – Borderline Case – The medical board opined the victim’s age to be between 17 and 18 years, with no evidence conclusively establishing her as a minor – Held: Lack of clarity on age undermines the applicability of Section 366A IPC [Paras 8, 19].

Outcome: Prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted of all charges [Para 20].

Decision: Judgment and Sentence Set Aside. Conviction under Section 366A IPC quashed. Sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and fine of ₹1,000/- annulled. Acquittal and Discharge of Bail Bonds. The appellant is acquitted of all charges. Appeal Allowed:
 

Arbitration – Interim Relief – Security for Disputed Amount – Section 9, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Petitioner sought interim relief to secure Rs. 156.75 crores against Make-Up Gas owed under GSPA, alleging respondents’ inability to supply due to reduced gas production – Respondents claimed non-performance due to Force Majeure (FM) and expiration of GSPA and Production Sharing Contract (PSC) – Held: A strong prima facie case existed as GSPA’s restoration period was nearing expiration, and petitioner had paid Rs. 197.13 crores without full adjustment – Respondents directed to provide solvent security to secure the disputed amount [Paras 41-62].

Force Majeure – Validity and Invocation – Non-Compliance with Procedural Clauses – Respondents invoked FM under GSPA due to adverse reservoir behavior – Petitioner challenged FM citing lack of timely notice and failure to meet conditions under Clauses 7.5 and 7.7 of GSPA – Held: FM claim requires proof of adherence to procedural requirements, which is to be evaluated by the arbitral tribunal – Court refrained from delving into substantive merits at interim stage [Paras 54-56].

Attachment of Assets – Applicability of Order XXXVIII Rule 5 CPC – Foreign Respondents – Risk of Enforcement Challenges – Court noted respondents’ assets were inadequately detailed and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were foreign entities – Risk of irrecoverable arbitral award recognized – Held: Ingredients of Order XXXVIII Rule 5 CPC satisfied – Respondents directed to provide solvent security to prevent dissipation of assets [Paras 60-62].

Decision: Petition allowed – Respondent No. 1 directed to secure Rs. 157.75 crores through bank guarantee or unencumbered immovable assets within two weeks – Observations limited to interim relief without prejudice to arbitral tribunal’s findings [Paras 62-64].
 

Matrimonial Law – Divorce - Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act – Divorce on Grounds of Cruelty – Appeal Dismissed – Decree Affirmed – The appellant-wife challenged the decree of divorce granted to the respondent-husband under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act – Respondent had alleged physical abuse, defamatory complaints to employer and mental harassment – Appellant in turn alleged desertion and false allegations – Both parties accused each other of adultery but failed to prove the same – Family Court accepted the respondent's claims of cruelty based on audio recordings, medical evidence and uncontested complaints – Held: Repeated defamatory complaints, especially to the respondent’s employer, amounted to cruelty – Long separation and irretrievable breakdown of marriage further justified dissolution – Appeal dismissed [Paras 5–6, 27–34, 38–45].

Mental Cruelty – Complaints to Employer – Defamatory Allegations – Cruelty Established – Appellant made multiple complaints against the respondent to his employer and various public authorities including false allegations of adultery – Held: Such conduct intended to damage reputation and professional standing constitutes cruelty – The Family Court rightly relied on Joydeep Majumdar v. Bharti Jaiswal Majumdar and other precedents to hold that complaints made with malicious intent or reckless disregard for truth amount to mental cruelty [Paras 31–34, 36–37].

Electronic Evidence – Admissibility of CDs – Family Court Procedure – Appellant contested admissibility of CDs on grounds of non-compliance with Section 65-B(4) of Evidence Act – Held: Under Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, strict rules of evidence not mandatory – CDs supported by corroborative oral and medical evidence – Evidence rightly relied upon by the Family Court [Paras 20, 39].

Allegations of Adultery – Mutual – Not Proved – Appellant and respondent both accused each other of extramarital affairs – Neither side produced credible evidence to prove such claims – Held: Family Court correctly concluded that adultery allegations remained unsubstantiated and irrelevant to cruelty findings [Paras 28–30].

Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage – Long Separation Considered – Parties have been living separately for over 15 years – Court held that prolonged acrimonious litigation and absence of cohabitation supported the finding of cruelty and justified decree of divorce – Cited Rakesh Raman v. Kavita and Shankar Routh v. Soma Dutta in support [Paras 40–44].

Decision:

Appeal Dismissed – The Court upheld the decree of divorce granted by the Family Court – Held that the respondent had established cruelty by way of sustained defamatory conduct by the appellant – The Family Court rightly exercised jurisdiction and appreciated evidence – Separation of over 15 years showed irretrievable breakdown – Appeal devoid of merit and dismissed [Paras 44–46].

Rejection of Plaint – Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Scope and Applicability – Dismissal of plaint inappropriate – Trial Court erred in dismissing the suit based on additional parties and revised pleadings under the guise of formal defects – Held: Pleas of respondents required adjudication through evidence, not summary rejection of the plaint [Paras 33-35].

Liberty to File Fresh Suit – Order XXIII Rule 1(3) CPC – Formal Defect – Revision of parties and pleadings permissible – Pune Court granted unequivocal liberty to file a fresh suit due to lack of jurisdiction – Liberty extends to addressing formal defects without altering the subject matter or cause of action [Paras 28-30].

Misjoinder and Non-Joinder of Parties – Not Grounds for Rejection – New parties added to avoid multiplicity of proceedings – Courts must prioritize substantive justice over procedural technicalities – Held: Addition of parties did not change the fundamental nature or subject matter of the suit [Paras 31-32].

Decision – Impugned order rejecting plaint set aside – Parties directed to appear before District Judge for further proceedings – Suit to be examined for placement before Commercial Division [Para 36].
 

Criminal Law - Dying Declaration – Reliability and Fit Mental Condition – The conviction was based solely on the dying declaration recorded by a medical officer and Dehati Nalishi, both allegedly made by the deceased. However, there was no certification of the deceased’s mental fitness by a medical professional, and prosecution witnesses stated the deceased was not in a condition to make a statement – Held: The dying declaration was unreliable, and the lack of corroboration further weakened its evidentiary value [Paras 14-18].

Contradictions in Prosecution Evidence – Location and Time of Incident – The dying declaration (Ex. P/10) and Dehati Nalishi (Ex. P/12) provided conflicting accounts regarding the location of the incident and time of occurrence – Held: The inconsistencies created serious doubts about the veracity of the prosecution’s case and rendered the evidence unreliable [Paras 17-18].

Plea of Alibi – Proof Through Evidence – The appellant claimed he was in Guna at the time of the incident and presented call records, tower locations, and testimonies of witnesses to prove his presence elsewhere – Held: The defence proved the plea of alibi to the court’s satisfaction, and the trial court erred in discarding this evidence without cogent reasons [Paras 24-27].

Credibility of Defence Witnesses – Equal Weight to Defence Evidence – Defence witnesses, including public servants, corroborated the appellant’s alibi. Their testimony could not be discarded without valid reasons – Held: Defence evidence should be given equal treatment and weight as that of the prosecution if free from infirmities [Paras 28-29].

Conviction and Sentence – Doubts About Guilt – The prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and the trial court erred in holding the appellant guilty without credible evidence – Held: The appellant was entitled to the benefit of the doubt, and the conviction and sentence were set aside [Paras 29-30].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 302 and 449 IPC set aside. The appellant is directed to be released forthwith unless required in any other case [Paras 30-32].

Civil Law - Trust Property – Reversionary Rights of the Trust – Section 19(b) of the Shri Ganpati Panchayat Sansthan Act, 1940 – Land granted by the Sansthan to Sangli State for running a public hospital – Public hospital shifted to an alternate location – Held: The Sansthan retained ownership of the land, and upon cessation of the public purpose, the land must revert to the Sansthan under Section 19(b) – Directions issued to the State to return the land or acquire it in accordance with law [Paras 13-16].

Pre-Constitutional Enactments – Continuance of Existing Laws – Article 372 of the Constitution – Shri Ganpati Panchayat Sansthan Act, 1940, recognized as “law in force” – Held: The rights of the Sansthan under Section 19(b) are enforceable under Article 372, as the Act remains valid and binding [Paras 10-11].

Land Appropriation – Purpose of Appropriation Ceasing – Interpretation of Section 19(b) – Appropriation for a specific public purpose does not divest the grantor of ownership rights – Held: Once the original purpose ceases, the land reverts to the grantor unless acquired under law – Municipality or State cannot claim perpetual appropriation without formal acquisition [Paras 12-14].

Civil Procedure – Maintainability of Writ Petition – Alternative Remedy – State argued that the petitioner could seek compensation or approach a civil court – Held: Availability of compensation or an alternative remedy does not bar the Sansthan’s right to seek reversion under Section 19(b) – Relief granted [Paras 6, 16].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Land from City Survey Nos. 4, 5, 5/1 to 5/18 directed to be returned to the Sansthan within three months – State permitted to acquire the land if required for a public purpose – Alternate accommodation to be arranged for hospital staff occupying part of the land [Paras 16-17].

Matrimonial Law - Muslim Personal Law – Maintainability of Divorce Suit by Muslim Male – Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 – Maintainable - The Family Court erred in dismissing the appellant’s suit for divorce, holding it as non-maintainable under Muslim personal law – Section 7 of the Family Courts Act empowers Family Courts to adjudicate suits for dissolution of marriage arising out of a marital relationship irrespective of caste or community – Rejection of the suit denied the appellant his right to access justice [Paras 9-12].

Dissolution of Marriage – Grounds under Shariat Act and Family Court Rules – Right of Muslim Male Recognized - Rule 9 of the Madhya Pradesh Family Court Rules, 1988 explicitly includes suits under the Shariat Act and Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939 – Muslim males can pursue judicial remedies for divorce under these provisions, establishing a valid legal framework for such suits [Paras 11-12].

Constitutional Morality – Denial of Access to Justice – Remedy to Muslim Male Secured - Denial of judicial forum for Muslim males to seek divorce under personal law would violate the constitutional mandate ensuring access to justice – Such an interpretation would contravene constitutional morality and the principles of justice [Paras 13-14].

Remand for Adjudication – Family Court Judgment Set Aside – Directions for Reconsideration - The High Court quashed the Family Court’s decision and remanded the matter for adjudication – Parties directed to appear before the Family Court for further proceedings, including the possibility of settlement [Paras 15-17].

Decision: The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of the Family Court is set aside. The case is remanded for adjudication by the Family Court with liberty granted to the parties to pursue settlement if desired. The Registrar General is directed to circulate the judgment to all Civil/Family Courts in Madhya Pradesh.

Limitation - Delay Condonation – COVID-19 Limitation Extensions – GRT Refused Condonation – High Court Upholds – The petitioner sought condonation of 365 days' delay in filing a revision application before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, citing lack of legal awareness and the COVID-19 pandemic – Held: The petitioner was legally aware, having filed a civil suit in 2019 challenging the same Deputy Collector’s order – The Supreme Court's COVID-19-related limitation extensions do not apply to cases where the limitation period expired before the pandemic – GRT’s rejection of delay condonation upheld [Paras 6.1-6.8].

Sufficient Cause for Delay – No Liberal Interpretation When Bona Fides in Question – Lack of Vigilance by the Petitioner – The petitioner failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for delay in filing the revision application – Courts emphasized that sufficient cause cannot be liberally interpreted if negligence or lack of diligence is apparent – High Court upheld GRT’s reasoning that the petitioner, despite being aware of his legal remedies, failed to act in time [Paras 6.6-6.8].

COVID-19 Limitation Extensions – Applicability – Held: Supreme Court's limitation extensions for COVID-19-related delays benefit vigilant litigants whose limitation period fell during the pandemic – In this case, the delay predated the pandemic, and the petitioner could not claim benefit under the Supreme Court's orders [Para 6.6].

Procedural Rigour of Limitation – Equitable Grounds Insufficient Without Legal Justification – The petitioner cited equitable grounds for delay condonation but failed to justify the inordinate delay legally – High Court reiterated that rules of limitation are based on sound public policy and must be applied rigorously [Paras 6.7-6.8].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed. The Gujarat Revenue Tribunal's refusal to condone the delay in filing the revision application was upheld. No interference warranted as the petitioner failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for delay.

Criminal Law – Evidence – Call and Tower Location Records – Right of Accused to Summon Relevant Evidence – Section 91 Cr.P.C. – Held: Tower location records of witnesses in alleged trap proceedings are relevant for determining their presence at the scene of the incident – Denial of such evidence would amount to miscarriage of justice – Directions issued to preserve and produce tower locations, with privacy safeguards for unrelated call details [Paras 10, 13-15, 16].

Natural Justice – Fair Trial – Principles Under Article 21 of the Constitution – Admissibility of Electronic Records – Held: Denial of access to admissible electronic records under Sections 65A and 65B of the Indian Evidence Act violates principles of natural justice – Ensuring access to relevant evidence is integral to a fair trial [Paras 14-15].

Privacy – Balancing Accused's Rights and Witness Privacy – Section 91 Cr.P.C. – Held: Right to privacy of witnesses may be breached to the extent necessary to ensure a fair trial for the accused – Tower locations may be summoned with specific restrictions, such as redacting unrelated call details, to balance rights [Paras 13, 14].

Judicial Precedents – Applicability of Suresh Kumar Case – Preservation of Tower Locations – Held: Following Suresh Kumar v. Union of India, preserving tower location data for determining witness presence is necessary for justice – Court directed preservation of tower location records for specified time period with redactions [Paras 10, 16].

Decision: Petition partly allowed – Trial Court directed to summon tower locations for specified witnesses with safeguards – Petition disposed of.