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.
 

NDPS Act – Quashing - Admissibility of Statements under Section 67 – Reliance on Co-Accused’s Statement Quashed – The petitioner was implicated in the case solely based on the confessional statements of co-accused under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. Held: Such statements, being inadmissible under Section 25 of the Evidence Act as per Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, cannot form the sole basis for proceeding against the petitioner [Paras 4, 6-12].

Prosecution’s Burden of Proof – Corroborative Evidence Required – In the absence of any recovery from the petitioner’s possession or corroborative evidence connecting him to the alleged offense, proceedings against him amount to an abuse of process of law [Paras 9, 15].

Quashing of Proceedings – Abuse of Process – Section 482 CrPC Invoked – Permitting prosecution against the petitioner solely based on inadmissible statements of co-accused would result in grave injustice and violate due process. Held: Proceedings against the petitioner quashed [Paras 9, 15].

Decision: The Criminal Petition is allowed. The proceedings against the petitioner in C.C. No. 17532/2018, pending before the XXXII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru, are quashed.
 

Motor Accident Claims – Applicability of Limitation Period Under Amended Section 166(3) – Prospective Effect – The petitioner challenged the maintainability of a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the MV Act, arguing that it was barred by the six-month limitation period introduced by the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019 – Held: The six-month limitation under Section 166(3), effective from 01.04.2022, applies prospectively – Claims relating to accidents occurring prior to this date are governed by the unamended law, which imposed no limitation period – Petition dismissed, affirming that benevolent legislation should be liberally interpreted in favor of claimants [Paras 6.1-7.1].

Legislative Intent – Benevolent Interpretation of MV Act – Compensation to Victims – The legislative intent behind Section 166 of the MV Act is to provide a mechanism for victims of road accidents to claim compensation – Courts must prioritize the purpose of the enactment over technical objections – Amendment introducing limitation was prospective and does not extinguish pre-existing rights [Para 7.1].

Claims Process – Detailed Accident Report (DAR) as Claim Petition – Section 166(4) – Emphasized the role of investigating authorities under Sections 159 and 166(4) of the amended MV Act – Report filed by police authorities, including the Detailed Accident Report, is deemed sufficient to initiate claims proceedings, reducing procedural burdens on victims [Para 6.8].

Decision – Petition Dismissed – The writ petition challenging the Tribunal's order rejecting the objection to maintainability was dismissed – Held: The claim petition was correctly entertained, as the accident occurred before the introduction of Section 166(3), MV Act – No costs awarded [Paras 8-9].
 

Eviction Notice - Town Planning – Eviction Under MRTP Act – Rights of Tenants in Redevelopment – Petitioners, long-term occupants of commercial premises, challenged their eviction due to road widening – The Court reiterated that tenants do not have the right to challenge eviction notices under the MRTP Act; only the landlord (owner) can challenge such actions – Held: Petitioners have no right to challenge the Town Planning Scheme; their only remedy lies against their landlord [Paras 9-10].

Public Interest and Implementation of Town Planning Schemes – No Right to Stall Public Projects – The road widening project (18.30 meters) was notified in 2009, but the Petitioners stalled its implementation for over seven years by filing petitions – The Court strongly criticized the delay, stating that private interests cannot override public development projects – Held: Town Planning Schemes are meant for public benefit, and Petitioners cannot indefinitely obstruct them [Paras 12-13].

Claim of Tenancy – Lack of Documentary Evidence – Encroachment Allegations – Petitioners failed to produce tenancy agreements or rent receipts – Respondent No. 3 (Trust) denied their tenancy claims, alleging that they were encroachers running commercial businesses without permission – The Court observed that the Petitioners had no documentary proof of legal tenancy and were allegedly subletting the premises without authorization – Held: In the absence of tenancy proof, Petitioners cannot seek rehabilitation rights over the alternate plot [Para 10].

Alternate Accommodation – Petitioners’ Demand for Rehabilitation on Trust’s New Plot – Legal Standing – Petitioners sought allotment of Plot No. 232(A) in lieu of their existing premises, arguing that their tenancy should transfer to the new plot – The Court noted that Respondent No. 3 (Trust) had already been allotted the alternate plot, and tenants cannot automatically claim rehabilitation unless provided by law – Held: Petitioners have no legal claim over the alternate plot; their rights (if any) are against their landlord, not the municipal authorities [Para 11].

Delay in Challenging Eviction Notices – No Justification for Long Litigation – The eviction notices were issued in July 2016, yet Petitioners delayed legal proceedings for years – The Court criticized the prolonged litigation as a deliberate attempt to prevent public road development – Held: Delaying tactics in public projects should not be encouraged; eviction must proceed immediately [Paras 12-13].

Dismissal of Writ Petitions – Summary Eviction Under MRTP Act Upheld – The Court referred to Vivek Krushna Dode v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 BHC-AS 2854-DB, which held that tenants cannot challenge eviction under the MRTP Act – The Court also cited Anandrao G. Pawar v. MCGM, 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 2534, reaffirming that demolition of a tenanted building does not extinguish tenancy rights but must be pursued separately – Held: Eviction notices under Sections 88, 89, and 90 of the MRTP Act are legally valid and enforceable [Paras 9-10].

Decision: Writ Petitions Dismissed – Eviction Orders Upheld – No Relief Granted – The Court held that Petitioners had no legal basis to challenge the eviction notices or demand alternate accommodation – Their claims were purely against their landlord (Trust), not against the municipal authorities – The Interim Application No. 11643 of 2024 was also dismissed [Paras 14-18].
 

Matrimonial Law – Divorce - Forced Religious Conversion – Cruelty Under Special Marriage Act – Divorce Granted - The appellant, after marrying the respondent under the Special Marriage Act, coerced her to convert to Islam and change her religious identity – The Court held that forcing a spouse to convert constitutes cruelty under matrimonial law – Held: Forcing religious conversion violates personal liberty under Article 21 and amounts to mental cruelty, justifying divorce [Paras 17-19].

Desertion – Absence of Marital Cohabitation – Divorce Granted - The appellant abandoned the respondent and started living separately with his sister – The Court held that continuous separation for two years, coupled with intent to end the marriage, satisfies the requirement of desertion under Section 27 of the Special Marriage Act – Held: The husband’s actions, including financial neglect, amounted to desertion, warranting dissolution of marriage [Paras 21-22].

Mental Cruelty – Emotional and Psychological Abuse – Divorce Justified - The appellant consistently belittled the respondent's religious beliefs and caste identity, causing her severe emotional distress – The Court, relying on Halsbury’s Laws of England and Black’s Law Dictionary, observed that psychological abuse leading to humiliation and mental trauma constitutes cruelty – Held: The respondent was subjected to sustained mental cruelty, justifying dissolution of marriage [Paras 23-28].

Freedom of Religion – Right to Practice One’s Faith in Marriage – Forcing Conversion is a Constitutional Violation - The Court ruled that compelling a spouse to abandon their religion and convert violates fundamental rights under Article 25(1) of the Constitution – Held: Matrimony does not curtail an individual’s right to religious freedom; coercing conversion is unconstitutional and amounts to cruelty under matrimonial law [Paras 18-19].

Judicial Recognition of Proselytization as Violence – Forcing Spousal Conversion is Matrimonial Cruelty – Divorce Granted - The Court observed that religious conversion must be voluntary and cannot be imposed by one spouse upon the other – Held: Any effort to proselytize a spouse without their consent is an act of psychological violence and amounts to extreme cruelty, justifying divorce – Appeal dismissed; decree of divorce upheld [Paras 28-29].
 

Criminal Law – Rape on the False Promise of Marriage – Prima Facie Evidence – Discharge Application Dismissed – Accused allegedly had sexual intercourse with the victim repeatedly on the false promise of marriage, persuaded her to send explicit photographs, and later retracted the promise – Special Court held that consent, if any, was vitiated under Section 90 IPC, as it was obtained on the basis of a false promise – Supreme Court precedents reiterated: Consent under false pretenses is not valid consent – Held: Sufficient prima facie evidence existed to proceed with trial under Sections 376(2)(n) and (f) IPC – Revision petition dismissed [Paras 3, 6, 8, 9].

Scope of Discharge – Section 227 Cr.P.C. – Limited to Prosecution Records – Accused contended that a complaint by the victim to the Yuvajana Commission, admitting consensual relations, was ignored by the Special Court – High Court held: At the discharge stage, the court must restrict itself to the materials placed by the prosecution and cannot consider evidence produced by the accused – Non-consideration of the document justified – Special Court’s dismissal of discharge application upheld [Paras 6, 10, 11].

Principles of Framing Charges – Prima Facie Case – Judicial Examination at Discharge Stage – High Court reiterated: At the stage of framing charges under Section 228 Cr.P.C., the court must evaluate whether materials placed on record disclose a prima facie case, without delving into the probative value of evidence – Even strong suspicion is sufficient to proceed to trial – Held: The Special Court applied the correct legal principles and rightly concluded that the materials on record disclosed a prima facie case to frame charges [Paras 7, 8].

Promise of Marriage – Vitiation of Consent – Section 90 IPC – Victim’s consent was allegedly obtained under a false promise of marriage, which the accused later retracted – High Court held: Consent obtained by deception regarding marriage is vitiated under Section 90 IPC – Prima facie evidence sufficient to establish that sexual intercourse was non-consensual under law – Application for discharge was rightly rejected [Paras 3, 8].

Judicial Precedent – Reaffirmation of Discharge Principles – Relying on Sheoroj Singh Ahlawat v. State of U.P., (2013) 11 SCC 476, and Sandeep G. v. State of Kerala, (2024 SCC OnLine KER 3564), High Court reiterated: At the discharge stage, the court must presume the prosecution’s materials to be true and evaluate whether there are sufficient grounds to proceed with the trial – Special Court’s decision consistent with settled legal principles [Paras 6–8].

Decision: Criminal revision petition dismissed – High Court upheld the Special Court’s order refusing discharge of the accused under Section 227 Cr.P.C. – Special Court directed to proceed with the trial [Paras 12–13].
 

Quashing of FIR – Section 17-A of Prevention of Corruption Act – Procedural Safeguard – Accused as Municipal Commissioner challenged FIR alleging malafides and non-application of mind during approval under Section 17-A – Held: Approval under Section 17-A must be substantive, not ritualistic, requiring application of mind to the materials presented – Court found lack of incriminating evidence and misuse of Section 17-A – FIR quashed [Paras 22-38].

Frivolous or Malicious Proceedings – Guidelines in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal – FIR in Public Servant Decisions – Allegations relating to contracts for municipal services during floods and public health measures – No prima facie evidence produced, prosecution failed to substantiate charges despite seven years of investigation – FIR was found frivolous and vexatious, quashed by Court [Paras 11-13, 37].

Role of Section 17-A PCA – Procedural and Substantive Nature – Approval for Investigation – Section 17-A ensures protection for bonafide public decisions – Court noted improper application of mind by authority granting approval for investigation, undermining legislative intent of Section 17-A – FIR quashed for failure to adhere to statutory safeguards [Paras 20-24].

Evaluation of Malafides – Allegations of Blackmail by Complainant – FIR Initiated by Professional Blackmailer – Petitioners placed materials highlighting personal vendetta – Held: Court recognized the malicious intent of complainant and misuse of legal process – FIR quashed [Paras 6.1-6.2, 30.4].

Decision: FIR No. 2 of 2023 quashed for lack of evidentiary support, procedural infirmities under Section 17-A PCA, and malicious intent of complainant – Petition allowed.