Civil law  – Declaration of Title and Possession – Failure to Prove Title – Appeal Dismissed – The appellant-plaintiff sought declaration of title over the ‘B’ schedule property and consequential relief of possession and injunction – Plaintiff failed to establish title by not producing foundational documents, including the prior sale deeds, and failed to prove encroachment by defendants – The High Court held that plaintiff must prove his own title without relying on weaknesses in the defendant’s case – Concurrent findings of lower courts upheld – Appeal dismissed [Paras 16-24].

Substantial Question of Law – Concurrent Findings – No Interference Warranted – The Court reiterated that under Section 100 CPC, second appeals lie only on substantial questions of law – Appreciation of facts and evidence by lower courts, unless perverse or ignoring material evidence, does not justify interference – No such question arose in the present case – Second appeal dismissed at admission stage [Paras 13-27].

Encroachment Claim – Absence of Proof – Case of Plaintiff Disbelieved – Plaintiff’s allegation of encroachment in 2007 was disproved by evidence showing compound wall constructed in 2003 by defendants – Boundaries described in sale deeds were inconsistent with plaintiff’s claim – Held: No basis to declare title or grant possession to the plaintiff [Paras 21-24].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – No Substantial Question of Law Found – The High Court dismissed the second appeal at admission stage, upholding concurrent factual findings of both lower courts – Plaintiff failed to prove title and possession – No merit in the appeal – No costs awarded [Para 28].

RTI Disclosure – Applicability of Exemptions – SEBI's Fiduciary Duty – CIC Order Modified – Court held SEBI justified in denying information relating to internal file notings and correspondence on framing policies for appointment of Public Interest Directors (PIDs) under Section 8(1)(e) of RTI Act since such information is held in fiduciary capacity – Disclosure of such policy deliberations is exempt from RTI when obtained in confidence without larger public interest warranting disclosure [Paras 52-54].

Third Party Information – Section 11 of RTI – Disclosure Subject to Hearing of Affected Parties – CIC Order Partially Set Aside – For information on selected and rejected candidates for PID appointments and annual inspection reports, the Court remanded the matter to the Chief Public Information Officer (CPIO), SEBI, to comply with Section 11 RTI procedure, granting opportunity to third parties to contest disclosure before decision is taken – CIC erred in ordering disclosure without compliance with mandatory Section 11 procedure [Paras 55-60].

Differentiation between Bank and Stock Exchange Regulation – Jayantilal N Mistry Distinction – Court clarified that the decision in Jayantilal N Mistry concerning disclosure of RBI inspection reports does not mechanically apply to SEBI inspections of stock exchanges – Due to nature of sensitive market information and regulatory dynamics, inspection reports concerning stock exchanges require distinct consideration and invocation of Section 11 safeguards [Paras 63-65].

Vague RTI Queries – Duty of Specificity – Queries for General Information Rejected – The Court refused to interfere with CIC's dismissal of vague queries seeking general inspection of files, noting that RTI Act requires requests to be made with reasonable precision to avoid disproportionate diversion of public resources – CPIO cannot be burdened with fishing or roving inquiries lacking specificity [Paras 66-67].

Decision – Partial Remand to CPIO – Court upheld CIC's decision on queries 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, and 9 – Set aside CIC's order on queries 3, 4, and 5 – Directed CPIO to consider those afresh after following due procedure under Section 11 of RTI Act, ensuring affected third parties' participation – Writ petitions of SEBI partly allowed and partly rejected; Mr. Agarwal’s petitions partly allowed, partly dismissed – No costs awarded [Para 68].

Criminal Law - Section 239 of the Cr.P.C. - Discharge Petition – Prima Facie Material – Sections 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Section 120B IPC – Dismissal of Discharge Petition Upheld – The petitioners, holding positions of legal officer and Managing Director in Malabar Cements Ltd (MCL), were accused of facilitating illegal invocation of a bank guarantee and causing loss to MCL by conspiring with a private company – Held: The trial court rightly dismissed discharge applications after finding sufficient prima facie materials against both accused to proceed to trial; allegations involve deliberate omission and misuse of position, which need adjudication in trial [Paras 5-20].

Corporate Contractual Obligations – Drafting of Biased Contract Clauses – Clause Found to Favour Private Company – Malafide Intent Alleged – The Court observed Clause 20 of the agreement drafted by the legal officer was entirely favourable to the private company (ARK Co.), without reciprocal rights to MCL, suggesting collusion; the clause enabled unilateral invocation of bank guarantee without termination of contract, causing pecuniary loss to MCL [Paras 14-15].

Delay in Legal Action – Omission to File Suit in Proper Jurisdiction – No Interim Relief – Willful Negligence Established – The Court held that the legal officer and Managing Director deliberately failed to file timely suits in the appropriate court (Tuticorin), resulting in loss of ₹50 lakhs to MCL; actions of both accused constituted prima facie criminal misconduct and conspiracy [Paras 13, 16-18].

Limited Scope of Discharge Proceedings – Sufficiency of Material – No Mini Trial Permissible – It was reiterated that at the stage of considering discharge, only a prima facie case is to be seen; detailed scrutiny of evidence is not permissible – Dismissal of discharge justified based on available materials [Paras 20].

Final Decision – Writ Petitions Dismissed – Trial to Proceed Expeditiously – The Court dismissed both revision petitions, upheld the orders of the Special Judge, and directed completion of trial within three months, observing that findings in discharge stage would not bind final trial adjudication [Paras 21-22].

Criminal Law – Rape - Section 376(3), 342, 504 of the IPC - Section 3, 4(2) of the POCSO Act – Appeal Against Conviction – Acquittal - False Rape Allegation – Discrepant Testimony – Medico-Legal Contradictions – Conviction Set Aside – The appellant was convicted for offences under Section 376(3) IPC and Section 3/4(2) POCSO Act on charges of raping his minor cousin – The Court found major contradictions in the testimonies of the victim and her parents regarding the time of incident, manner of alleged offence, and involvement of neighbours – Medical examination showed no recent sexual activity or injury, contradicting the prosecution’s narrative – Held: Serious inconsistencies and absence of corroborative evidence raise reasonable doubt – Conviction unsustainable, appellant acquitted [Paras 18-52].

Weight of Medical Evidence – Medico-Legal Reports Prevail Over Oral Testimony – Despite victim’s allegations, medical reports indicated absence of injury and recent intercourse – The Court held that when medical and pathological evidence contradict oral testimonies, courts must exercise caution – Allegations not corroborated by scientific evidence, acquittal warranted [Paras 21-22, 42].

Animosity as Motive for False Implication – Minor Property Dispute – The Court noted the background of animosity between the families due to a trivial dispute over burning of a saree – Such disputes, though minor, have increasingly led to false accusations of serious crimes like rape – Held: Prosecution failed to establish motive strong enough to justify conviction, particularly given inconsistencies and lack of corroborative evidence [Paras 9, 25, 48].

Judicial Duty Towards Unrepresented Accused – Protection of Fundamental Rights – The Court observed with concern that the appellant, a poor person with no legal representation, was incarcerated for over nine years without proper legal assistance – Emphasised the duty of courts to safeguard rights of such individuals and prevent miscarriage of justice – Held: In such circumstances, independent judicial scrutiny of evidence is imperative to prevent wrongful conviction [Paras 10-17, 54-56].

Decision – Conviction Set Aside – Acquittal Ordered – The Court set aside the trial court’s judgment convicting the appellant and ordered immediate release – Directed the Superintendent of Police, Hardoi to ensure the appellant’s safe return to his home and restoration of possession – Also ordered refund of any fine amount paid by the appellant [Paras 53-56].

POCSO – DNA Evidence – Hostile Witnesses – Acquittal Upheld – The State challenged the acquittal of the accused under Section 376(2) IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act – The prosecutrix and her family turned hostile and denied sexual assault – DNA report (Ex.P33) confirmed that the accused was the biological father of the child – Held: DNA evidence is expert opinion under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act and cannot alone establish guilt without corroboration – Hostile testimony rendered the prosecution case unreliable – Trial court rightly acquitted the accused [Paras 6–10, 16].

Evidentiary Value – DNA Profiling – Limitations of Sole Reliance – The Court emphasized that while DNA reports are strong indicators of biological relationship, they are not infallible and must be weighed with caution – DNA evidence alone cannot override direct oral evidence especially when it contradicts the scientific conclusion – Held: In criminal jurisprudence, conviction must rest on clear, cogent and consistent evidence – DNA report without supporting testimony fails that test [Paras 11–15].

Criminal Appeal – Acquittal – Scope of Interference – Appellate Review Limited – The Court reiterated that an appellate court should not interfere with an acquittal unless the trial court’s view is manifestly illegal or perverse – Since the trial court had taken a plausible and reasoned view, the High Court declined to interfere – Appeal dismissed [Paras 16–17].

Decision: Criminal Appeal Dismissed – Acquittal Confirmed – The High Court held that DNA evidence, though indicating biological paternity, could not solely sustain a conviction under POCSO and IPC when the prosecutrix and witnesses denied sexual assault – The trial court’s judgment was found to be a plausible and legally sound conclusion based on available evidence – No interference warranted in acquittal – Appeal dismissed [Paras 16–17].

Civil Law – Partition and Possession – Second Appeal - No Substantial Question of Law – Appeal Dismissed – The appellant challenged the concurrent findings of both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court granting partition and separate possession of ½ share to the respondent/plaintiff – The Courts below based findings on admitted facts and evidence, including judicial admissions in pleadings and documents – Held: No substantial question of law arises where findings are based on proper appreciation of facts; second appeal liable to be dismissed at admission stage [Paras 13-15, 29-30].

Adverse Possession – No Proof of Ouster – Claim Denied – Appellant's plea of exclusive possession and adverse possession since father’s death was rejected – Mere long possession by one co-sharer does not constitute ouster in absence of clear hostile claim – Courts correctly held that possession by one co-owner is deemed on behalf of all co-owners – Adverse possession and ouster claims not proved by evidence [Paras 21-22, 25-27].

Judicial Admissions – Admissions in Pleadings and Legal Notices Binding – Defendant admitted in written statement and legal notice that suit properties were joint family properties – Admission being best evidence, the burden shifted to defendant to prove relinquishment by plaintiff, which was not discharged – Courts below rightly relied on judicial admissions to grant partition [Paras 17-19].

No Scope for Reappreciation of Facts in Second Appeal – Section 100 CPC – Law clarified that High Court does not re-examine findings of facts in second appeal unless findings are perverse, based on no evidence, or misapplication of law – No such perversity or legal error found in concurrent judgments of lower Courts – Appeal dismissed [Paras 13, 28-30].

Final Decision – Second Appeal Dismissed – The High Court upheld the concurrent judgments and decrees granting the plaintiff ½ share in the property and dismissed the second appeal without costs [Para 30].

Criminal Law - Quashing of Fir and Proceedings – Section 498A IPC – Vague and General Allegations Against Husband’s Relatives – Proceedings Quashed – Petitioners, relatives-in-law residing separately, challenged FIR and charge-sheet under Section 498A IPC – Allegations against them found to be vague, omnibus, without specific details of cruelty or harassment – Complainant herself restricted allegations under Domestic Violence Act only against husband, no mention of petitioners therein – Held: Continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law, quashing warranted [Paras 5-18].

Omnibus Allegations – Absence of Specific Role – No Prima Facie Case – Quashing Justified – FIR and Section 161 CrPC statements lacked specific incidents or roles attributable to petitioners – Injury report did not implicate petitioners – Held: Criminal proceedings cannot be sustained in absence of specific, concrete allegations; continuance of trial against petitioners unjustified [Paras 12-17].

Abuse of Process – Invocation of Inherent Powers – Application of Bhajan Lal Guidelines – Court invoked inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC applying Bhajan Lal categories (1, 3, and 5) where allegations even if taken at face value did not constitute offence against petitioners – Held: Exercise of inherent power justified to prevent miscarriage of justice [Paras 19-20].

No Prejudice to Husband’s Trial – Proceedings Against Husband Unaffected – Court clarified that quashing order applies only to present petitioners; proceedings against husband to continue independently on merits before the trial court [Para 23].

Final Decision – Criminal Proceedings Quashed – Charge-sheet and all proceedings arising out of Amdanga P.S. Case No. 160/2020 quashed against petitioners; CRR allowed [Paras 21-22].

Criminal Law - Successive Bail Petition – Maintainability Before High Court After Earlier Rejections – Concurrent Jurisdiction – Petition Dismissed – The petitioner, accused of grave offences including sexual assault, sought bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. despite prior dismissal by Sessions Court, High Court, and Supreme Court – Held: Though Sessions Court and High Court have concurrent jurisdiction, judicial discipline mandates initial approach to Sessions Court unless exceptional circumstances exist – Petitioner failed to plead or prove compelling circumstances for bypassing trial court – Following established precedents, High Court refused to entertain petition without prior trial court recourse [Paras 3-23].

Judicial Discipline – Bypassing Sessions Court – Exceptional Circumstances Requirement – Affirmed – Citing authoritative judgments, the Court reiterated the principle that High Court's discretionary jurisdiction under Section 439 Cr.P.C. should not be invoked directly when the trial court has previously declined relief unless there are fresh developments or special reasons justifying deviation – As no such factors were demonstrated, petition was relegated to trial court [Paras 10-22].

Roster Allocation and Judicial Consistency – Clarification Applied – In light of Supreme Court's direction on listing of bail applications under the same FIR before the same judge where possible, the Court clarified that due to roster changes and absence of prior judge, present bench could entertain the matter, but on merits, relief was declined [Paras 6-8].

Relief and Directions – Petitioner Relegated to Trial Court – Expeditious Consideration Ordered – Considering judicial custody since May 2024 and to avoid prolonged incarceration, High Court directed the trial court to decide the bail application within ten days if moved by petitioner – Liberty granted to approach High Court thereafter if necessary [Paras 23-24].

Criminal Law - Prevention of Corruption Act – Forensic Examination & Voice Sample – Sections 45A, Indian Evidence Act & 349 BNSS – Revision Allowed – Accused Electrical Inspector facing trial for alleged demand and acceptance of ₹8,000/- illegal gratification sought forensic examination of defence audio/video recordings and securing of complainant’s voice sample – Trial court rejected on grounds of delay, non-examination of persons in video, and possibility of tampering – Held: Such grounds speculative; delay alone not fatal, and possibility of tampering strengthens case for expert analysis – Magistrate empowered under Section 349 BNSS (and as per Ritesh Sinha) to order voice sample even from non-accused – Right to privacy under Articles 20(3) & 21 not absolute; may be curtailed for compelling public interest – Order set aside, forensic examination and voice sample collection directed under judicial supervision – Trial to be expedited [Paras 1-4, 8-21].

Criminal Trial – Forensic Examination of Defence Evidence – Section 45A, Indian Evidence Act – Delay in recording or speculative possibility of editing not valid grounds to deny expert analysis – Expert opinion necessary to determine authenticity – Refusal amounts to curtailing defence rights [Paras 8-11, 20-21].

Voice Sample – Power to Compel – Section 349 BNSS; Ritesh Sinha v. State of U.P. – Magistrate has authority to order voice sample from any person, including witness – Privacy right not absolute – Judicial safeguards ensure fairness – Refusal unjustified in present case [Paras 12-18, 21].

Right to Fair Trial – Denial of scientific comparison of defence evidence restricts accused’s opportunity to rebut prosecution – Contrary to settled principles – Order liable to be set aside [Paras 11, 19-20].

Decision: Criminal Revision allowed – Trial court order dated 01.02.2025 set aside – Forensic examination of pen drive (Ex-D6) and video by Government Forensic Lab ordered – Voice sample of PW-2 to be taken for limited expert comparison – Trial to proceed expeditiously [Paras 20-21].