Anticipatory Bail – National Security Offences – Alleged Syndicate for Aiding Illegal Immigrants – Seriousness of Allegations – Rejection Upheld – Appeal filed against order rejecting anticipatory bail in offences under IPC, Foreigners Act and Passport Act – Allegations of being kingpin of syndicate providing illegal assistance, financial support and settlement to Rohingya and Bangladeshi nationals through Hawala and Society accounts – Material collected through surveillance, FSL reports and supplementary case diaries indicating financial transactions and incriminating conversations – Court held seriousness of allegations affecting security, integrity and harmony of nation – Custodial interrogation held likely and necessary – Anticipatory bail declined [Paras 3, 8–10, 15, 23].

Investigation – Multiple Charge Sheets Against Co-Accused – No Charge Sheet Against Appellant – Effect – Seven charge sheets filed against co-accused persons who were granted regular bail – Appellant not charge-sheeted till date – Court held mere non-filing of charge sheet against appellant not a ground for anticipatory bail where investigation is ongoing and material suggests involvement – Possibility of further evidence collection noted [Paras 4, 7, 23].

Proclamation and Non-Bailable Warrants – Setting Aside on Technical Grounds – Consequences – Non-bailable warrants and proclamation under Sections 82/83 Cr.P.C. issued against appellant – Proclamation order set aside earlier under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on technical grounds with liberty to pass fresh order – Court held setting aside of coercive steps on technical grounds does not entitle accused to anticipatory bail nor efface allegations of abscondence [Paras 5, 10, 24].

Custodial Interrogation – Importance in Conspiracy and National Security Cases – Reliance placed on Supreme Court decision in P. Krishna Mohan Reddy v. State of A.P. – Court reiterated that custodial interrogation is qualitatively different and essential in cases involving deep-rooted conspiracies, financial transactions and influential accused – Grant of anticipatory bail may impede effective investigation [Paras 15, 22, 25].

Delay in Arrest – Applicability of Supreme Court Precedents Distinguished – Reliance on Asha Dubey and Gursewak Singh cases by appellant – Court distinguished those cases holding that delay in arrest alone not decisive where allegations relate to national security and coercive steps were taken but accused avoided investigation – Benefit of delay principle not extended [Paras 18, 19, 24].

Investigating Agency – Lapses Noted – Strong Observations by Court – Court expressed serious displeasure over failure of Investigating Officer to take timely and effective steps, including not seeking search warrant of appellant’s office premises and not acting promptly after remand order under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Directions issued to communicate order to senior State authorities for appropriate action [Paras 11–13].

Decision: Criminal appeal dismissed at admission stage – Order rejecting anticipatory bail affirmed – Appellant directed to appear before Investigating Officer and cooperate with investigation – Liberty granted to seek regular bail if arrested – Investigating Agency left free to decide custodial interrogation as per law [Paras 26].

Employees’ Compensation – Insurer’s Liability – Interest on Compensation – Policy Exclusion Clause – Appeal by Insurance Company – Workman sustained permanent total disability due to fall from height during employment – Commissioner awarded compensation with 12% interest and imposed liability jointly on employer and insurer – Insurance policy produced at appellate stage showing specific exclusion of liability for interest and penalty – Held: Liability of insurer under Employees’ Compensation Act is purely contractual and governed by terms of insurance policy – In absence of statutory compulsion akin to Motor Vehicles Act, insurer cannot be fastened with liability beyond contract – Exclusion clause valid and enforceable – Insurer liable only to pay compensation amount – Employer liable to pay statutory interest [Paras 11–20].

Additional Evidence – Insurance Policy – Acceptance at Appellate Stage – Certified copy of full insurance policy not produced before Commissioner due to inadvertent omission – Policy certificate and premium receipts already on record – Additional document relevant for adjudication of substantial question of law – No dispute as to genuineness of document – Held: In the interest of justice, additional evidence permitted and relied upon [Paras 11–12].

Wages and Coverage – Employees’ Compensation Insurance – Insurer contended policy covered only seven welders drawing wages up to ₹4,000 per month whereas claimant alleged wages of ₹15,000 – Commissioner assessed wages at ₹4,000 per month – Held: Once Commissioner fixed wages within policy limit, insurer cannot deny coverage solely based on higher wage claim by workman [Para 10].

Substantial Question of Law – Direction to Pay Interest Contrary to Policy Terms – Whether Commissioner was justified in directing insurer to pay interest despite express exclusion in policy – Held: Issue involves interpretation of insurance contract and statutory scheme – Constitutes substantial question of law – Answered in favour of insurer [Paras 18–20].

Decision – Appeal partly allowed – Award modified – Insurer directed to pay only compensation amount – Employer directed to pay interest as awarded by Commissioner – No liability on insurer for interest or penalty.

Domestic Violence Act – Section 2(f) – “Relationship in the Nature of Marriage” – Live-in Relationship with Married Man – Not Maintainable – Petitioner claimed reliefs under PWDVA alleging marriage and long-standing cohabitation with Respondent No.1 during subsistence of his first marriage – Evidence of joint property purchase, financial arrangements, IVF treatment, and birth of child relied upon – Sessions Court reversed reliefs granted by JMFC – Held: Relationship between an unmarried woman and a married man, entered into with knowledge of subsisting marriage, does not qualify as a “relationship in the nature of marriage” – Such relationship lacks legal sanctity and falls outside ambit of Section 2(f) PWDVA [Paras 24–28].

Live-in Relationship – Supreme Court Guidelines – Indra Sarma and D. Velusamy Applied – Court reiterated that all live-in relationships are not relationships in the nature of marriage – Essential conditions include parties being legally eligible to marry – Respondent No.1, being married, failed to satisfy mandatory condition of legal eligibility – Ratio of Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma and D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal squarely applicable [Paras 22–27].

Knowledge of Existing Marriage – Effect – Petitioner admitted awareness of Respondent No.1’s marital status at inception of relationship – Even if induced by misrepresentation, such relationship cannot be elevated to marriage-like status under PWDVA – Relationship akin to concubinage or extra-marital affair, for which Act does not presently provide protection [Paras 25–26].

Joint Property, Financial Control, Childbirth – Not Conclusive – Factors such as joint ownership of property, handling of bank accounts, sexual relationship, IVF treatment, or birth of child, though relevant, are insufficient by themselves to establish relationship in the nature of marriage when core legal requirements are absent – Social projection as husband and wife and legal capacity to marry remain determinative [Paras 25–27].

PWDVA – Beneficial Legislation – Limits of Interpretation – While PWDVA is a beneficial statute intended to protect women from abuse, courts cannot extend its scope beyond statutory definition – Expansion of protection to relationships knowingly entered with married persons requires legislative intervention and not judicial enlargement [Paras 26–28].

Supervisory Jurisdiction – Article 227 – Limited Interference – Sessions Court correctly applied settled law and reversed trial court’s findings – No perversity or jurisdictional error found warranting interference under Article 227 – Concurrent appreciation of law upheld [Para 28].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – Judgment and Order dated 26.07.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune upheld – Petitioner held not entitled to reliefs under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

Pre-emption – Co-sharer’s Right – Superior Right – Plaintiff proved to be co-sharer at time of sale and institution of suit – Suit land forming part of joint holding and not partitioned – Held: Co-sharer in unpartitioned land has superior right of pre-emption over vendee [Paras 5–7, 15–16].

Pre-emption – Gair Mumkin Bara – Section 5(b) Punjab Pre-emption Act – Exclusion of reclaimed waste land – Mere entry of land as Gair Mumkin Bara does not automatically attract bar under Section 5(b) – No evidence that land was reclaimed waste land by vendee – Held: Suit land remains pre-emptable [Paras 14–15].

Partition – Effect on Right of Pre-emption – Private partition mutation relied upon by vendee – Mutation related only to agricultural land – No proof of partition of Bara portion – Bara continued to remain joint – Held: Plaintiff continued as co-sharer retaining right of pre-emption [Paras 15–16].

Improvements – Claim by Vendee – Expenditure on improvements – Plea of spending ₹4,500/- on raising boundary walls – No cogent evidence produced – Self-serving plea rejected by courts below – Findings affirmed [Paras 5–7].

Concurrent Findings – Scope of Regular Second Appeal – Trial Court and First Appellate Court concurrently held plaintiff entitled to decree of pre-emption – Findings based on proper appreciation of evidence – No substantial question of law arising – Held: No interference warranted under Section 100 CPC [Paras 16–17].

Decision: Regular Second Appeal dismissed – Judgments and decrees dated 22.07.1992 and 27.07.1993 passed by the Courts below upheld – Concurrent findings affirmed – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 17–18].

Criminal Law – Murder and Attempt to Murder – Appeal against Conviction – Abatement of Appeal on Death of Co-Accused – Appeal surviving only for one accused – Sections 302/34 and 307/34 IPC – Common Intention – Proof – Appeal partly abated due to death of accused-appellant Nos. 1 and 2 – Appeal considered only qua surviving appellant – Conviction challenged on ground of absence of common intention and overt act – Prosecution case based on prompt FIR, consistent eyewitness testimony and corroborative medical and forensic evidence – Accused arrived together armed with country-made pistols and bombs and jointly attacked victims – Pre-planned and premeditated assault established – Held: Ingredients of Section 34 IPC fully proved and conviction justified [Paras 1, 10, 21, 29, 33].

Common Intention – Section 34 IPC – Scope and Application – Contention that surviving appellant did not fire at deceased and therefore could not be convicted with aid of Section 34 IPC – Rejected – Common intention can be inferred from conduct, circumstances and participation in joint criminal act – Active presence, being armed, and participation in attack sufficient – Supreme Court precedents relied upon – Held: Section 34 IPC rightly invoked [Paras 11–13, 26–29].

Evidence Appreciation – Eyewitness Testimony – Credibility – Informant (PW-1) natural and reliable witness – Presence at place of occurrence established – Testimony consistent with FIR and corroborated by PW-2 – No material contradictions or embellishments – Evidence inspires confidence – Held: Conviction can safely be based on such testimony [Paras 16–20].

Medical and Forensic Evidence – Corroboration of Ocular Version – Multiple firearm and blast injuries found on deceased and injured witnesses – Medical opinion consistent with use of firearms and bombs – Recovery of empty cartridges, pellets, tiklis and bomb remnants from scene – Oral evidence fully supported by medical and scientific evidence – Held: Prosecution version proved beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 21–25].

Sentence – Life Imprisonment – No Interference Warranted – Trial Court’s judgment based on proper appreciation of evidence – No perversity or illegality found – Appeal dismissed – Surviving appellant directed to surrender to undergo remaining sentence – Bail cancelled [Paras 30–36].

Decision: Criminal Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 302/34 and 307/34 IPC affirmed – Direction issued for surrender of surviving appellant and compliance by Chief Judicial Magistrate.

Civil Suit – Rejection of Plaint – Order 7 Rule 11 CPC – Application seeking rejection of plaint on ground that suit for administration of estate is barred in law as plaintiff had propounded a Will and probate proceedings were pending – Held: Plaint cannot be rejected where it discloses a cause of action and is not barred by law – Order VII Rule 11 invoked erroneously [Paras 57–58, 70–71, 76].

Administration of Estate – Civil Court Jurisdiction – Distinction from Probate Proceedings – Plaintiff propounded Will of 1994 and filed probate petition as executor – Defendant contended civil court lacked jurisdiction till probate decided – Held: Probate court has exclusive jurisdiction only to decide genuineness and execution of Will – Administration of estate and protective reliefs fall within civil court’s jurisdiction – Remedies are distinct and can proceed concurrently [Paras 59–62, 73, 77].

Pending Probate – Maintainability of Administration Suit – Mere pendency of testamentary proceedings does not bar institution or continuation of suit for administration of estate – Grant of probate may follow suit but must precede final decree – Section 213 of Succession Act not a bar to institution of civil action [Paras 63–64].

Executor – Section 211 Succession Act – Legal Representative – Executor becomes legal representative of deceased upon death – Vesting of estate enables prosecution of civil proceedings without waiting for probate – Rights subject to outcome of probate proceedings [Paras 63, 45].

Two Competing Wills – Civil Court’s Limited Role – Plaintiff acknowledged later Will of 2012 propounded by defendant – Held: Civil court need not and cannot decide which Will is genuine – Testamentary court alone to adjudicate validity – Civil court confined to administration and protection of estate [Paras 62, 73–74].

Alternative Pleas – Will and Intestacy – Permissibility – Plaintiff sought administration as per Will and alternatively on intestacy – Objection that pleas were mutually destructive rejected – Held: Alternative pleas permissible where factual foundation not inconsistent – Alternate relief would arise only if both Wills held invalid [Paras 65–67].

Contradictory vs Alternative Pleas – Test Applied – Pleas not self-destructive as they operate on different eventualities – Reliance on Praful Manohar Rele and Sarva Shramik Sangh affirmed – No bar to claiming alternate reliefs on same factual matrix [Paras 65–67].

Rejection of Plaint in Parts – Impermissible – Defendant sought rejection of prayers (a) to (c) alone – Held: Plaint must be read as whole – Partial rejection not permissible under Order VII Rule 11 CPC [Paras 70].

Concurrent Proceedings – Civil and Testamentary Courts – Suit for administration and probate proceedings may proceed simultaneously – Final decree in administration suit to await outcome of probate proceedings [Paras 77].

Decision – Notice of Motion seeking rejection of plaint dismissed – Suit held maintainable – Four weeks’ stay granted on operation of order [Paras 78–80].

Criminal Law - Quashing - Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Dishonour of Cheque – Not Negotiable Endorsement – Applicability – Petitioner sought quashing of complaint under Section 138 NI Act on ground that cheque bore "Not Negotiable" marking – Held: Endorsement “Not Negotiable” merely restricts transferee from acquiring better title under Section 130 NI Act – It does not nullify drawer’s liability or exclude application of Section 138 – Drawer remains liable if cheque issued in discharge of debt and dishonoured due to insufficient funds – Complaint maintainable – No ground to quash proceedings at preliminary stage [Paras 6–7]

Criminal Procedure – Section 482 CrPC – Inherent Powers – Scope – Petitioner challenged concurrent orders of trial and revisional court rejecting application to drop proceedings under NI Act – Held: Courts below rightly held that legality of cheque and existence of enforceable debt are triable issues requiring evidence – No jurisdictional error or abuse of process shown – Petition under Section 482 CrPC dismissed [Paras 6–7]

Interpretation of NI Act – “Not Negotiable” Endorsement – Legal Effect – Cited case Durga Shah Mohal Lal Bankers v. Governor General in Council, AIR 1952 All 590 explained – Endorsement does not destroy negotiability or legality of cheque – Trial to proceed to determine liability [Para 6]

Decision: Petition dismissed – Courts below rightly held that issue of whether cheque was issued in discharge of legally enforceable debt and applicability of Section 138 are matters of trial – “Not Negotiable” endorsement does not render Section 138 inapplicable – No interference warranted under Section 482 CrPC.

Criminal Law – Medical Negligence – Quashing of Complaint – Section 304-A IPC – Doctors prosecuted for alleged negligence leading to death of patient after delivery – Complaint and summoning order challenged under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Held: In absence of prima facie medical evidence indicating gross rashness or negligence, continuation of criminal proceedings amounts to abuse of process of law [Paras 1–5, 12–13].

Medical Negligence – Requirement of Prima Facie Expert Opinion – Compliance with Jacob Mathew Guidelines – Hon’ble Supreme Court mandates credible and competent medical opinion before prosecuting doctors for criminal negligence – In present case, inquiry by medical board constituted pursuant to High Court directions found no negligence – Even prosecution witness (CW-3), supervising doctor at referral hospital, categorically deposed absence of negligence – Held: Summoning without such prima facie opinion unsustainable [Paras 8–10, 12].

Summoning Order – Non-application of Mind – Appreciation of Medical Evidence – Learned Magistrate relied on complaint narrative without recording any finding of rash or negligent act attributable to petitioners – Medical testimony on record exonerated doctors – Failure to refer matter to independent medical board or to appreciate expert evidence renders summoning order legally infirm [Paras 10–12].

Criminal Negligence – Distinction between Civil and Criminal Liability – Degree of Negligence – For offence under Section 304-A IPC, negligence must be gross and of very high degree – Mere complication during medical treatment or adverse outcome not sufficient – Postpartum hemorrhage and subsequent death held to be natural medical complication without proof of gross negligence [Paras 11–12].

Inherent Powers – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Abuse of Process – Where criminal proceedings against medical professionals are initiated without adherence to settled legal safeguards and expert medical opinion, High Court justified in exercising inherent jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice – Complaint and all consequential proceedings quashed [Paras 12–13].

Decision: Petition allowed – Criminal Complaint No. 164 of 2015 and summoning order dated 23.03.2018 quashed – All consequential proceedings set aside qua petitioners.

Civil Law – Appointment of Local Commissioner – Order 26 Rule 9 CPC – Refusal to Appoint Commissioner – Revisability – Petition filed under Article 227 challenging order of Civil Judge (Junior Division) dismissing application for appointment of Local Commissioner – Held: Order refusing appointment of Local Commissioner neither decides any issue nor adjudicates rights of parties and therefore is not revisable – Appointment of Local Commissioner is purely discretionary and no vested right accrues to any party [Paras 1–3].

Supervisory Jurisdiction – Article 227 of Constitution – Limited Scope – High Court reiterated that supervisory jurisdiction is not meant to circumvent settled law on maintainability of revisions – Reliance placed on binding Division Bench judgment holding such orders as non-revisable – No illegality or perversity found in impugned order [Paras 2–3].

Withdrawal of Revision Petition – Liberty to Lead Evidence – Petitioner sought permission to withdraw revision in view of settled legal position and availability of opportunity to lead evidence at appropriate stage – Revision dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to petitioner to adduce relevant evidence during trial [Paras 4–5].

Decision: Civil Revision dismissed as withdrawn – Liberty granted to petitioner to lead relevant evidence before Trial Court.