Criminal Law – Section 482 – Inherent Powers – Quashing of FIR and Charge-sheet – Scope – FIR registered under Section 188 IPC read with Section 14(i) of Arunachal Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupant) Act, 2003 – Held: High Court can quash FIR even after filing of charge-sheet if continuation of proceedings amounts to abuse of process of Court [Paras 12–18, 26].

Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 188 – Cognizance – Bar under Section 195 CrPC – Mandatory Compliance – FIR lodged by public servant before police instead of written complaint to Magistrate – Police registered case and filed charge-sheet – Held: Prosecution for offence under Section 188 IPC can be initiated only on complaint in writing of public servant before Magistrate – FIR and charge-sheet to that extent void ab initio – Proceedings liable to be quashed [Paras 29–32].

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 195 – Nature and Effect – Object – Protection against frivolous prosecution – Held: Any violation of mandatory procedure under Section 195 CrPC vitiates entire proceedings relating to offence under Sections 172 to 188 IPC – Cognizance taken contrary to statute unsustainable in law [Paras 30–31].

Arunachal Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupant) Act, 2003 – Section 14(i) – Penal Consequences – Cognizable Offence – Section 15 – Applicability of CrPC – FIR Maintainable – Held: Act provides both civil and penal consequences – Section 14 creates offence of unauthorized occupation – Section 15 expressly applies CrPC treating offence as cognizable – No statutory bar against lodging FIR for offence under Section 14 – Criminal proceedings to that extent valid [Paras 33–37].

Public Premises – Unauthorized Occupation – Eviction Proceedings and Criminal Liability – Distinction – Held: Civil remedies such as eviction, demolition and appeal under the Act are independent of penal prosecution under Section 14 – Availability of civil remedies does not bar criminal action where statute so permits [Paras 33–35].

Section 482 CrPC – Exercise of Power – Partial Quashing – Severability – Held: Where FIR discloses multiple offences and statutory bar applies only to one, proceedings can be quashed partially – FIR and charge-sheet quashed only to extent of offence under Section 188 IPC while allowed to continue for offence under Section 14 of 2003 Act [Paras 38–39].

Decision: Criminal petition partly allowed – FIR dated 14.08.2019 and Charge-sheet No. 02/2020 quashed to extent of offence under Section 188 IPC – Criminal proceedings under Section 14(i) of the Arunachal Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupant) Act, 2003 upheld – Trial to proceed in accordance with law – Petition disposed of [Paras 38–40].

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.

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.

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.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act – Section 11(6) – Institutional Arbitration – Exhaustion of Agreed Procedure Mandatory – Employment agreements contained arbitration clause providing for appointment of sole arbitrator in accordance with MCIA Rules – Respondent accepted invocation of arbitration and did not default in agreed procedure – Held: Where parties have consciously agreed to an institutional mechanism for appointment of arbitrator, Court cannot appoint arbitrator under Section 11 without first requiring parties to exhaust agreed procedure – Section 11 jurisdiction arises only upon failure of agreed mechanism [Paras 13–16].

Arbitration Clause – MCIA Rules – Seat and Venue at Indore – No Inconsistency – Contention that MCIA Rules can operate only if seat is Mumbai rejected – Rule 30 of MCIA Rules permits parties to agree on seat of arbitration – Fixing Indore as seat and venue does not render MCIA Rules inapplicable – Arbitration clause held coherent and workable [Paras 11–12].

Section 11 Jurisdiction – Prematurity of Petition – Applicants invoked arbitration and respondent consented to invocation – Applicants failed to take further steps under MCIA Rules for appointment of arbitrator – Direct approach to High Court held premature and impermissible – Court cannot bypass institutional framework agreed by parties [Paras 13–16].

Party Autonomy – Binding Nature of Arbitration Agreement – Parties bound by dispute resolution clause consciously agreed in employment contracts – Applicants cannot resile from agreed procedure merely because arbitration is institutional – Party autonomy is cornerstone of arbitration law and must be respected [Paras 14–16].

Reliance on Supreme Court Precedent – Parmar Construction Case – Reiterated that default procedure under Section 11 can be invoked only when agreed appointment mechanism fails or becomes inoperative – High Court must first give effect to contractual mechanism before appointing independent arbitrator [Paras 14–15].

Multiple Applications – Common Arbitration Clause – Common Outcome – All three employment agreements contained identical arbitration clause – Common order passed dismissing all three applications – Liberty granted to applicants to invoke MCIA mechanism in accordance with rules [Paras 1, 17].

Decision – Arbitration Case Nos. 105, 106 and 107 of 2025 dismissed – Liberty granted to applicants to approach Mumbai Centre for International Arbitration for appointment of sole arbitrator as per MCIA Rules and employment agreements – No appointment made by Court under Section 11 [Para 17].

Civil Law – Framing of Issues – Will Propounded by Defendant – Mandatory Duty of Court – Plaintiff filed suit claiming ownership by natural inheritance – Defendants pleaded Will dated 16.08.1978 to defeat plaintiff’s claim – Trial Court framed general issue on entitlement to declaration but failed to frame specific issue on validity and effect of Will – Application by plaintiff for framing additional issue dismissed on ground that only defendants could seek such issue – Held: Plea of Will constitutes a distinct and material proposition of fact and law and Court is statutorily bound to frame a specific issue thereon [Paras 2, 5].

Order XIV Rules 1 and 5 CPC – Scope and Application – Issues are to be framed by Court on basis of pleadings and not at discretion of parties – Any party affected by a plea raised is entitled to seek framing of an issue – Court empowered to frame or amend issues at any stage before passing of decree if necessary for determining real controversy – Stage of rebuttal evidence no bar to framing additional issue [Paras 7].

Will – Proof – Burden of Proof – Procedural Safeguards – Proof of Will governed by special statutory requirements under Indian Succession Act and Evidence Act – Burden lies on propounder of Will – Absence of specific issue on Will renders trial procedurally deficient and final adjudication vulnerable to challenge – General issue cannot substitute a specific issue on Will [Paras 6].

Supervisory Jurisdiction – Article 227 – Failure to Exercise Jurisdiction – Trial Court declined to frame necessary issue on erroneous understanding of law – Such refusal amounts to material error of jurisdiction – Interference by High Court warranted to ensure proper adjudication of lis [Paras 8].

Decision: Civil Revision allowed – Impugned order dated 26.11.2025 set aside – Trial Court directed to frame additional issue regarding validity, execution and binding effect of Will dated 16.08.1978 and proceed with suit in accordance with law [Paras 9–10].

Motor Vehicles Act – Compensation – Enhancement – Scope of Appeal under Section 173 – Appellants challenged award of Tribunal only on quantum – Negligence and liability not disputed – Appeal confined to reassessment of just compensation – High Court entitled to interfere where Tribunal ignored material evidence on record [Paras 1, 6].

Motor Accident Claim – Medical Expenses – Proof – Tribunal considered hospital expenditure up to discharge but ignored subsequent medical bills produced at Exh.71 – Bills dated after discharge from hospital found genuine and supported by record – Held, claimants entitled to reimbursement of Rs.2,52,899/- towards post-discharge medical treatment [Paras 7, 9].

Motor Accident Claim – Attendant and Transportation Charges – Proof and Assessment – Bills at Exh.72 found partly overlapping and unreliable – However, considering prolonged treatment and hospitalization of 64 days, lump sum compensation of Rs.50,000/- awarded under attendant and transportation charges – Approach of reasonable estimation upheld [Para 7].

Motor Accident Claim – Loss of Consortium – Multiple Dependants – Application of Pranay Sethi Principles – Deceased left behind four dependants – Tribunal awarded only Rs.44,000/- – Held, each dependant entitled to consortium – Compensation enhanced to Rs.1,93,600/- (Rs.48,400 × 4) in terms of settled law [Para 7].

Motor Accident Claim – Medical Expenses Paid by Charitable Trust – Reimbursement – Amount of Rs.10,86,415/- paid by charitable trust towards treatment – Held, compensation under MV Act is not a bonanza – Claimants not entitled to recover amount not actually borne by them – Trust not a claimant before Tribunal – No reimbursement permitted [Para 8].

Motor Vehicles Act – Just Compensation – Reassessment – On cumulative reassessment under various heads, total compensation enhanced from Rs.41,05,240/- to Rs.45,57,739/- with interest – Tribunal award modified to that extent only [Paras 9–10].

Decision: First Appeal partly allowed – Judgment and award dated 06.05.2021 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Ahmedabad in MACP No.524 of 2011 modified – Total compensation enhanced to Rs.45,57,739/- with interest at 7.5% per annum – Respondents directed to deposit enhanced amount within four weeks – Remaining part of Tribunal’s award left undisturbed.

Matrimonial Law - Maintenance – Wife Living Separately – Sufficient Cause – Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. – Family Court denied maintenance to wife on ground that she refused to return to matrimonial home during proceedings under Section 9 HMA – Held, refusal to resume cohabitation despite restitution proceedings does not by itself disentitle wife from maintenance – Disqualification under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. wrongly applied – Impugned finding unsustainable [Paras 8–9].

Maintenance – Cruelty and Dowry Demand – Proof – Family Court held absence of dowry or cruelty complaints fatal to wife’s claim – Held, non-filing of criminal complaint cannot be sole basis to deny maintenance – Conduct of husband in denying paternity of minor child indicative of matrimonial discord – Approach of Family Court held erroneous and hyper-technical [Paras 8–10].

Maintenance – Earning Capacity of Wife – Educational Qualification – Gainful Employment – Family Court rejected wife’s claim on ground of concealment of education and alleged earning capacity – Held, mere qualification or potential to earn not sufficient to deny maintenance – No cogent evidence of actual gainful employment produced by husband – Capacity to earn distinct from actual earning – Statutory right to maintenance cannot be defeated on speculative grounds [Paras 10, 11, 15–16].

Maintenance – Minor Child – Quantum – Adequacy – Maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- per month awarded to adolescent son held grossly inadequate – Father’s admitted gross salary of Rs. 48,350/- per month ignored – Excessive deductions towards loans wrongly permitted – Principles laid down in Rajnesh v. Neha requiring fair and realistic assessment overlooked [Paras 11, 17].

Maintenance – Social Justice – Object of Section 125 Cr.P.C. – Courts must adopt humane and practical approach – Maintenance provision intended to prevent destitution and ensure dignified life for wife and child – Mere ability to work or earn meagre income insufficient to deny relief – Wife entitled to live with dignity consistent with husband’s status [Paras 11–14].

Criminal Revision – Interference with Family Court Order – Family Court misconstrued evidence and misapplied settled legal principles – Order found legally unsustainable – Matter remanded for fresh determination of maintenance in accordance with law and Supreme Court guidelines [Paras 15–18].

Decision: Criminal Revision allowed – Order dated 03.10.2024 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bulandshahr set aside – Matter remanded to Family Court for fresh determination of maintenance payable to wife and minor son – Family Court directed to pass a reasoned order within one month – All rights and contentions of parties kept open.

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].