Anticipatory Bail – Conditions Imposed – Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Freedom of Press – The petitioner, a journalist and managing editor of a YouTube news channel, was granted anticipatory bail with a condition that he should not publish news related to the death of Bishop K.P. Yohannan – Held: The condition restricting the petitioner’s journalistic freedom was unreasonable – The right to freedom of expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution cannot be curtailed as part of a bail condition unless justified under Article 19(2) – The Court deleted the condition restraining the petitioner from airing news on the subject, observing that such a condition amounts to a gag order, which is disproportionate and violates the petitioner’s fundamental rights [Paras 12-17].

Criminal Law – Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Complaint for dishonor of cheques under Section 138 of the NI Act – The petitioner, residing outside the territorial jurisdiction, argued that the Magistrate should have conducted an inquiry under Section 202 CrPC before issuing summons – Held: Under Section 145 of the NI Act, evidence of the complainant can be given by affidavit, which streamlines the trial process. The Magistrate’s role is to decide whether there are sufficient grounds for proceeding. If evidence supports the complaint, an inquiry under Section 202 CrPC is not mandatory for public servants – Complaint supported by an affidavit is sufficient for issuing process [Paras 3c, 3e, 5a, 9].

Criminal Procedure – Section 202 CrPC – Applicability in NI Act Cases – Whether the amendment of Section 202 CrPC mandates an inquiry before issuing process to an accused residing beyond the jurisdiction of the Court – Held: Section 202 CrPC is not mandatory in complaints under Section 138 NI Act supported by an affidavit, especially when filed by a public servant – No infirmity found in the orders of the Magistrate or Sessions Judge rejecting the application for an inquiry under Section 202 CrPC [Paras 4, 4a, 4c, 9].

Decision: Criminal Revision Application Dismissed – The order passed by the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate and the Learned Chief Judge was affirmed – The court upheld the validity of the summons issued to the petitioner under Section 138 of the NI Act without a mandatory inquiry under Section 202 CrPC – The Magistrate had examined the complaint and accompanying affidavit, and therefore, no further inquiry was required before issuing process [Paras 3d, 5, 9].

Family Law – Maintenance – Revision Application – Compliance with Guidelines – The petitioner contended that the maintenance order awarded by the Family Court was harsh and not based on legal evidence – The trial court did not properly assess his financial capacity and failed to consider the fact that the petitioner is unemployed – The petitioner also claimed that the trial court ignored the fact that respondent No.1 is employed and earns ₹10,000 per month – Held: The High Court found that the Family Court did not comply with the guidelines set by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha, which requires parties to file affidavits disclosing their assets – Consequently, the maintenance order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Family Court for fresh consideration in compliance with the Supreme Court's directives [Paras 7, 13].

Interlocutory Orders – Maintainability of Revision – The respondents argued that the revision petition against the maintenance order was not maintainable, as it was an interlocutory order – Held: The High Court, referring to judgments from various High Courts, found that an order of maintenance is not an interlocutory order but an intermediate or quasi-final order that can be challenged through a revision petition under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 – It was established that orders affecting substantial rights of a party are not considered interlocutory and are subject to revision [Paras 16-18].

Decision: Revision petition allowed – The order dated 06.01.2023 by the Family Court is set aside – The matter is remanded to the Family Court for fresh decision after ensuring compliance with the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha – Parties directed to appear before the trial court on 30th September 2024 [Para 13].

Tenancy Law – Eviction Decree – Grounds of Eviction – Applicants-tenants challenged the judgment of the District Court and Additional Small Causes Court Pune, which decreed eviction on grounds of arrears of rent, destruction/injury to the premises, and erection of a permanent structure – Appellate Court confirmed the decree – Held: Ground of default in payment of rent was not valid due to the premature filing of the suit, but eviction on the grounds of injury to the premises and erection of permanent structures was upheld – Revision allowed in part [Paras 1, 4, 15, 39, 68].

Default in Payment of Rent – Validity of Notice – Demand notice for arrears of rent was issued, but the suit was filed before the expiration of 30 days from the notice, violating Section 12(2) of the Bombay Rent Act – Amended ground of default was added after the Bombay Rent Act was repealed and replaced by Maharashtra Rent Control Act (MRC Act) – The suit for eviction on this ground was not maintainable due to non-compliance with statutory notice requirements – Held: The Appellate Court erred in accepting the ground of default for eviction [Paras 19-26, 30-31, 33].

Permanent Structure – Injury to Suit Premises – Tenants constructed a platform (Ota), showcases, and rolling shutters without the landlord's consent, and replaced a 9” brick wall with a glass showcase – Evidence showed permanent constructions were made inside and outside the premises – Held: Such constructions without consent amounted to erection of permanent structures and injury to the premises under Section 108(o) of the Transfer of Property Act read with Section 13(1)(a) and 13(1)(b) of the Bombay Rent Act [Paras 36, 43-47, 53-54, 62].

Decision – Revision Application partly allowed – The decree of eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent set aside – However, eviction upheld on grounds of injury to the premises and erection of permanent structures – Applicants to hand over possession of the premises to Respondents [Para 76].

Landlord-Tenant Relationship – Estoppel under Section 116 of Indian Evidence Act – The applicant was inducted as a tenant by the original landlord, Shri Ramakant B. Desai, and paid rent for several years – Held, a tenant cannot deny the title of the landlord during the tenancy – Applicants' claim that the property belongs to the housing society is not maintainable under the principles of estoppel – [Paras 13-26].

Co-operative Housing Society – Ownership and Membership – Impact on Landlord-Tenant Relationship – The applicants argued that since the society owns the property, they have the right to occupy the premises – Court held that membership in the housing society does not negate the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship with the original landlord – The applicant's arguments based on ownership under co-operative society laws were rejected – [Paras 7-29].

Res Judicata – Prior Proceedings in Co-operative Society – Applicants contended that prior rulings in society-related matters should bar the respondents' claim – Held, issues resolved in co-operative society proceedings do not affect the landlord's right to recover possession under rent control laws – [Paras 10-21].

Decision: Revision application dismissed – The Appellate Court's judgment ordering the applicants to hand over possession of the disputed premises to the respondents is upheld – The applicants are estopped from denying the respondents' title under the landlord-tenant relationship – Applicants directed to vacate the premises and pay arrears of rent with interest – [Paras 27-29].

Consumer Law – Writ Petitions under Article 227 – Jurisdiction – Challenge to NCDRC Orders – Multiple writ petitions were filed in the High Court of Delhi challenging the orders of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) – Petitioners contended that the High Court of Delhi had jurisdiction as NCDRC is located in Delhi – Respondents argued that jurisdiction lies with the High Court where the cause of action arose, relying on Siddhartha S. Mookerjee case – Held: Jurisdiction for petitions under Article 227 lies with the High Court where the original cause of action arose, not merely based on the location of the NCDRC in Delhi – Court followed Supreme Court’s ruling in Siddhartha S. Mookerjee and other similar cases, emphasizing that jurisdiction should align with where the matter originated – Appeal dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction [Paras 1-76].

Writ Jurisdiction – Cause of Action – Petitioners claimed that the NCDRC’s location in Delhi vested jurisdiction in the Delhi High Court – Court disagreed, holding that the cause of action determines jurisdiction, not the location of the appellate or revisional tribunal – The cause of action for each petition had arisen outside Delhi, and the petitions should have been filed in the respective jurisdictional High Courts – Situs of the tribunal not a decisive factor for jurisdiction [Paras 13-65].

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission – Regional Benches and Jurisdiction – NCDRC, as a national-level tribunal, exercises jurisdiction across multiple states – Petitions challenging its orders must be filed in the High Court within the territorial jurisdiction of the original cause of action – Establishment of regional benches by the central government could further guide jurisdictional filings – [Paras 49-56].

Decision: All writ petitions dismissed for lack of jurisdiction – Petitioners directed to pursue remedies in the appropriate jurisdictional High Courts – Delhi High Court cannot entertain petitions solely based on the situs of the NCDRC [Paras 73-76].

Criminal Law – Pre-Arrest Bail – Dismissed - Exercise of Extraordinary Power – The petitioners sought pre-arrest bail in a case registered against them for offenses under Sections 498-A, 504, 506, and 306 read with Section 34 of the IPC – The deceased had given a statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. alleging harassment by the petitioners – The Court found that the petitioners were prima facie involved in the offenses and that custodial interrogation was necessary to uncover the circumstances leading to the deceased's suicide – Held: The power to grant pre-arrest bail is extraordinary and should be exercised sparingly, particularly in serious cases where custodial interrogation is required to ascertain the truth – Petitions dismissed [Paras 25, 67, 83].

Custodial Interrogation – Necessity in Investigation – The Court emphasized the importance of custodial interrogation in cases involving serious allegations like abetment to suicide – Held: Effective interrogation of a suspect is crucial and may be rendered ineffective if the suspect is granted pre-arrest bail – The need for custodial interrogation outweighs the liberty of the individual in this case [Paras 67, 83].

Consideration for Grant of Anticipatory Bail – The Court referred to the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which highlight the necessity to balance individual rights, public interest, and fair investigation while considering pre-arrest bail – The grant of pre-arrest bail is not a rule but an exception and should be granted only when the court is convinced of exceptional circumstances [Paras 21, 25].

Decision:

Petitions for pre-arrest bail dismissed – The nature of the offense and the necessity for custodial interrogation disentitled the petitioners from the concession of bail – Observations made are confined to the disposal of these petitions and shall not impact the merits of the case [Para 83].

Compensation – Death Due to Negligence – Maintainability Under Article 226 – The petitioners sought compensation for the death of their minor son caused by the alleged negligence of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) in maintaining its premises – Held: The High Court can entertain writ petitions under Article 226 for compensation in cases of violation of fundamental rights, including Article 21, where the State's negligence is evident – The Court found sufficient evidence of negligence by MCD in failing to maintain the premises, leading to the death – The writ petition is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution [Paras 15-18].

Res Ipsa Loquitur – Application in Public Law Remedy – The Court applied the maxim 'Res Ipsa Loquitur,' presuming negligence on the part of MCD – It was established that the falling of a slab from the MCD-owned premises caused the death, indicating clear negligence in maintaining a safe environment for the public – Held: The principle allows for the presumption of negligence based on the circumstances surrounding the case, justifying the awarding of compensation [Paras 19-21].

Quantum of Compensation – Calculation – The petitioners sought compensation of Rs. 20,00,000 – The Court applied principles from prior judgments, considering factors such as the age of the deceased, potential future prospects, and minimum wage rates – The Court awarded Rs. 10,00,000 along with simple interest at 6% per annum from the date of death until realization – The compensation was computed based on loss of dependency and pecuniary losses, with the amount being adjusted for inflation [Paras 22-34].

Decision – Compensation Awarded – The Court directed the Municipal Corporation of Delhi to pay Rs. 10,00,000 as compensation with interest at 6% per annum from the date of death – In case of non-compliance, the petitioners would be entitled to an additional simple interest at the rate of 10% per annum – The writ petition was disposed of with these directions [Paras 34-35].

Criminal Law – Conviction under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC – Appellants convicted for dowry death and cruelty towards the deceased (Paramjit Kaur) – Trial court sentenced them to 7 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 304-B IPC and 1 year under Section 498-A IPC – Appellants challenged the conviction, arguing that the dying declaration was unreliable and there was no evidence of cruelty or demand for dowry – Held: The prosecution proved that the deceased died due to poisoning within 7 years of marriage, and there was credible evidence of harassment and demand for dowry – Conviction upheld [Paras 1-32].

Dying Declaration – Reliability – The deceased, Paramjit Kaur, made a dying declaration implicating her husband (Mohinder Singh), father-in-law (Amrik Singh), and other relatives for harassment and dowry demands – The appellants argued that the dying declaration lacked a doctor’s fitness certificate – Held: The declaration, recorded by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, was found credible and supported by other evidence, including witness testimonies and medical reports – The absence of a doctor's certificate did not invalidate the declaration [Paras 8-10, 30].

Presumption under Section 113-B of Indian Evidence Act – Dowry Death – The deceased died within 7 years of marriage and was subjected to harassment related to dowry – The court applied the presumption under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, shifting the burden of proof onto the accused – The appellants failed to rebut this presumption, and the prosecution’s evidence supported the conviction for dowry death under Section 304-B IPC [Paras 11-12, 26-31].

Medical Evidence – Cause of Death – The post-mortem and chemical analysis confirmed that the deceased died of poisoning by aluminium phosphide – The medical evidence corroborated the prosecution's case that the death was unnatural and related to dowry demands – No discrepancies in the medical testimony were found [Paras 19-21, 29].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC upheld – Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of [Paras 32-33].