Criminal Law – Double Jeopardy – Section 300 Cr.P.C. – Article 20(2) of Constitution – Petitioner sought quashing of trial at Karera, Madhya Pradesh on ground that he had already been tried and acquitted in a connected case by courts in Rajasthan – Held: Protection against double jeopardy applies only when second prosecution is for the same offence and by a court of competent jurisdiction – Distinct FIRs registered in different States constitute separate causes of action – Bar under Section 300 Cr.P.C. not attracted [Paras 13, 18, 28–30].

Antiquities and Art Treasures Act – Theft and Trafficking of Idols – Multiple FIRs – Large-scale gang involved in stealing and exporting antiquities from different States – Each FIR relating to recovery of distinct stolen property gives rise to independent prosecution – Acquittal in one case does not immunize accused from prosecution in other cases involving separate offences and recoveries [Paras 21–28].

Territorial Jurisdiction – Sections 177–189 Cr.P.C. – Competency of Court – Only court within whose territorial jurisdiction offence was committed is competent to try the case – Proceedings before Jaipur Courts could not bar prosecution for offence committed within jurisdiction of Police Station Karera, District Shivpuri – Doctrine of autrefois acquit not applicable [Paras 18, 28].

Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Inherent Powers – Scope – Power to quash criminal proceedings to be exercised sparingly – No abuse of process or failure of justice demonstrated – Trial court and revisional court orders rejecting plea of double jeopardy found legal and proper – High Court declined interference [Paras 16, 30].

Acquittal on Benefit of Doubt – Effect – Acquittal by Rajasthan High Court was on benefit of doubt and not a clean acquittal on merits – Even otherwise, acquittal related to different FIRs and offences – Does not create statutory bar to continuation of trial in Madhya Pradesh [Paras 27–28].

Precedent – “Same Offence” Test – Supreme Court reiterated that for Article 20(2) to apply, offences must be identical in ingredients – Similarity of facts not sufficient – Reliance placed on State of Bombay v. S.L. Apte – Distinct offences cannot attract constitutional bar [Para 29].

Direction – Speedy Trial – Trial Court directed to conduct proceedings expeditiously, preferably on day-to-day basis – Clarified that no opinion expressed on merits of case [Paras 31–32].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Orders of Trial Court and Revisional Court affirmed – Plea of double jeopardy rejected – Criminal trial to proceed in accordance with law.

Domestic Violence Law – Right of Residence vs. Senior Citizens’ Rights – Section 17 PWDV Act – Held: The right of residence under Section 17 is a protective right, not an indefeasible right of ownership or a license to indefinitely occupy premises owned by in-laws when such occupation causes demonstrable harm to senior citizens. Where cohabitation becomes unworkable and detrimental to the health of the parents-in-law (one suffering from Parkinson’s), the daughter-in-law can be directed to vacate subject to provision of alternate accommodation. [Paras 18.2-18.6, 21.1].

Civil Procedure – Interim Mandatory Injunction – Eviction at Interlocutory Stage – Held: An interim mandatory injunction for eviction can be granted in exceptional circumstances to prevent irreparable harm. The "toxic" atmosphere in the household, confirmed by counsellor reports, and the deteriorating health of the senior citizen owner constituted irreparable injury justifying the restoration of the parents' peaceful possession pending trial. [Paras 20.1-20.3].

Domestic Violence Law – Alternate Accommodation – Section 19(1)(f) PWDV Act – Held: The Appellant’s rights were sufficiently safeguarded by the direction to the Respondents to provide alternate accommodation at a rental cap of Rs. 2.50 Lakhs/month, plus ancillary charges and school fees. This arrangement strikes a balance between the daughter-in-law’s statutory protection and the senior citizens’ right to dignity. [Paras 19.1-19.4].

Family Law – Welfare of Minor Children – Held: The eviction order does not prejudice the minor children where the alternate accommodation is in the same vicinity (Gurugram), ensuring continuity of schooling at Pathways School, and where the environment in the suit property had become hostile and adverse to their well-being. [Paras 23.1-23.3].

Decision: Appeal dismissed. Interim arrangement for alternate accommodation and eviction upheld. Compliance period to count from 01.01.2026. [Paras 27-29].

Criminal Law – Appreciation of Evidence – Injured Witnesses – Police party ambushed by extremists; SP Pakur and 5 others killed; 3 injured witnesses (PW-12, 30, 31) survived – Held: Testimony of injured witnesses is entitled to a higher degree of credence as their presence is guaranteed – Minor discrepancies regarding the exact location of taking cover (ditch vs. near vehicle) do not erode evidentiary value in a chaotic ambush scenario – Identification of appellants in court accepted as reliable – [Paras 47, 59, 60].

Evidence Law – Identification – Dock Identification without TIP – Appellants identified by injured witnesses in court; no Test Identification Parade (TIP) was conducted – Held: TIP is corroborative, not substantive – Where accused are named or known by aliases heard during the incident (extremists calling out names "Tala Da", "Pravir Da"), and witnesses identify them in court, the identification is valid – Failure to hold TIP is not fatal when accused are identified by injured witnesses who had opportunity to see them from close quarters during looting of arms – [Paras 59(VIII), 60].

Evidence Law – Res Gestae – Section 6 – Statements made by injured witnesses to police personnel arriving immediately after the ambush – Held: While technically the "transaction" of the attack ended, the statements made by injured victims groaning in pain to rescuers arriving shortly thereafter are relevant facts – However, conviction primarily based on direct testimony of injured witnesses – [Paras 33, 34, 61].

Criminal Law – Abetment vs. Presence – Section 109 vs. Section 114 IPC – Trial Court convicted appellants under Section 109 IPC – Held: Section 109 applies to abettors not present at the scene – Since appellants were present and participated, Section 114 applies – Conviction under Section 109 set aside; conviction under Section 302/149 affirmed – [Para 63].

Criminal Law – Sentencing – Death Sentence vs. Life Imprisonment – Split Verdict – Trial Court awarded death sentence; Division Bench delivered split verdict (one acquittal, one confirmation) – Matter referred to Third Judge – Held: The ambush was a "rarest of rare" crime involving the cold-blooded murder of high-ranking police officials – However, the existence of a difference of opinion in the Division Bench (one Judge acquitting) is a weighty factor for commutation – Death sentence commuted to rigorous imprisonment for life – [Paras 66, 67, 68].

Decision: Appeals dismissed with modification in sentence. Conviction affirmed. Death sentence commuted to Life Imprisonment.

Property Law – Declaration of Title – Burden of Proof – Plaintiff seeking declaration of title and mandatory injunction against defendant alleged to have encroached and constructed house – Held: In a suit for declaration, plaintiff must affirmatively prove her own title and also the title of her vendors – Failure to establish identity of property and boundaries fatal to claim [Paras 16–20].

Civil Dispute – Identity of Property – Uncertainty – Plaintiff purchased property without survey or physical delivery – Vendors admitted ignorance of boundaries and survey numbers – Defendant’s construction existed prior to plaintiff’s purchase – Held: Where identity of suit property is doubtful, declaratory relief cannot be granted [Paras 16–20].

Mandatory Injunction – Demolition of Structures – Pre-existing Construction – Defendant constructed house after obtaining municipal permission in 1996, prior to plaintiff’s purchase in 2003 – Held: Plaintiff not entitled to mandatory injunction when construction pre-dates her title and no encroachment proved [Paras 18–20].

Evidence – Admissions – Effect – Plaintiff and her vendor admitted that property sold under sale deed was vacant and different from property on which defendant constructed house – Held: Such admissions destroy plaintiff’s claim of better title and possession [Paras 16–18].

Sale of Immovable Property – Alternative Relief of Refund – Necessity of Cancellation of Sale Deed – Plaintiff sought refund of sale consideration without seeking cancellation of registered sale deed – Held: Without seeking declaration of sale deed as null and void, refund of consideration not maintainable [Paras 21–22].

Civil Procedure – Order XLI Rule 31 CPC – Compliance – First Appellate Court framed points for determination, discussed evidence and assigned reasons – Held: Substantial compliance with Rule 31 sufficient – No illegality or perversity in appellate judgment [Paras 23–25].

Second Appeal – Section 100 CPC – Scope – High Court reiterated that concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered with unless perverse or contrary to law – Held: No substantial question of law arises for consideration [Paras 15, 26].

Decision: Second Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree dated 15/06/2018 in A.S. No. 66 of 2013 confirming judgment and decree dated 06/06/2013 in O.S. No. 316 of 2005 upheld – Plaintiff not entitled to declaration, injunction or refund – Parties to bear their own costs.

Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - Competent Authority - Jurisdiction to Award Damages - Execution of Orders - Section 24(2) of the Rent Act - The Competent Authority under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, has jurisdiction not only to order eviction but also to determine and award damages at double the license fee against an overstaying licensee- Such orders are executable as if they were decrees of a Civil Court, and the transfer of such orders for execution to a Civil Court is permissible-

Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - Section 24(2) - Execution of Decree - Damages for Overstaying Licensee - The appellant challenged the execution of an order by the Competent Authority under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, which awarded damages at double the license fee against him for overstaying in licensed premises- The appellant contended that the Competent Authority lacked jurisdiction to award damages, that its order was not a "decree" under CPC, and that execution was barred by limitation- The High Court, affirming the Single Judge's decision, held: The Competent Authority has the power to determine and award damages under Section 24(2) of the Rent Act, which is incidental to its power to evict- Such orders are executable as if they were decrees of a Civil Court- The legislative intent behind Section 24(4) is to deter overstaying licensees and prevent delays- The appellant's arguments, including those on nullity and limitation, were rejected as dilatory tactics aimed at frustrating the decree holder- The appeal was dismissed with exemplary costs- Paras [2-45]

Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - Section 24(2) - Interpretation - Legislative Intent - Held: Section 24(2) of the Rent Act, providing for double damages against an overstaying licensee, is a deterrent provision- The legislative intent is to provide an expeditious remedy to licensors and prevent licensees from exploiting legal delays- An interpretation that would require separate civil suits for damages would undermine this objective- Paras [23, 24, 25, 26]

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Execution of Orders - Competent Authority - Held: Orders passed by the Competent Authority under the Rent Act, including those awarding damages, are executable as if they were decrees of a Civil Court- The transfer of such orders for execution to a Civil Court is permissible, and arguments against such transfer based on the inapplicability of CPC provisions are misconceived- Paras [33, 34]

Execution Proceedings - Delay - Abuse of Process - Held: Unreasonable delay in the execution of a decree frustrates the fruits of success for a litigant- Judgment debtors should not abuse the process of the Court to defraud creditors- Raising contradictory pleas and dilatory tactics to delay payment, especially for a modest sum, constitutes an abuse of process- Paras [6, 42, 43]

Limitation - Execution of Orders - Held: The argument that execution proceedings were barred by limitation was rejected, as the appellant appeared to be indulging in speculative litigation to create hurdles- The Court found no facts to support the application of a limitation bar in this case- Paras [40]

Decision: Appeal dismissed with costs of Rs. 50,000/- - Directions issued for compliance report and discharge of bank guarantees - Paras [45, 49, 51].

Civil Procedure – Rejection of Plaint – Scope of Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Held: The power to reject a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 is circumscribed by the averments in the plaint alone. The Court cannot embark upon a fact-finding exercise, look at the defense, or rely on external material at this stage. The Single Judge erred in recording a factual finding that the ancestor (Horam) never constituted a Joint Hindu Family (JHF) and that the property was self-acquired, which are matters for trial. [Paras 21-25].

Civil Procedure – Partial Rejection of Plaint – Held: A plaint cannot be rejected in part. Where the plaintiff asserted possession over a portion of the suit property and sought a permanent injunction, the rejection of the plaint without examining this prayer independently was contrary to settled legal principles. [Para 33].

Hindu Law – Coparcenary – Burden of Proof at Threshold Stage – Held: The Single Judge’s requirement for the plaintiff to produce documents showing contribution to reconstruction or to file affidavits regarding employment at the Order VII Rule 11 stage amounted to an impermissible appreciation of evidence. Issues regarding blending of property and existence of a JHF nucleus require trial. [Paras 26-27].

Decision: Appeal allowed. Impugned Judgment set aside. Suit restored to original number. [Para 34].

Hindu Marriage Act – Divorce – Cruelty – False Criminal Complaints – Decree Affirmed – Husband sought divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) HMA alleging mental cruelty – Wife lodged complaint for dowry harassment and alleged second marriage after long lapse of time – All accused acquitted – Held: Lodging false and unsubstantiated criminal complaints and indulging in character assassination amounts to mental cruelty justifying dissolution of marriage [Paras 7, 10–11, 13–15].

Family Law – Mental Cruelty – Character Assassination – Court held that imputations of dowry demand and bigamy without proof caused serious mental agony to husband and his family – Filing of such complaints after reconciliation and birth of children treated as contrived afterthought – Findings of Trial Court upheld [Paras 7, 10–13].

Appreciation of Evidence – Family Court Proceedings – Concurrent Findings – Family Court relied on earlier decree of restitution of conjugal rights, subsequent conduct of wife, criminal proceedings and acquittal – Held: Proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence – No perversity or illegality warranting appellate interference [Paras 7, 9–11, 15].

Restitution of Conjugal Rights – Subsequent Conduct – Respondent obtained decree for restitution but wife failed to resume cohabitation – Even after compromise and resumption of cohabitation, disputes revived – Subsequent criminal litigation considered relevant conduct for assessing cruelty [Paras 3, 7, 9–10].

Children – Educational and Future Expenses – Undertaking by Husband – Court took judicial notice of school fee receipts and affidavit filed by husband undertaking to bear educational and marriage expenses of daughters – Held: Undertaking binding – Direction issued to strictly comply with same [Paras 12, 14, 16].

Long Separation – Irretrievable Breakdown – Parties living separately for more than a decade – Continuous litigation and acrimony – Though not an independent statutory ground, long separation considered while affirming decree of divorce [Paras 13–15].

Decision: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree dated 28.09.2016 in FCHMOP No. 60 of 2015 affirmed – Decree of divorce upheld – Connected Miscellaneous Petition closed – No order as to costs – Respondent directed to strictly abide by undertaking regarding children’s future expenses.

Contract Law – Specific Performance – Uncertainty of Terms – Section 29 Contract Act – Agreement to sell (Ex.P1) mentioned sale of 9.5 acres of land but failed to specify khasra numbers, khewat, khatauni, or boundaries – Plaintiff's claim in plaint referred to 59 Kanals 3 Marlas (approx 7.4 acres) – Held: An agreement lacking essential particulars concerning the identity of the property is uncertain and unenforceable – Courts cannot adduce oral evidence to create clarity where parties failed to do so – Specific performance denied due to incurable vagueness – [Paras 16, 17, 18].

Property Law – Bona Fide Purchaser – Section 41 TPA – Defendant No. 1 sold land to Defendant Nos. 2-4 via registered sale deed – Revenue records showed no encumbrance or prior agreement – Sale deed executed one year after agreement date – Held: Purchasers (D2-D4) acted with due diligence by verifying revenue records – No suspicious circumstances existed to put them on inquiry – They are entitled to protection as bona fide purchasers for value without notice – [Paras 13, 14, 15].

Civil Procedure – Adverse Inference – Defendant No. 1 (Vendor) did not file written statement or enter witness box – Held: Adverse inference under Section 114(g) Evidence Act justified regarding execution of agreement, but relief denied on other grounds (uncertainty and bona fide purchase) – [Para 10].

Decision: Appeal dismissed. Judgment of the First Appellate Court dismissing the suit is affirmed.

Prevention of Money Laundering Act – Cognizance of Offence – Supplementary Complaint – Validity – Petition challenged order taking cognizance of supplementary complaint arraigning additional accused after cognizance had already been taken in original complaint – Held: Cognizance is taken of the offence and not the offender – Concept of “second cognizance” unknown to criminal jurisprudence – Supplementary complaint under Section 44 Explanation (ii) PMLA valid and deemed part of original complaint [Paras 64–66, 81–88, 113–115].

Criminal Procedure – Applicability of BNSS, 2023 – Pending Proceedings – Section 531(2)(a) BNSS – Cognizance of original complaint taken on 14.08.2023, prior to enforcement of BNSS on 01.07.2024 – Held: Proceedings were “pending” and therefore governed by Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – BNSS provisions including Section 223(1) inapplicable [Paras 16–20, 30, 46].

Criminal Procedure – Section 223(1) BNSS – Hearing of Accused before Cognizance – Scope – Proviso requiring hearing of accused applies only to complaints instituted after commencement of BNSS – Held: No violation in issuing summons on supplementary complaint when proceedings already pending under CrPC regime [Paras 18–19, 31–46].

Cognizance – Requirement of Reasoned Order – Distinction between Private Complaint and Complaint after Investigation – Enforcement Directorate complaint under PMLA filed after statutory investigation – Held: Magistrate/Special Court not required to pass elaborate or detailed order – Sufficient if order reflects application of mind to materials – Cognizance order dated 14.08.2023 upheld [Paras 47–63].

Prevention of Money Laundering Act – Nature of Complaint – Status vis-à-vis Police Report – Complaint under Section 44 PMLA treated akin to report under Section 190(1)(b) CrPC – ED officers not police officers, yet investigation precedes complaint – Held: Higher threshold applicable to private complaints not attracted [Paras 65–66].

Sanction for Prosecution – Section 197 CrPC / Section 218 BNSS – Scope – Allegation of receiving and concealing proceeds of crime – Acts alleged wholly outside scope of official duty – Further held that employees of Government companies / PSUs not removable by Government are not entitled to protection under Section 197 CrPC – No sanction required [Paras 67–77].

PMLA – Independent and Stand-alone Offence – Relationship with Predicate Offence – Sanction under Prevention of Corruption Act irrelevant to prosecution under PMLA – Once proceeds of crime traced, ED competent to prosecute – Restrictions under PC Act not imported into PMLA [Paras 78–80].

Further Investigation – Section 44 PMLA – Scope – Explanation (ii) to Section 44(1)(d) permits filing of subsequent complaint against additional accused, whether named earlier or not – Fresh materials or continued investigation sufficient – Non obstante clause gives overriding effect over CrPC provisions [Paras 102–115].

Judicial Review – Interference with Cognizance – Principles – Court reiterated limited scope of interference – No illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error found in order issuing summons on supplementary complaint [Paras 48–50, 118].

Decision: Criminal Original Petition dismissed – Order dated 17.03.2025 taking supplementary complaint on file and issuing summons upheld – Proceedings in C.C. No. 9 of 2023 to continue – Connected miscellaneous petition closed – No costs.