Dowry Death – Appeal Against Acquittal – Contradictions in prosecution evidence regarding post-marriage dowry payments – No specific proof of cruelty or harassment “soon before death” – Presumption under S.113-B Evidence Act not attracted – Two reasonable views possible – No perversity in evaluation of evidence – Acquittal upheld – Additional direction issued to trial courts in U.P. not to write judgments partially in Hindi and partially in English except for limited permissible quotations [Paras 19–33, 34–38].

Criminal Law – Dowry Death – Ingredients of Section 304-B – Requirement of proof of cruelty or harassment “soon before death” – Held, though death occurred within 7 years of marriage and was unnatural (aluminium phosphide poisoning), prosecution failed to prove cruelty or harassment in connection with dowry demand soon before death – Mere proof of unnatural death insufficient to invoke Section 304-B IPC [Paras 19–21, 31–32].

Evidence Law – Section 113-B Presumption – Presumption arises only when prosecution proves cruelty/harassment for dowry “soon before death” – Contradictions in evidence regarding alleged payment of ₹5 lakhs / jewellery worth ₹3–4 lakhs; no complaint ever made during 32 months of marriage; no specific act of cruelty proved – Presumption under Section 113-B not attracted and stood rebutted [Paras 20–23, 31–32].

Witness Credibility – Contradictions and Improvements – PW1 (father) contradicted FIR regarding post-marriage payments; PW2 (cousin) failed to specify exact amount allegedly given; neither narrated any specific act of cruelty; improvements and omissions held material – Trial Court’s findings upheld [Paras 12(2), 20–21, 25].

Conduct of Accused – Husband admitted deceased to hospital, cleared bills, remained present till last rites – Found by both courts to indicate bona fides and absence of incriminating conduct – No evidence of absconding or concealment – Supports acquittal [Paras 23–24, 26–28].

Medical Evidence – No ante-mortem injuries found – Cause of death established as aluminium phosphide poisoning – Prosecution failed to prove whether death was suicidal or homicidal – No link established between accused and poisoning [Paras 12(4), 32].

Appeal Against Acquittal – Scope of Interference – Reliance on precedents: Bharwad Jakshibhai Nagjibhai (1995) 5 SCC 602; Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 561; Gamini Bala Koteswara Rao (2009) 10 SCC 636 – Held: Unless findings are perverse or based on misreading of evidence, High Court cannot substitute its own view if two views are reasonably possible – Trial court’s view held reasonable – Acquittal sustained [Paras 15–18, 33].

Dowry Demand – No Demand at Marriage – PW2 admitted marriage was cordial and “rajī-khushī se huī thī” – Prosecution failed to prove demand at marriage or that any post-marriage payment was in connection with dowry within Section 2, Dowry Prohibition Act – Essential ingredients not established [Paras 25–26, 31].

Trial Court Judgment – Bilingual Drafting Defect – High Court noted that the impugned judgment contained 63 paragraphs in English, 125 paragraphs in Hindi, and 11 mixed paragraphs with sentences half in Hindi and half in English – Held improper – Direction issued that trial courts may write judgments either entirely in Hindi or entirely in English, except for quoting extracts of higher-court judgments or evidence, which must then be translated – Circulars and prior orders referred – Judgment circulated to all Judicial Officers and placed before Hon’ble the Chief Justice for appropriate action [Paras 34–38].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Acquittal upheld – Statutory presumption in favour of acquitted accused reinforced – No perversity or misreading proved [Paras 33].

Motor Accident Claims – Delay in FIR – Rejection of Claims – Set Aside – Appellants, husband and wife, injured in motorbike accident, filed claims which were dismissed by Tribunal for delay in lodging FIR – Medical records (Exhibits P7 and P10) substantiated road traffic accident – Held: Delay alone not sufficient ground to disbelieve accident – Mental agony, treatment needs, and absence of fabrication sufficient justification for delay [Paras 2–6, 8–9].

Evidence – Weight of Medical Certificates – Wound certificates clearly recorded cause as road traffic accident – Tribunal erred in ignoring such documentary evidence – Hospital’s failure to report accident should not prejudice claimants – Court emphasized evidentiary value of injury documentation in absence of prompt police report [Paras 6–7].

Principles of Law – FIR Delay Not Fatal – FIR delay in genuine accident cases cannot override material evidence – Reiterated Supreme Court precedent (Ravi v. Badrinarayan, 2011 ACJ 911) – Emphasized that lodging delay does not per se imply fabrication or false claim – Tribunal's conclusion reversed as legally unsustainable [Paras 4, 7, 8].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Order of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Belgaum in MVC No.1710/2013 and MVC No.1798/2013 dated 10.09.2014 set aside – Tribunal directed to restore cases, consider evidence afresh, and decide on merits.

Criminal Law – Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Fraudulent Loan Disbursement – Complaint case based on FIR alleging misappropriation of ₹8 lakhs through fraudulent withdrawal by bank officials, including Branch Manager, Loan Manager, Deputy Manager, Head Cashier and Peon – Applicants sought quashing of proceedings under Section 482 CrPC, claiming lack of direct role and clean chit in police final reports – Court held: Detailed and specific allegations made by complainant under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC supported by witnesses – Final reports have no bearing once complaint is registered and cognizance is taken [Paras 5–7, 25–27, 29]

Banking Fraud – Role of Bank Officials – Complainant alleged he was misled into opening an account and made to sign blank documents – Loan of ₹8 lakhs sanctioned without proper signatures and withdrawn in violation of bank norms through loose cheque exceeding ₹25,000 limit – RTI replies and documentary annexures reveal absence of due process and support fraud allegations – Involvement of sanctioning and disbursing authorities, including Ayushi Mishra, Rajesh Kumar and Brijesh Kumar @ Brijesh Kumar Kashyap, prima facie evident [Paras 17–18, 26–27]

Criminal Procedure – Section 482 CrPC – Scope – Summoning Order – Court reiterates settled law that at quashing stage, evidence cannot be evaluated – Magistrate’s summoning order based on specific statements under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC and supported by documents and witnesses – Held: Magistrate applied mind to material and exercised discretion properly – No interference warranted at pre-trial stage [Paras 14, 26–29]

Complaint Proceedings – Relevance of Final Report – Twice police submitted final reports giving clean chit – Complainant filed protest petition, converted into complaint case – Court holds: Once complaint is registered and Magistrate takes cognizance after examining complainant and witnesses, findings of police investigation lose relevance – Statements under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC form basis for summoning [Paras 7, 23–24]

Forgery and Economic Offence – Prima Facie Case – Allegations involve forging documents, unauthorized withdrawal, and misuse of public trust in banking system – Supreme Court precedents cited (Dharambeer Kumar Singh, Aryan Singh, Parbatbhai Aahir) emphasise that economic offences with social impact warrant trial – Court finds material sufficient to proceed – Quashing rejected [Paras 20–22, 26–28]

Decision: Applications under Section 482 CrPC dismissed – Summoning orders upheld – Allegations disclose commission of cognizable offences – Sufficient prima facie material available – Trial required to adjudicate facts – No costs imposed.

Insurance Law – Life Insurance – Suppression of Material Facts – Section 45 Insurance Act – Appellant’s husband obtained life insurance and died within six months of issuance – Claim repudiated by LIC alleging non-disclosure of diabetes, hypertension, and chronic renal failure – Trial Court decreed suit holding LIC failed to prove suppression – Appellate Court reversed, holding insured guilty of concealment – Held: Contract of life insurance governed by principle of uberrima fides – LIC must prove with cogent evidence that insured knowingly suppressed material facts – LIC failed to examine its own medical officer or investigating officer and relied only on post-policy hospital records – Such evidence insufficient to meet burden under Section 45 – Repudiation unsustainable – Appeal allowed – Trial court decree restored [Paras 23–26].

Evidence – Adverse Inference – Section 114(g) – LIC withheld best evidence including authorised doctor who examined insured at proposal stage – Held: Adverse inference arises – Non-production of crucial witnesses and records undermines insurer's defence of concealment – Court may presume withheld evidence would be unfavourable to LIC [Para 23].

Contract Law – Fraud and Misrepresentation – Burden of Proof – Mere presence of illness or post-policy hospital admission not sufficient to infer fraud at the time of proposal – Insurer must prove insured's knowledge of illness and wilful suppression at the time of entering contract – No direct evidence led by LIC to prove intention or knowledge of falsehood – Held: Contract not vitiated by fraud – Decree for insured’s nominee maintained [Paras 25–26].

Appellate Review – Misapplication of Law – Appellate Court reversed trial court findings relying solely on post-policy medical records and inferences – Held: Findings based on conjecture and not legally sustainable – Misapplication of evidentiary burden under Section 45 – Trial court's view held to be reasonable and based on proper appreciation of evidence [Paras 25–26].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of District Judge dated 2.11.1995 set aside – Judgment and decree of Trial Court dated 4.8.1994 restored – Plaintiff entitled to recover ₹50,000 under life insurance policy with 12% interest and consequential benefits – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 27–28].

Income Tax – Assessment under Section 153D – Mechanical Approval – Validity – Revenue challenged ITAT order which quashed assessments for AY 2007–08 on ground that approval under Section 153D was granted mechanically by Additional CIT through a single omnibus letter covering 246 assessments – Tribunal held approval lacked application of mind and violated legislative intent requiring due consideration of seized materials – Following Pr. CIT (Central-2) v. M/s MDLR Hotels Pvt. Ltd., ITA No.593/2023 (Del) and Pr. CIT (Central-2) v. M/s King Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., ITA No.754/2024 (Del) – Held: Approval given in bulk without reference to individual records or seized material defeats purpose of Section 153D – Such “rubber-stamp” or blanket approval unsustainable [Paras 3–5].

Administrative Approval – Requirement of Satisfaction – Court reaffirmed that statutory satisfaction under Sections 151 and 153D must reflect due application of mind – Merely appending “Yes” or issuing a common sanction letter to multiple assessments cannot be deemed valid approval – Citing Pr. CIT-7 v. Pioneer Town Planners Pvt. Ltd., 2024 SCC OnLine Del 1685; N.C. Cables Ltd.; and Central India Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. ITO [Paras 4, 15–21].

Judicial Precedent – Binding Effect – Court followed coordinate bench rulings in MDLR Hotels Pvt. Ltd. and King Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., arising from identical ITAT order dated 08.02.2023 and involving same issue of Section 153D approval – Held: No new substantial question of law arises – Appeal covered by settled precedent [Paras 4–6].

Decision – Delay in refiling (812 days) condoned – Appeal dismissed – No substantial question of law arises – Issue concerning interplay of Section 144A and Search & Seizure Manual, 2007 kept open for future consideration [Paras 1, 6–7].

Criminal Law – Anticipatory Bail – Companies Act Offences – Bail Granted – Chartered Accountants facing prosecution under Sections 143 r/w 147 and 448 of the Companies Act, 2013 and related provisions for allegedly auditing falsified financial statements of SRS Group companies and concealing related party transactions – Petitioners had not been arrested during investigation – Trial court had issued summons and later warrants, prompting petitions under Section 438 CrPC – High Court held there was no material to show petitioners received disproportionate payments or undue favors in lieu of favorable audit reports – No evidence of complicity in the loan fraud or siphoning of funds – Bail granted as custodial interrogation not required [Paras 1, 3, 24, 29, 30]

Companies Act – Section 212(6) – Twin Conditions for Bail – Applicability – Court held that in absence of prima facie material indicating conspiracy or intent to commit fraud, statutory rigors of Section 212(6) would not preclude grant of bail – Reverse burden clause under Section 212(6) must be triggered only after primary burden is discharged by the prosecution – Held: Petitioners satisfied both limbs of Section 212(6) – Not guilty of offence and unlikely to commit any offence while on bail [Paras 31-33]

Audit Practice – Professional Negligence vs. Criminal Conspiracy – Distinction Drawn – Allegations primarily relate to failure in following auditing standards and non-reporting of circular transactions and related party dealings – Court observed no direct evidence of quid pro quo, criminal intent, or conspiracy with SRS Group controllers – Case does not exceed beyond dereliction of duty – Held: Auditors’ acts, even if deficient, did not amount to criminal complicity in financial fraud [Paras 24, 28-30]

Bank Lending – Role of Auditors – Scope of Responsibility – Consortium of banks (led by SBI) granted large-scale loans to SRS Group – Court found that banks did not rely upon audited financial statements while sanctioning credit – Held: No causal link between auditors' conduct and grant of loans – Bail granted as no complicity established [Paras 26-27]

Decision:

Anticipatory bail granted to all petitioners – Conditions imposed to ensure presence before trial court – Court clarified that mere professional lapses without quid pro quo or mens rea do not satisfy threshold under Section 212(6) Companies Act, 2013.

Family Law – Property Dispute Between Father and Son – Ownership and Possession – Father filed suit seeking mandatory injunction against son to vacate portion of self-acquired residential house – Son claimed house was joint family property and he was a coparcener – Trial Court and First Appellate Court held that property was purchased by father and his brother from their personal income and was not HUF property – Defendant failed to produce any evidence of coparcenary or ownership – Held: Son residing in father’s house as a permissive occupant cannot claim legal right to remain in possession – Father has absolute right to revoke permission and seek possession [Paras 5.4, 5.5, 6, 14, 15].

Civil Procedure – Suit for Mandatory Injunction – Maintainability – Son argued that suit should have been for possession and not mandatory injunction – Held: When defendant is in permissive possession without legal title and plaintiff remains in joint possession, suit for mandatory injunction is maintainable – No bar in seeking injunction to recover possession from permissive occupier [Paras 19, 20, 23].

Licensee vs. Permissive Possession – Meaning and Scope – Use of term "licensee" in plaint not fatal – Courts held son was not a licensee in strict legal sense but a permissive occupant – Gratuitous permission by parent creates no vested right – Suit maintainable even in absence of formal licensor-licensee relationship – Distinguished permissive possession from contractual license [Paras 8–12].

Second Appeal – No Substantial Question of Law – Concurrent findings of fact by both courts below based on proper appreciation of evidence – Defendant failed to establish any legal right or raise a question of law – Held: No ground for interference under Section 100 CPC – Appeal devoid of merit [Paras 14, 17, 18].

Exemplary Costs – Abuse of Process – Prolonged litigation by son against father despite lack of legal claim – Court deprecated the conduct and imposed exemplary cost of Rs.1,00,000/- on appellant – Observed such litigation erodes family trust and burdens judiciary [Para 24, 25].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree of lower courts affirmed – Exemplary costs of Rs.1,00,000/- imposed on appellant to be paid to respondent.

Civil Law – Interim Injunction – Violation of Status Quo Order – Plaintiffs filed suit for declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction with application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC – Trial Court granted injunction on 30.12.2019 directing parties to maintain status quo – Local Commissioner’s report confirmed ongoing construction by defendants in breach of order – Appellate Court partially allowed defendants’ appeal permitting them to complete construction on existing structure citing equity and investment – Held: Appellate Court erred in rewarding violation of trial court’s injunction by allowing construction completion – Such use of Local Commissioner’s report to justify continued breach undermines sanctity of interim orders – Appellate Court’s order modified – Respondents restrained from further construction, alienation, or creation of charge over suit land during pendency of suit – Trial Court’s interim directions restored [Paras 2-9].

Decision: Petitions allowed – Order of Appellate Court modified – Parties directed to maintain status quo regarding possession and nature of suit land – Respondents restrained from further construction, alienation, or creating any charge over the property without leave of the Trial Court.

Criminal Law – Assault – Acquittal Reversed – Respondents alleged to have assaulted complainant and his wife with broken glass bottle – Trial Court acquitted accused under Section 324/34 IPC holding prosecution evidence unreliable – High Court finds complainant’s testimony consistent and corroborated by medical evidence and arrest memos – Held: Testimony of PW1 supported by MLCs proves infliction of simple injuries beyond reasonable doubt – Acquittal order set aside – Conviction recorded under Section 323/34 IPC [Paras 5, 18–27, 30–31].

Appreciation of Evidence – Testimony of Injured Witness – Complainant’s version of events remained consistent with FIR and deposition – Minor inconsistencies regarding site plan and signatures on police documents do not justify rejection of entire testimony – Failure to examine second injured or IO not fatal as primary evidence sufficient – Trial Court erred in disbelieving complainant in toto [Paras 20–27].

Weapon – Dangerous Weapon – Section 324 IPC – Burden of Proof – Complainant claimed injuries caused by broken bottle – Medical report showed sharp injuries to complainant and blunt injuries to wife – No glass shards recovered – Held: In absence of recovery or clarity about nature of glass, prosecution failed to prove use of dangerous weapon – Conviction sustainable only under Section 323 IPC [Para 28].

Decision: Impugned judgment dated 11.09.2018 set aside – Respondents convicted under Section 323/34 IPC.