Criminal Law – Inherent Powers – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Quashing of Proceedings – Court empowered to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice – Proceedings against petitioner examined at threshold [Paras 1–3, 10–11].

Section 498A IPC – Scope of “Relative of Husband” – Neighbour or Stranger – Petitioner alleged to be neighbour of complainant’s matrimonial home – No blood relation or relation by marriage – Neighbours do not fall within ambit of “relative” under Section 498A – Penal provision to be construed strictly [Paras 8–10].

Matrimonial Disputes – Roping in Third Parties – Allegation of Instigation Alone Insufficient – Mere allegation that neighbour instigated husband does not attract offence under Section 498A IPC – No specific overt acts constituting cruelty alleged against petitioner [Paras 4, 8].

Charge Sheet – Scrutiny of Allegations – Name of Petitioner Absent from Core Allegations – Charge sheet and complaint do not disclose prima facie case against petitioner – Continuation of proceedings would amount to misuse of criminal process [Paras 8–10].

Precedent – Binding Supreme Court Law – Ramesh Kannojiya v. State of Uttarakhand – Neighbours cannot be implicated under Section 498A IPC – Reliance placed on Vijeta Gajra v. State of NCT of Delhi and U. Suvetha v. State – Strict interpretation of “relative” reiterated [Para 9].

Decision – Proceedings Quashed – Criminal Petition Allowed – Entire proceedings in C.C. No. 32092/2021 quashed qua petitioner – Observations confined only to petitioner and not to influence trial against other accused [Paras 10–11].

Civil Law – Withdrawal of Suit – Plaintiff’s Right to Abandon – Dominus Litis – Plaintiffs, having settled with Defendant No. 5, sought to abandon the suit against him and delete Plot No. 73 from the suit – Trial Court rejected the application citing pendency of counter-claim by other defendants – Held: Under Order 23 Rule 1 CPC, plaintiffs have absolute right to unconditionally withdraw suit or part thereof – Court cannot compel plaintiff to continue suit – Rejection of amendment to delete co-defendant and suit plot unsustainable [Paras 14–21, 41].

Civil Procedure – Counter-Claim – Maintainability Against Co-Defendant – Abuse of Process – Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 sought to raise a counter-claim against Defendant No. 5 to recover Rs.1.61 crores under a 2008 agreement – Added declaratory relief against plaintiffs to sustain counter-claim – Held: Under Order 8 Rule 6-A CPC, counter-claim must be against plaintiff – Mere inclusion of a relief against plaintiff is insufficient if it is a subterfuge to target a co-defendant – Counter-claim primarily against D5 not maintainable [Paras 25–40].

Amendment of Pleadings – Amendment to Written Statement with Counter-Claim – Liberal Standards Do Not Apply Where Claim Is Legally Impermissible – Trial Court erred in allowing amendment when main intent was to set up a legally barred counter-claim against co-defendant – Liberal standard for amendment of written statement cannot justify permitting unlawful claims [Paras 23–24].

Decision: Writ Petitions Allowed – Common order of Trial Court set aside – Amendment of plaint to delete Defendant No. 5 and suit plot allowed – Amendment of written statement and counter-claim by Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 rejected – Rule made absolute [Para 42].

Criminal Law – Anticipatory Bail – Economic Offences – Petitioners sought anticipatory bail in FIR alleging cheating and criminal breach of trust in a housing redevelopment project – Petitioners, allegedly acting in concert, misrepresented ownership and control over two flats and induced complainant to invest Rs.1.91 crores – Despite MoUs and arbitral proceedings, FIR disclosed cognizable offences – Custodial interrogation held necessary in light of allegations of forged representations and financial misappropriation – Bail applications dismissed [Paras 1, 6, 7, 20-24]

Cheating – Misrepresentation of Ownership – Petitioners claimed to represent 11 flats before Arbitrator, though they owned only 9 – Two flats allegedly belonged to complainant, who was not party to arbitral proceedings – Petitioners knew complainant paid Rs.1.91 crores, but falsely recorded Rs. 40 lakhs – Allegations of deliberate misrepresentation found plausible at this stage [Paras 6, 15, 21]

Anticipatory Bail – Custodial Interrogation – Economic Offences – Supreme Court rulings relied upon to highlight seriousness of economic offences – Held: Custodial interrogation of petitioners necessary to trace money trail and examine alleged conspiracy – Protection under anticipatory bail would obstruct further investigation [Paras 22-23]

Civil vs Criminal Dispute – Petitioners argued dispute was civil and settlements were executed – Court held such documents do not negate FIR allegations at this stage – Matter involves serious allegations of inducement, fraud, and misuse of investor funds – Civil proceedings do not preclude parallel criminal liability [Paras 10-11, 21]

Decision: Anticipatory bail applications dismissed – Custodial interrogation held necessary in view of serious economic offences and prima facie material suggesting conspiracy, misrepresentation, and financial misappropriation – Observations in judgment confined to bail issue only [Paras 24-26]

Defamation – False Criminal Complaint – Statements in Judicial Proceedings – Petitioners alleged that respondent lodged a false criminal complaint in 2008 causing humiliation, mental agony and reputational harm – Held: Statements made in a police complaint or judicial proceedings can give rise to prosecution under Sections 499 and 500 IPC – No absolute immunity available merely because statements are made in judicial proceedings – Applicability of Exceptions to Section 499 IPC to be tested on facts and good faith [Paras 12(i), 14–17].

Defamation – Fifth Exception to Section 499 IPC – Scope – Respondent contended protection under Fifth Exception – Held: Protection applies only if opinion is expressed in good faith and confined to merits of decided case or conduct of parties as appearing in such conduct – Blanket protection not available – Whether exception applies requires factual foundation [Paras 7, 15–16].

Criminal Procedure – Enquiry under Section 202 CrPC – Beneficiary – Petitioners contended failure to conduct enquiry under Section 202 CrPC vitiated order – Held: Mandatory enquiry under Section 202 CrPC is for benefit of accused residing beyond jurisdiction – Complainant cannot invoke non-compliance as a ground to assail refusal of cognizance [Paras 18, 12(ii)].

Limitation – Defamation – Section 468 CrPC – Offence under Section 500 IPC punishable up to two years – Limitation period is three years – Complaint filed in 2017 for alleged defamation in 2008 – Held: Complaint clearly barred by limitation – No provision to defer commencement of limitation till quashing of criminal proceedings – Sections 469 and 470 CrPC not attracted [Paras 19–20, 12(iii)].

Section 195 CrPC – Bar to Cognizance – Same Transaction – Trial Court refused cognizance holding that offence under Section 182 IPC was barred under Section 195 CrPC and other offences arose from same transaction – High Court upheld view – Held: Genesis of all offences was filing of complaint before police – Bar under Section 195 CrPC extended to entire transaction – Distinction from cases where causes of action are independent [Paras 19].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Limited Interference – Trial Court found absence of material to establish lowering of reputation – High Court found no perversity or illegality – Held: Revisional court will not substitute its view where trial court’s order is reasoned and legally sustainable [Paras 21–22].

Decision – Criminal Revision Petition dismissed – Order refusing to take cognizance upheld [Paras 22].

Constitutional Law – Freedom of Religion – Article 25(1), 19(1)(a), 29(1), Constitution of India – Writ Petitions Maintainable – The High Court held that writ petitions seeking enforcement of a religious practice in protection of fundamental rights, including freedom to profess and practice religion (Article 25(1)), freedom of expression (Article 19(1)(a)), and the right to conserve culture (Article 29(1)), deserve to be entertained – The Court emphasized that restrictions on worship citing public order must be reasonable and not a cover to curtail rights, especially when authorities consistently ignore pleas for years – The Court found that the State's apprehension of public disturbance was an "imaginary ghost" and an exposure of their incapacity to maintain law and order or hesitation to foster harmony – The Court concluded that the alternate remedy under the HR & CE Act was not efficacious given the State's pre-determined stance and the history of litigation – The writ petitions were held not to be barred by res judicata as the specific relief sought (lighting Deepam at Deepathoon) was not finally determined in earlier litigations – The Court affirmed the right of worshippers to seek enforcement of religious practices through writ jurisdiction – [Paras 102, 104, 106, 107, 108, 109, 111, 112, 113, 140(a), 140(b), 158(d), 159(i), 160(j)].

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 – Customary Practices – Section 28, 63(e) – Judicial Review of Custom – The Court held that the HR & CE Department, as custodian of customary rights under Section 28, and the Joint Commissioner, empowered to inquire into usage under Section 63(e), had failed to act neutrally – The Court found that the Devasthanam and Government had "pre-closed their mind" and were not inclined to choose a suitable place for lighting the lamp, making recourse to Section 63(e) a "farce exercise" – The Court rejected the argument that courts cannot dictate customs, asserting that judicial review can ascertain prevailing customs when executive orders are challenged – The Court found no material to substantiate that "Agamasastra" prohibits lighting the Mahadeepam at any place other than the Uchipillaiyar Temple – The Court noted that the present place of lighting (Uchipillaiyar Temple) is not the "Uchi" (top of the hill) nor does it have a Pillaiyar idol, contrary to the Devasthanam's claims – The Court concluded that the Devasthanam and Government's contention that the present place aligns with Agamasastra is based on "hearsay statements" and lacks textual support – [Paras 68, 70, 77, 78, 79, 80, 84, 85, 88, 99, 100, 101, 103, 105, 106, 110(v)(b), 110(vi)(a), 111(vi)(b), 116, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 140(c)].

Property Law – Temple Property – O.S.No.04 of 1920 (Privy Council Confirmation) – Deepathoon Ownership – The Court reiterated that the Civil Court decree in O.S.No.04 of 1920, confirmed by the Privy Council, declared the Thiruparankundram hill (excluding specific areas like the Dharga and flagstaff) as the property of the Devasthanam – The stone pillar, identified as "Deepathoon," is located on a different rock at a lower summit, within the Devasthanam's property, and not within the Dharga area – The Court found that the pillar's distinct carved features and design differentiate it from a mere survey stone, rejecting claims by some appellants that it was a British survey mark or a Jain lamp post – The Court noted that the Devasthanam authorities had screened the pillar with cloth to prevent devotees from lighting lamps, which was seen as proof of the Temple's ownership and control over it – The Court rejected the Waqf Board's "mischievous submission" claiming ownership of the Deepathoon, especially since the Dharga representatives themselves had not claimed it – [Paras 18, 19, 20, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 38, 49, 50, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140(e), 158(e), 159(g)].

Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 – Protected Monuments – Rule 8(g) – Animal Sacrifice Prohibition – The Court noted that the Thiruparankundram Hill, covering 172.2 acres, is a protected monument under notifications from 1908 and 2023 – Rule 8(g) of the 1959 Rules prohibits bringing any animal for purposes other than monument maintenance, and Rule 8(c) prohibits cooking or consuming food except where specifically permitted – Therefore, there is a statutory bar against traditional animal sacrifice on the hill – The Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) is mandated to impose conditions to preserve monuments – [Paras 92, 95, 96, 98, 109(v)(a), 119, 120, 140, 141(1)].

Judicial Discipline – Precedent – Res Judicata – The Court found that earlier judgments, including W.P.No.18884 of 1994, provided temporary solutions and left open the issue of lighting Deepam at an alternate place, thus not constituting res judicata for the present petitions – The Court emphasized that the principle of res judicata in public interest litigation is not a technical bar when matters of grave public importance are considered – The Court criticized the Single Judge for exceeding jurisdiction by inventing a new custom and for passing judgment in haste without affording fair opportunity to all stakeholders – [Paras 68, 76, 79, 80, 81, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 94(b), 96(f), 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 131, 138, 140(a)].

Decision: Appeal allowed – The Devasthanam must light the lamp at the Deepathoon, in addition to existing prohibitions and restrictions under the Ancient Monument and Archaeological Sites and Remains Acts and Rules – ASI shall impose appropriate and necessary conditions to preserve the monuments – The Devasthanam team, in consultation with ASI and Police, shall light the lamp on Karthigaideepam festival day, with no public allowed to accompany the team – The District Collector shall co-ordinate and supervise the event – [Paras 141(1), 141(2)].

Parole – Indigent Prisoner – Surety Bond – Repeated Mechanical Imposition – Waiver Directed – Life convict granted fourth periodical parole of 40 days – District Parole Advisory Committee imposed condition of furnishing two sureties of ₹25,000 each despite petitioner’s proven indigence and despite three prior orders of High Court waiving such condition – Held: Insistence on sureties from an indigent prisoner renders sanctioned parole illusory and amounts to constructive denial of parole – Condition arbitrary, unreasonable and unconstitutional [Paras 1–3, 15, 19–21].

Prison Jurisprudence – Parole as Reformative and Humanitarian Measure – Not Executive Largesse – Parole intended to preserve family ties and aid reintegration – Conditions must conform to Articles 14 and 21 – Poverty cannot be a disqualifying factor for availing parole [Paras 8–9, 19].

Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 2021 – Rule 4 & Rule 8 – Nature of Power to Impose Conditions – Directory and Discretionary – Rule does not mandate furnishing of sureties in every case – Prisoner can be released on personal bond alone where circumstances so warrant [Paras 10–12].

Surety Requirement – Purpose – Means Not End – Furnishing surety is only to secure surrender after parole – Where indigence is established and undisputed, insistence on surety becomes oppressive and exclusionary – Such approach violates equality and dignity of prisoner [Paras 11–12, 15].

Fundamental Rights of Prisoners – Articles 14 & 21 – Prisoners Remain Rights-Bearing Individuals – Economic incapacity cannot justify hostile discrimination – Mechanical insistence on sureties from poor prisoners impermissible – Reliance on Sunil Batra, Moti Ram and Mohinder Singh [Paras 15, 17–19].

Precedent – Natia Jiria v. State of Gujarat (FB) – Poverty Is No Crime – Authority obliged to release prisoner on personal bond when plea of poverty is not rebutted – Discretion must be exercised to advance constitutional protection, not undermine it [Paras 13–14].

Administrative Apathy – Repeated Defiance of Judicial Orders – Despite three earlier High Court orders waiving surety, authorities again imposed identical condition – Held: Reflects disturbing institutional apathy to rule of law – Judicial correction warranted [Paras 2, 15].

Guidelines Issued – Parole Authorities – Uniform and Humane Exercise of Discretion – High Court framed binding guidelines regarding imposition/waiver of surety bonds, recording of indigence, effect of prior waivers, proportionality of bond amount, and coordination with Legal Services Authority – Directions to be followed in all future cases [Paras 22–23].

Relief – Modification of Parole Order – Condition of furnishing sureties waived – Petitioner directed to be released on parole on furnishing personal bond of ₹50,000 only – Writ petition allowed [Paras 21, 24].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Condition of furnishing two sureties set aside – Parole to be availed on personal bond alone – Guidelines issued for future compliance by authorities.

Commercial Law – Rejection of Plaint – Compliance with Section 12-A of Commercial Courts Act – Suit filed on 31st July 2021, registered on 18th December 2021 – High Court had declared Section 12-A mandatory on 1st October 2021 in Deepak Raheja – Held: Since suit was filed prior to that date, plaint cannot be rejected for non-compliance with Section 12-A – Filing of suit is relevant date for determining compliance, not registration [Paras 8, 22(a)-(b), 31].

Civil Procedure – Order VII Rule 11 CPC – No Cause of Action – Plaint alleges plaintiffs were beneficiaries under Master Restructuring Agreement (MRA) and Trust and Retention Account (TRA) agreements – Defendant no. 1 (SBI) was account bank and allegedly withheld funds due to plaintiffs – Suit also based on representations made in Joint Lenders Forum meetings – Held: Cause of action adequately pleaded; whether it is illusory or defective is a matter for trial – Rejection under Order VII Rule 11(a) not warranted [Paras 23–29].

Limitation – Recovery Suit – Article 113 of Limitation Act – Plaintiffs claim right to sue accrued only upon discovery of facts on 21st May 2019 via NCLT proceedings – Suit filed on 31st July 2021 – Held: Cause of action within limitation as pleaded; limitation involves mixed question of fact and law to be determined at trial stage [Paras 30, 22(k), 29].

Mediation – Validity of Private Mediation – Section 12-A of Commercial Courts Act read with 2018 Rules – Pre-litigation mediation attempted privately and failed – Held: Although private mediation does not fulfil mandatory requirement under Section 12-A, since suit was filed before Section 12-A was declared mandatory, rejection not warranted on this ground [Paras 5(a)-(b), 22(c), 31].

Practice and Procedure – Abuse of Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Court discourages frivolous applications for rejection of plaint that delay commercial suits – Reiterates power to reject plaint must be used sparingly and only when clear grounds under Order VII Rule 11 CPC are satisfied [Para 32].

Decision: Application rejected – None of the grounds under Order VII Rule 11 CPC satisfied – Suit to proceed to trial [Para 33].

Family Law – Divorce – Cruelty and Desertion – Husband alleged wife was quarrelsome, threatened to poison his blind parents, took his ATM card and money, and deserted him – Evidence led by husband found to be uncorroborated and lacking documentary support – In contrast, wife produced uncontroverted oral and documentary evidence including cybercrime and police complaints against the husband for uploading semi-nude images, digital abuse, and dowry-related harassment – Held: Cruelty not established by husband – Instead, cruelty by husband proved based on wife’s credible evidence [Paras 20, 40-44]

Family Law – Divorce – Desertion – Allegation by husband that wife deserted him since 19.05.2020 – Wife demonstrated she left due to cruelty, threats, and unsafe environment – Evidence showed she was compelled to leave due to abuse – Held: No voluntary or unjustified desertion by wife – Desertion not proved – Section 23(1)(a) of Hindu Marriage Act applied – Husband cannot take benefit of his own wrongdoing [Paras 33-37, 45-49]

Family Law – Perversity of Judgment – Husband claimed judgment of Family Court was perverse – High Court held trial court considered evidence thoroughly including respondent's uncontroverted witnesses and criminal proceedings substantiating her case – Held: No perversity or legal error – Family Court’s findings well-supported – Appeal dismissed [Paras 21-22, 51-52]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Divorce denied – Judgment of Family Court upheld – No proof of cruelty or desertion by wife – Pending interlocutory applications also disposed of

Anticipatory Bail – Matrimonial Offences – Serious Allegations of Sexual and Physical Cruelty – Application under Section 482 BNSS seeking anticipatory bail in FIR alleging dowry harassment, physical assault, sexual abuse including unnatural sex and attempted burning with cigarettes – Allegations spanning over two years of matrimonial relationship – Held: Case not a simple matrimonial dispute but involves grave and serious allegations warranting custodial interrogation [Paras 18–20].

Anticipatory Bail – Delay in FIR – Explanation Acceptable in Sexual Offences – FIR lodged after considerable delay – Explanation that complainant was traumatised, socially stigmatized and earlier attempts to lodge FIR were refused by police – Held: Delay in lodging FIR in cases involving sexual abuse and matrimonial cruelty is not fatal and does not discredit the prosecution case at the bail stage [Paras 12–13].

Custodial Interrogation – Necessity – Recovery of Electronic and Physical Evidence – Allegations that accused possessed intimate photographs, hard disks, jewellery (streedhan), personal documents and electronic devices belonging to complainant – Held: Custodial interrogation necessary to recover crucial evidence, uncover full extent of offence and prevent tampering or misuse of sensitive material [Paras 14, 27–30].

Anticipatory Bail – WhatsApp Chats and Electronic Evidence – Prima Facie Assessment – WhatsApp communications containing abusive language, threats and intimidation relied upon by prosecution – Report under Section 65-B Evidence Act collected during investigation certifying genuineness of electronic evidence – Held: At anticipatory bail stage, Court can prima facie look into electronic material to assess gravity and necessity of custodial interrogation without conducting a mini-trial [Paras 15, 18].

Anticipatory Bail – Marital Consent – Bodily Autonomy of Spouse – Court observed that marriage does not imply automatic or perpetual sexual consent – Non-consensual and unnatural sexual acts within marriage cause physical and mental trauma and constitute grave offences – Held: Allegations of sexual assault within marriage cannot be trivialized at the stage of anticipatory bail [Paras 19–20].

Anticipatory Bail – Balance Between Personal Liberty and Societal Interest – While personal liberty is important, Court must consider seriousness of offence, societal impact, likelihood of repetition and need for fair investigation – No special or compelling circumstances shown to justify pre-arrest protection – Held: Grant of anticipatory bail at initial stage likely to hamper investigation [Paras 21–29].

Decision – Application rejected – Anticipatory bail declined – Trial court order upheld – Clarified that observations confined to bail stage and shall not prejudice regular bail or trial on merits [Paras 30–31].