Divorce – Grounds of Cruelty, Adultery, and Desertion – Appellant sought divorce on allegations of cruelty, adultery, and desertion by the respondent – Held: The allegations made by the appellant were vague, unsubstantiated, and lacked specific dates, times, and evidence – The appellant failed to prove cruelty or adultery, and the court found that the respondent was willing to return to the matrimonial home, negating the ground of desertion – Divorce cannot be granted based on vague and unsubstantiated allegations [Paras 14-20, 22-23].

Second Marriage During Pendency of Divorce Proceedings – Appellant solemnized a second marriage after obtaining an ex parte divorce decree, which was later set aside by the High Court – Held: The appellant's second marriage during the subsistence of the first marriage was unjustified, and the allegations of cruelty and desertion were fabricated to justify the second marriage – The appeal was dismissed, and the lower court’s judgment refusing divorce was upheld [Paras 6, 22-23].

Decision:

Appeal dismissed – Judgment of the Family Court dismissing the divorce petition affirmed – The appellant’s allegations were vague and unproven, and the respondent expressed willingness to continue the marriage [Para 24].

Application of Section 319 CrPC – Addition of Accused Based on New Evidence – Contradictory Testimony – The petitioner, mother of the deceased, was added as an accused based on new evidence presented during trial under Section 319 CrPC – while earlier witnesses claimed the death was accidental, evidence emerged suggesting the death resulted from manual strangulation – Held: The trial court rightly exercised its discretion under Section 319 CrPC to summon the petitioner as an accused, based on the contradictions in witness testimonies and the postmortem report suggesting manual strangulation [Paras 10-15].

Contradictory Family Testimony – Protection of Accused Family Members – Hostile Witnesses – The family members initially testified that the deceased died from an accidental fall in the bathroom – however, subsequent testimony from P.W.16, a family friend, indicated possible foul play involving the petitioner – the court noted the suspicious protection of family members by hostile witnesses – Held: The court, using its powers under Section 165 of Indian Evidence Act, interrogated witnesses to establish the truth, supporting the inclusion of the petitioner as an accused [Paras 12-15].

Postmortem Evidence – Cause of Death Contradicts Family’s Narrative – The postmortem report revealed that the deceased had died due to manual strangulation – contradicting the family’s version of an accidental fall – Held: The medical evidence was crucial and consistent with foul play, leading to the petitioner’s addition as an accused [Para 14].

Motive for Murder – Forced Marriage – Love Affair – The prosecution introduced evidence that the deceased had been forced into an unwanted marriage, despite a prior romantic relationship – this served as a potential motive for the petitioner’s involvement in her daughter’s murder – Held: P.W.16’s testimony regarding the deceased’s unhappy marriage was a critical factor in supporting the prosecution’s theory, justifying the petitioner’s summoning as an accused [Paras 10-13].

Section 319 CrPC Invocation – Allowed Even in Advanced Stage of Trial – The petitioner argued that her addition as an accused under Section 319 CrPC was unjustified since the trial was nearing completion – Held: The court ruled that the timing of the invocation of Section 319 was immaterial, provided new evidence emerged justifying the addition of the accused [Para 15].

Decision: Petition dismissed – the court upheld the trial court’s order to summon the petitioner as an accused in the ongoing trial – the case was remanded to the trial court to continue proceedings, with the petitioner granted the right to present her defense [Paras 16].
 

Amendment of Pleadings – Order 6 Rule 17 CPC – Scope of Court’s Discretion – Amendment Necessary for Proper Adjudication – The plaintiffs filed an application seeking amendment of the plaint to add a prayer for possession after alleging that the defendants constructed shops and rooms on the suit property during the pendency of the suit for injunction. The Court held that at the stage of allowing an amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, the Court is not required to adjudicate on the correctness of the claims proposed to be added. The amendment was held necessary for determining the real controversy and to avoid multiplicity of litigation – Amendment upheld [Paras 5-7].

Effect of Amendment – No Prejudgment on Merits – Trial to Consider Evidence and Arguments – Allowing the amendment does not mean the Court has accepted the plaintiffs’ claims as true. The defendant’s rights remain protected, and they may file an amended written statement. The final determination will occur after considering the evidence during trial – No prejudice caused to defendants [Para 6].

Decision: Petition dismissed.

Contractual Matters – Tender Process – Judicial Review – Petitioner challenges the award of contract for supply of Liquid Medical Oxygen (LMO) to respondent No.5, alleging that PGIMER unlawfully relaxed eligibility criteria for respondent No.5 – Respondent No.5, a startup MSME, was allowed relaxation of experience and financial turnover requirements as per General Financial Rules (GFR) 2017 and Government of India instructions – Court holds that relaxation was justified under public procurement rules for startups and there was no mala fide intention or arbitrariness – Financial savings to PGIMER and absence of disruption in oxygen supply were emphasized as factors in the decision-making process [Paras 21–22, 24–32].

Tender Relaxation for Startups – Exemption Clauses – The tender floated by PGIMER inadvertently excluded provisions for MSME startups, but exemption granted to respondent No.5 was consistent with GFR 2017 and prior government directives – Court noted that PGIMER’s technical committee evaluated respondent No.5's capacity to supply LMO and found no procedural malfeasance in the grant of relaxation – The bid from respondent No.5 resulted in substantial cost savings and maintained uninterrupted oxygen supply to PGIMER [Paras 25–26, 32–33].

Scope of Judicial Review – Limited Interference – Court reaffirms that in contractual matters, judicial review should focus on whether the process is arbitrary, biased, or mala fide – In this case, the decision to grant relaxation to respondent No.5 was based on public interest and conformed to legal norms – Interference is unwarranted as the decision-making process was transparent, and no fundamental rights were violated – Reliance on judgments clarifying that minor deviations in the tender process do not justify judicial intervention in the absence of mala fide intent [Paras 26–30].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Court upholds PGIMER's decision to award contract to respondent No.5, stating that the process complied with the law and served the public interest – Minor procedural errors were found to be non-prejudicial and did not warrant judicial interference [Paras 32–35].

Bail - Murder – Mens Rea and Use of Safety Shoes as a Weapon – Section 302 IPC – Bail Denied - Petitioner accused of kicking the deceased, Hiralal, with safety shoes during a wedding altercation after a sudden provocation – Petitioner argued that the cause of death was unrelated to the kicks, citing the postmortem report and lack of external injuries – Court held: Kicking the deceased with safety shoes, a hard object capable of causing significant internal damage, particularly in the stomach and private parts, could demonstrate intent to cause serious injury or death – The use of safety shoes as a weapon increases the potential for fatal injuries, and the petitioner’s actions prima facie meet the ingredients of murder [Paras 7-10].

Causation and Internal Injuries – Septicemic Shock – Postmortem Report – The defense contended that the cause of death was "septicemic shock" due to surgical wounds and not from the kicks inflicted by the petitioner – Court held: Although the postmortem indicated septicemic shock, the kicks delivered to the deceased’s abdomen and private parts while wearing safety shoes were severe enough to contribute to internal injuries that may have led to the death – The petitioner’s actions fulfill the mens rea requirement for murder under Section 302 IPC [Para 4-5, 10].

Pending Evidence – Bail Denied Due to Pending Testimonies – Despite the defense presenting the testimony of the doctor who conducted the postmortem, several key eyewitness statements, including those of Mangi and Maku Ninama, were still pending – Court held: Since the trial is ongoing and crucial evidence is yet to be presented, bail cannot be granted at this stage [Para 8, 11].

Decision: Bail application dismissed – The court concluded that, based on the material available and the seriousness of the allegations, the petitioner is not entitled to bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. However, the observations made are solely for the purpose of deciding the bail application and shall not affect the merits of the case [Para 13].

Criminal Conspiracy – Section 120(B)(2) IPC – Arms Seizure – Section 25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act – Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Recovery Beyond Doubt – Conviction Set Aside – The petitioner was convicted under Section 25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act and Section 120(B)(2) of IPC for illegal possession of firearms based on evidence of a confessional statement and the recovery of arms from a box allegedly belonging to him. However, the prosecution failed to seize the box or prove its ownership, and key witnesses provided contradictory statements about the condition and possession of the box – Held: Conviction set aside due to lack of proper evidence and procedural infirmities [Paras 30-37].

Non-Seizure of Box – Material Evidence Not Properly Connected to the Accused – Infirmity in Prosecution Case – The prosecution failed to seize the box from which the arms were allegedly recovered, and witnesses admitted that the box was not locked or identified as belonging to the petitioner at the time of recovery. The box produced in court later had no conclusive identifiers, which led to a serious doubt about the connection between the petitioner and the recovered arms – Held: Prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 34-36].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Miscarriage of Justice – Conviction Overturned – The trial court and appellate court failed to adequately consider the inconsistencies and procedural shortcomings in the case, leading to a miscarriage of justice. The revisional court exercised its jurisdiction to correct these errors, resulting in the petitioner’s acquittal – Held: Conviction quashed, and petitioner acquitted [Paras 38-39].

Decision – Petition allowed – The conviction and sentence of the petitioner were set aside, and the petitioner was acquitted of all charges due to insufficient evidence and improper seizure procedures. The petitioner’s bail bonds were discharged, and the trial court's records were directed to be returned [Paras 39-41].

Criminal Procedure – Section 125 CrPC – Second Maintenance Application – Res Judicata – The applicant sought to quash the order of the Family Court entertaining a second application under Section 125 CrPC by the respondent wife despite the first application being dismissed without liberty to file a fresh case – The applicant contended that the second application was barred by res judicata – The Court, while referring to various judgments including Sanjeev Kapoor vs. Chandana Kapoor and Sarguja Transport Service vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, held that proceedings under Section 125 CrPC aim at providing social justice and preventing vagrancy and destitution – Since these are summary proceedings and the duty to provide maintenance is continuous, the principle of res judicata does not apply [Paras 23-24].

Continuing Duty – Refusal to Maintain Wife – The Court emphasized that the obligation to maintain a wife is a continuous one – It reiterated that refusal by a husband to maintain his wife creates a recurring wrong – Even if the first application was dismissed, a fresh cause of action arises due to the ongoing obligation under law, and the second application is maintainable [Paras 5, 23, 38].

Decision: Application dismissed – The Court held that the second application under Section 125 CrPC was maintainable despite the earlier case being dismissed without permission to refile – The ongoing duty of the husband to maintain his wife under Section 125 CrPC is not extinguished by the dismissal of an earlier application [Paras 38-40].

Dowry Death – Section 304-B IPC – The petitioner alleged that his sister, Gulshan, was harassed and killed by her in-laws, including her husband, over unmet dowry demands and her inability to conceive – The trial court acquitted all nine accused, leading to this revision petition – Held: The court found that the demand for dowry was sufficiently proven against Gulshan’s husband, Mehfuj Ali, but not against the other accused – Acquittal of Mehfuj Ali quashed, while the acquittal of other respondents affirmed [Paras 12, 25, Conclusion].

Presumption under Section 113-B, Evidence Act – The court emphasized the presumption of dowry death under Section 113-B when cruelty or harassment is shown to have occurred "soon before" the victim's death – Gulshan died within seven years of marriage under unnatural circumstances due to poisoning – The court held that the husband failed to rebut the presumption of dowry-related harassment and cruelty [Paras 12, 26, 28].

Acquittal of Other Accused – Insufficient Evidence – The court upheld the acquittal of the other accused, including Gulshan’s in-laws and extended family, due to the lack of direct evidence linking them to dowry demands or harassment – No sufficient proof of their involvement in the alleged conspiracy or cruelty was presented by the prosecution [Paras 11, 36].

Cause of Death – Suicide or Homicide – The post-mortem and forensic reports indicated that Gulshan died due to poisoning, but no external injuries suggesting force or violence were found – The defence argued that Gulshan committed suicide due to depression over childlessness, which the court found probable in light of the evidence, though not sufficient to exonerate the husband’s role [Paras 12, 28, 36].

Decision: The appeal is partly allowed – Acquittal of respondent Mehfuj Ali is quashed, and he is convicted under Section 304-B IPC for dowry death – Acquittal of the remaining respondents is affirmed – All pending applications are disposed of [Paras 36, Conclusion].

Criminal Procedure – Anticipatory Bail – Section 438 Cr.P.C. – Application for Anticipatory Bail Post-Cancellation of Bail – Maintainability Challenged – The petitioner sought anticipatory bail after the addition of a graver offence (Section 376 I.P.C.) during investigation. The State challenged the maintainability of the petition, arguing that the petitioner should have either surrendered and sought regular bail under Section 437 Cr.P.C. or filed a revision under Section 401 Cr.P.C. after the bail was cancelled. Held: Once the accused participated in the proceedings, contested the cancellation, and suffered an adverse order, a subsequent application for anticipatory bail is not maintainable. The correct remedy would be to seek revision of the cancellation order [Paras 1, 2, 30, 31]. 

Cancellation of Bail – Addition of Graver Offence – Section 376 I.P.C. – The victim's complaint initially led to registration of a case under Sections 341, 417, 506, and 509 I.P.C. Subsequently, based on her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the prosecution sought to add Section 376 I.P.C. The trial court cancelled the petitioner’s bail after adding this graver non-bailable section – Held: Addition of a graver offence post-grant of bail requires the accused to either surrender and seek bail for the newly added offence or challenge the cancellation in revision. Filing an anticipatory bail application post-cancellation is not permissible [Paras 13, 30, 31]. 

Anticipatory Bail – Liberal Interpretation – Article 21 of the Constitution – The petitioner argued that anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. must be interpreted liberally in light of Article 21 of the Constitution, as held in Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth vs. State of Gujarat and Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia vs. State of Punjab – Held: While anticipatory bail protects personal liberty, it cannot be used as a recourse after bail cancellation following a contested hearing [Paras 9, 10, 26]. 

Procedure Under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. – Compliance with Section 154(1) and 154(3) Cr.P.C. – The Court emphasized that any application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. must comply with the procedure under Section 154(1) and 154(3) Cr.P.C. The magistrate must ensure that the procedure is followed before directing investigation [Paras 7, 8]. 

Decision – The application for anticipatory bail is dismissed as not maintainable, as the petitioner had participated in the cancellation hearing and failed to seek anticipatory bail prior to the cancellation order. The petitioner is at liberty to seek other appropriate remedies in law [Paras 30, 31, 32].