Ex Parte Order in Maintenance Case – Non-Appearance of Petitioner – Section 125 CrPC – The petitioner challenged the ex parte order passed by the Family Court, directing him to pay maintenance of Rs. 10,000 per month to his wife – Petitioner contended that no proper notice of hearing was served, and the Family Court failed to observe whether his absence was wilful – Held: As per Section 126(2) CrPC, before passing an ex parte order, the Court must satisfy itself that the respondent wilfully avoided attending the proceedings – The Court found no evidence that the petitioner wilfully neglected to attend or was informed about the specific dates of the hearing [Paras 8-12].

Satisfaction of Court Before Proceeding Ex Parte – Requirement under Section 126(2) CrPC – The Family Court failed to record satisfaction that the petitioner wilfully neglected to attend the Court – A mere knowledge of the maintenance case's filing was insufficient to establish wilful avoidance of court attendance – The absence of a specific notice of hearing dates to the petitioner violated procedural requirements – Held: Ex parte order set aside due to non-compliance with Section 126(2) CrPC [Paras 10-12].

Final Decision – The revision petition is allowed – The ex parte order dated 06.07.2023 passed by the Family Court is set aside – The matter is remitted back to the Family Court, Begusarai, to decide the case afresh after giving both parties an opportunity of hearing – Both parties directed to appear before the Family Court on 12.11.2024 [Paras 13-14].

Criminal Procedure – Quashing of Complaint – Writ of Certiorari – Petition filed by the Petitioner, a practicing Advocate, seeking quashing of the order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Kurla under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. – Magistrate directed Kurla Police to conduct an investigation and submit a report within four months – Petitioner contended that the order was illegal, as the Magistrate failed to comply with provisions of Section 202(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. by not recording the statement of the complainant and witnesses – Contention raised that the Magistrate at Kurla lacked territorial jurisdiction since the cause of action arose in Goa – Held: Magistrate complied with Section 202 by accepting affidavit in lieu of verification – Magistrate had discretion to order inquiry by Police due to accused persons residing beyond jurisdiction – Petition dismissed as premature, as the investigation under Section 202 was ongoing and the Magistrate had not yet issued process [Paras 10, 11, 19, 20, 27, 28, 33, 34, 38].

Magistrate’s Inquiry – Compliance with Section 202 Cr.P.C. – Petitioner argued that the Magistrate failed to examine the complainant and witnesses on oath as required under Section 202(1)(b) Cr.P.C. before directing inquiry – Court found that an affidavit filed by the complainant was recorded in lieu of verification – Magistrate’s direction for Police inquiry was valid under Section 202, especially since some accused persons resided outside the jurisdiction – Held: Magistrate rightly exercised discretion under Section 202 to direct an investigation by Police – The inquiry was necessary to determine sufficient grounds for proceeding [Paras 19, 20, 23, 24, 25].

Territorial Jurisdiction – Accused's Objection – Petitioner challenged the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate at Kurla, arguing that the alleged offences occurred in Goa, not Mumbai – Court held that the issue of territorial jurisdiction was premature as the Magistrate had not yet formed an opinion or issued process – Territorial jurisdiction would be examined when the Magistrate considers the sufficiency of grounds under Section 203 or 204 Cr.P.C. – Complaint stage under Section 202 involves inquiry into sufficient grounds for process, not determination of jurisdiction [Paras 11, 22, 23, 26, 34, 36, 37].

Premature Challenge – Stage of Investigation – Petitioner’s challenge to the Magistrate’s order was deemed premature – Magistrate had only ordered an investigation under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and had not yet issued process or taken cognizance – Court held that the Petitioner had no cause of action to challenge the order at this stage, as it was possible the Magistrate might dismiss the complaint after receiving the investigation report – Petitioner could challenge the process if issued under Section 204 Cr.P.C., but not prior to that [Paras 26, 27, 28, 33, 34].

Police Inquiry Notice – Section 160 Cr.P.C. – Petitioner received a notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C. from Kurla Police Station, directing her to appear for inquiry – Petitioner argued that this notice gave rise to the cause of action to challenge the Magistrate’s order – Court held that the notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C. was issued for investigation purposes, and the Petitioner was required to appear as a witness – The notice did not provide grounds to challenge the investigation order, as it did not equate to a criminal charge against the Petitioner [Paras 29, 30, 32, 33].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Magistrate’s order directing investigation under Section 202 Cr.P.C. upheld – Complaint not yet at the stage of issuance of process under Section 204 Cr.P.C. – No cause of action for Petitioner to challenge the inquiry order at this stage – Petitioner to await the outcome of the investigation before raising objections regarding territorial jurisdiction or sufficiency of grounds for process [Paras 40].

Society Election Dispute – Referral by Deputy Registrar to Prescribed Authority – Validity of Process – Multiple factions of the Arya Pratinidhi Sabha claimed to have held valid elections in early 2021 – The Deputy Registrar, without offering reasons or examining the prima facie validity of the claims, referred the dispute to the Prescribed Authority – Held: The Deputy Registrar is not a mere rubber stamp – Before referring the matter to the Prescribed Authority under Section 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act, the Deputy Registrar must apply judicial mind to ascertain the genuineness of the dispute – Mechanical referral is invalid without forming a subjective satisfaction on whether the competing elections are bona fide – Matter remitted to the Deputy Registrar for fresh consideration [Paras 88-116].

Membership and Election Validity – Role of Deputy Registrar – Where conflicting elections are claimed by different factions, the Deputy Registrar is obligated to preliminarily assess the legitimacy of membership and elections – The Deputy Registrar must ensure that only genuine disputes are referred to the Prescribed Authority – Mechanical referrals undermine the statutory scheme and can lead to prolonged litigation [Paras 99-104].

Decision:Order of the Deputy Registrar dated 23.04.2022 quashed – The matter remitted to the Deputy Registrar for reconsideration by a reasoned and speaking order – The fresh decision must be completed within four months [Paras 116-118].

Anticipatory Bail – Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Principles Governing Anticipatory Bail – The petitioner sought anticipatory bail in a case involving alleged cheating of village residents for over ₹1.19 crore. The Court considered the stage of the investigation and the serious nature of the allegations – Held: Custodial interrogation is necessary for effective investigation, and granting anticipatory bail at this stage would hinder the ongoing investigation. Anticipatory bail denied [Paras 7-12].

Balancing Personal Liberty with Public Interest – Anticipatory bail must balance individual liberty and the interests of society. In cases involving serious allegations of public fraud, societal interests may override personal liberty – Held: In light of the seriousness of allegations and ongoing investigation, the petitioner does not qualify for anticipatory bail [Paras 9-12].

Decision: Petition dismissed.

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].

Service Law – Seniority List – Promotion – Writ petition challenging the revised seniority list dated 14.3.2022, which placed the petitioner at a lower rank and affected his promotion prospects – Petitioner contended that his service should be reckoned from his date of regularization in 1998, not from his initial appointment in 1997, which was on a consolidated pay during the training period – Held: The seniority list based on the petitioner's 1997 appointment is valid, as the training period is considered a prerequisite for regularization – No illegality found in the seniority list or subsequent promotion of private respondents – Petitioner's claim for seniority from 1998 is unsustainable [Paras 9-19].

Date of Appointment – Regularization – Training Period – Petitioner argued that his initial appointment in 1997 was adhoc and his regular service began in 1998 – Court observed that regularization involves a prior period of service, and the training period in 1997 was a prerequisite for regularization in 1998 – The initial appointment in 1997 cannot be disregarded for seniority purposes – Held: Seniority should be calculated from the date of initial appointment in 1997, not from regularization in 1998 [Paras 13-16].

Adhoc Appointment – Applicability of Apex Court Ruling – Petitioner relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Rashi Mani Mishra v. State of U.P., which distinguished between adhoc and regular appointments – Court distinguished the facts, noting that the petitioner's 1997 appointment was not adhoc but part of a regular process leading to his regularization – The judgment cited by the petitioner is inapplicable [Paras 17-19].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – No illegality in the seniority list prepared by the fifth respondent or the promotions granted to private respondents – No costs [Paras 20-21].
 

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]. 

Criminal Procedure – Application under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. – Prayer for Further Investigation – Alleged Death by Burn Injuries – Dismissal of Application Challenged – The petitioner sought further investigation into the death of his niece, alleging that her husband (the accused) made a video call to a relative instead of rescuing her while she was ablaze – Investigation was initially directed under Section 304B I.P.C., but the court found Section 304B inapplicable as the death occurred after seven years of marriage – The Investigating Officer did not include charges under Section 302 I.P.C. despite the petitioner’s requests – The Magistrate dismissed the petitioner’s application for further investigation – Held: The Court found that further investigation would not serve any fruitful purpose as the Investigating Officer was already permitted to continue investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. and would file a supplementary charge sheet if necessary [Paras 1, 9]. 

Witness Statements – Conflicting Testimonies – Victim's Statement to Doctor Contradictory – The petitioner alleged that the accused’s conduct during the incident indicated his guilt, while the Investigating Officer relied on statements from doctors and witnesses suggesting the victim set herself ablaze due to marital discord – The attending doctor stated that the victim claimed to have set herself on fire, while other evidence suggested foul play – Held: Discrepancies in witness testimonies do not necessitate further investigation at this stage, but the trial court may consider invoking Section 311 Cr.P.C. to examine witnesses if needed during trial [Paras 6, 7, 8]. 

Consideration of Section 302 I.P.C. during Trial – Although the investigating agency did not add Section 302 I.P.C. in the charge sheet, the trial court is expected to consider all charges, including Section 302 I.P.C., based on the evidence produced during the trial – Held: The trial court shall be at liberty to amend charges if relevant evidence of murder surfaces [Para 10]. 

Decision – Criminal revision application dismissed – Further investigation not required as the Investigating Officer was allowed to continue the investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. – The trial court shall consider the applicability of Section 302 I.P.C. during the trial, and summon additional witnesses under Section 311 Cr.P.C. if necessary [Paras 9, 10, 11].