Criminal Law – Cruelty – Section 498-A IPC – Conviction Set Aside – Allegations by wife of physical torture, dowry demand, and attempted strangulation by husband – Delay of one month in lodging complaint not explained contemporaneously – Complainant failed to mention serious allegations like throttling and paternity denial in FIR – Introduced new accusations only during trial – Held: Prosecution failed to establish case beyond reasonable doubt – Serious inconsistencies in dates, medical evidence, and testimonies created doubt as to veracity of prosecution story – Conviction under Section 498-A IPC set aside [Paras 5, 10-12, 22-23, 25]

Criminal Trial – Appreciation of Evidence – FIR and Medical Evidence Contradictions – FIR alleged head injury from iron rod and bleeding, but medical report did not confirm injury – Doctor admitted she could not confirm source of bleeding or strangulation – Carbon copy of injury report had inconsistent date – Held: Medical evidence failed to corroborate prosecution version – Serious doubt cast on occurrence and severity of assault [Paras 11, 22]

Delay in FIR – Unexplained Inordinate Delay – FIR lodged nearly one month after incident dated 15.02.2010 – Explanation of illness raised only during trial without corroboration – No supporting medical records or witness testimony to justify delay – Held: Inordinate delay unexplained and undermines prosecution case [Paras 9, 24]

Misuse of Section 498-A – Matrimonial Disputes – Multiple Cases Filed by Complainant – All resulted in acquittals – Complaint in present case also contained vague and exaggerated allegations – Held: In light of Supreme Court's caution against misuse of Section 498-A in Dara Laxmi Narayana v. State of Telangana, and Achin Kumar Gupta v. State of Haryana, prosecution version required strict scrutiny – No clear prima facie case made out against appellant [Paras 24]

Burden of Proof – Failure to Prove Charges Beyond Reasonable Doubt – Inconsistencies in prosecution witnesses’ testimonies, contradictions with documentary evidence, failure to produce Panchayat records or resolution, and no evidence of prior incidents of cruelty – Held: Prosecution failed to discharge burden – Benefit of doubt must go to accused [Paras 18-21, 23, 25]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 498-A IPC set aside – Appellant acquitted – Connected applications disposed of – Urgent certified copy to be issued on compliance with formalities.

Civil Procedure – Amendment of Pleadings – Order 6 Rule 17 CPC – Trial Concluded – Plaintiff sought to amend plaint to correct typographical errors, add omitted Khasra numbers and names of co-sharers – Amendment allowed despite trial having concluded – Held: Amendments were minor, clarificatory, and necessary for complete adjudication of the partition suit – Procedural law should not obstruct substantive justice – Proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC not an absolute bar where amendment is bona fide and avoids multiplicity of proceedings [Paras 3, 4, 10, 12-14]

Civil Procedure – Impleadment of Parties – Order I Rule 10 CPC – Trial court allowed impleadment of legal heirs of deceased co-sharer and one omitted necessary party – Held: In a partition suit, all co-sharers are necessary parties – Impleadment essential to ensure binding and executable decree – Trial court correctly exercised discretion to avoid piecemeal litigation [Paras 4, 6, 11-14]

Article 227 – Scope of Interference – Challenge to interlocutory order allowing amendment and impleadment – Held: Discretion exercised by trial court was judicial, reasoned and not perverse – No interference warranted under supervisory jurisdiction of High Court [Paras 13-15]

Decision: Civil Revision Petition dismissed – Impugned composite order dated 25.09.2025 upheld – Amendment and impleadment rightly allowed in the interest of complete adjudication and justice.

Juvenile Justice – Heinous Offence – Meaning and Scope – Petitioners alleged to have committed offences including attempt to rape, stalking, criminal conspiracy, and offences under POCSO and IT Acts – Court held that none of the charged offences prescribe a minimum punishment of 7 years – As per Section 2(33) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, only offences with a minimum sentence of 7 years or more qualify as “heinous offences” – Hence, the present offences fall under the category of “serious offences” [Paras 7, 24, 33–36, 39].

Juvenile Justice – Trial as Adult – Section 15 Inapplicable – Section 15 enables the Board to conduct a preliminary assessment and transfer juveniles to Children’s Court only in case of “heinous offences” – Since no such offence is made out, the trial cannot be conducted as if petitioners were adults – Reference to Children’s Court set aside [Paras 23, 28, 39].

Attempt to Rape – Sentencing Threshold – Not Heinous Offence – Charge under Section 376/511 IPC only deals with attempt to rape, for which punishment is half of the sentence for rape – Court held that since Section 376/511 does not prescribe a minimum of 7 years, it does not qualify as “heinous offence” [Paras 30, 38].

Precedent – Shilpa Mittal v. State (AIR 2020 SC 405) – Supreme Court clarified that offences with maximum sentence over 7 years but with no minimum prescribed or where minimum is less than 7 years do not fall within “heinous offences” – Such offences are to be treated as “serious offences” under the Juvenile Justice Act – Followed by the Court [Paras 36–38].

Decision: Revision petitions allowed – Judgment of Appellate Court dated 16.06.2025 quashed – Matter remanded to the Juvenile Justice Board to proceed with inquiry under provisions applicable to serious offences – Petitioners not to be tried as adult accused [Paras 39–41].

Property Law – Easement of Grant – Boundary Description – Appellant claimed right of pathway over ‘B’ Schedule property described as “common battai” in sale deed of 09.06.1964 – Contended that mention of pathway as boundary conferred easementary right – Held: Mere reference to a “pathway” as boundary does not amount to an express or implied grant of right of way unless clearly intended by the grantor – Courts below rightly found no evidence of grant or usage by public or adjoining owners – ‘B’ Schedule property being private land of respondents’ family, not a poramboke or public path – No easementary right accrued [Paras 13–21, 23].

Easement – Necessity and Prescription – Proof and Burden – No evidence of easement of necessity since appellant had alternative access through own ridges – No proof of uninterrupted use “as of right” for statutory period – Burden lies on claimant to prove continuous, open, and as-of-right user, which was not discharged – Physical features showed ‘B’ Schedule land 4 feet above level of appellant’s property, inconsistent with plea of necessity [Paras 18–22].

Boundary Description – No Presumption of Right – Description of “common battai” in boundary of sale deed cannot, by itself, confer or presume easementary right unless coupled with clear evidence of grant or usage – Section 28 of Easements Act restricts easement of necessity to extent of actual necessity existing at the time of creation – Held, mentioning boundary as battai insufficient to imply easementary right [Paras 19–23].

Distinction from Precedent – Precedent Kuppakkal v. Mathan Chettiar, AIR 1924 Mad 834 distinguished – In that case, right of access existed to street or public road; present case involves private property of defendants, not public pathway – Hence, principle in Kuppakkal not applicable [Paras 14–20, 24].

Decision: Second Appeal dismissed – Concurrent findings of Trial and Appellate Courts upheld – No easementary right proved over ‘B’ Schedule property – No costs – Connected miscellaneous petition closed [Paras 24–25].

Criminal Law – Dowry Death – Presumption under Section 113B – Deceased woman committed suicide within two years of marriage – Evidence by father, mother, brother, and village elder established harassment for dowry of gold and cash – Elders mediated but harassment continued – Held: Death occurred soon after continued cruelty and demand – Presumption under Section 113B of Evidence Act attracted – Conviction under Section 304-B IPC upheld [Paras 19–29, 32].

Dowry Prohibition – Indirect Demand – Sections 3 & 4 – Accused demanded dowry of half tola of gold and Rs. 50,000 through deceased – Demand relayed by deceased to parents and village elders – Held: Demand was proved through credible oral evidence – Conviction under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act sustained – Demand need not be direct, can be communicated indirectly [Paras 33–36].

Cruelty – Section 498-A IPC – Harassment for dowry constitutes cruelty – Threat by husband to remarry unless dowry fulfilled – Willful conduct of such nature falls within statutory definition of cruelty – Held: Conduct likely to drive deceased to suicide – Conviction under Section 498-A read with Section 34 IPC affirmed [Paras 37–40].

Victim Compensation – Dependent Child – Interpretation of ‘Victim’ under CrPC and Karnataka Victim Compensation Scheme – Minor child of deceased held to be dependent victim – Court invoked Section 357-A CrPC and recommended compensation by DLSA – Rs. 3,00,000 deposited by accused treated as compensation under Section 357(3) CrPC – Further compensation under Scheme not adjustable – To be held in fixed deposit till child attains majority [Paras 41–54].

Appellate Review – Scope and Confirmation – Conviction based on consistent and corroborated evidence – No perversity in findings – No merit in appeal – Trial Court's conclusion confirmed in full [Paras 10–32, 55–56].

Decision:

Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence of 7 years' imprisonment confirmed – Rs. 3,00,000 treated as compensation under Section 357(3) CrPC – Additional compensation to be awarded by District Legal Services Authority, Belagavi, under Section 357-A CrPC – Accused directed to surrender within 14 days.

Criminal Law – Dishonour of Cheque – Section 138 N.I. Act – Acquittal – Complainant alleged that accused issued cheque for ₹50,000/- in discharge of a debt – Cheque dishonoured for insufficiency of funds – Trial court acquitted accused holding presumption under Section 139 stood rebutted – On appeal, High Court found that the accused successfully raised a probable defence questioning the financial capacity of the complainant and the existence of any consideration – Held: Trial court’s view was reasonable and supported by DW1's evidence and Exhibit D1 – Acquittal upheld [Paras 2-5, 10, 13, 19] –

Negotiable Instruments Act – Statutory Presumption – Rebuttal – Section 139 N.I. Act – Accused not required to prove case beyond reasonable doubt – Rebuttal by preponderance of probabilities sufficient – Held: Evidence showing lack of financial transaction in mutual exchange deed and inconsistencies in complainant’s account established a probable defence – Statutory presumption rebutted [Paras 8, 10, 12-14, 15] –

Criminal Procedure – Powers of Appellate Court – Appeal against Acquittal – Principles reaffirmed from Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka – Double presumption in favour of acquitted accused – If two views possible, appellate court should not interfere – Held: Trial court’s finding being a possible view, interference unwarranted [Para 18] –

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Acquittal confirmed – No interference warranted by appellate court [Para 19].

Criminal Law – Rape – Quashment – FIR under Section 64 of BNS registered against petitioner based on allegation of rape after withdrawal of consent during intercourse – Parties met on dating app and were in regular contact over a year – Chats and prior interactions not considered in chargesheet – Held: The relationship was consensual and complaint appears to be an afterthought – Allowing prosecution to continue would amount to abuse of process [Paras 2-9].

Social Media & Consent – Dating App Interactions – Nature of Consent – Petitioner and complainant met via Bumble and stayed in hotel voluntarily – Complainant alleged consent withdrawn midway but subsequent actions (returning home with petitioner, late complaint) weakened the case – Held: Where parties were in long-standing mutual virtual interaction and physical intimacy arose voluntarily, criminal proceedings cannot be sustained merely on belated claims of non-consent [Paras 2-7].

Inherent Powers – Quashing of Proceedings – Abuse of Process – High Court can quash criminal proceedings where factual background, admitted communications, and evidence negate criminal intent or offence – Held: Present prosecution based on personal regret post consensual act and cannot form basis for rape charge [Paras 8-10].

Decision: Petition allowed – FIR in Crime No. 306/2024 and proceedings in C.C. No. 34011/2024 pending before XXX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru quashed – Writ Petition disposed of accordingly [Para 10].

Adoption – Applicability of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act vis-à-vis Juvenile Justice Act – Jurisdiction of District Magistrate – Petitioner adopted a child through registered adoption deed following Hindu rites – Civil court decree declared adoption valid – Registrar of Births & Deaths rejected request to record names of adoptive parents in birth certificate citing lack of adoption order by District Magistrate under Juvenile Justice Act – Held: Adoptions made under the HAM Act are governed exclusively by that Act and are expressly excluded from the purview of the Juvenile Justice Act by virtue of Section 56(3) – District Magistrate has no authority to validate or annul adoptions under the HAM Act [Paras 16–21, 30–31].

Birth Certificate – Incorporation of Adoptive Parents’ Names – Regulation 40 of Adoption Regulations, 2022 – Interpretation – Regulation 40 requiring adoption order of District Magistrate applies only to adoptions under the Juvenile Justice Act concerning orphaned, abandoned, or surrendered children – Not applicable to adoptions under the HAM Act – Rejection of request for correction of birth certificate based on Regulation 40 is legally flawed [Paras 20, 25–26].

Adoption Validity – Consent of Natural Parents – Section 9, HAM Act – Where biological father is unknown and biological mother (major at time of adoption) has consented and participated in adoption, the absence of father’s consent does not invalidate adoption – Execution of adoption deed by grandparents with mother’s concurrence is sufficient compliance – Adoption valid and binding [Paras 27–29, 32].

Effect of Civil Court Decree – Administrative Authority Bound – Civil court decree declaring child as legally adopted daughter of petitioner and his wife has attained finality – Administrative authorities cannot nullify or disregard such decree through executive orders – Rejection of birth certificate request amounts to administrative overreach [Paras 33–35].

Principles – Welfare of the Child – Liberal Interpretation – Adoption laws are welfare-oriented; procedural regulations should advance, not obstruct, the child’s right to identity, security, and family – Authorities must act to facilitate protection and permanency of adopted children – Administrative rigidity contrary to legislative intent deprecated [Para 36].

Decision – Impugned order quashed – Directed 3rd respondent to issue revised birth certificate incorporating the name of the child “K.S. Saatvika” with petitioner A. Kannan and his wife K. Sheela shown as adoptive parents – Exercise to be completed within four weeks – No order as to costs [Para 37].

PIL - Wildlife Law – Possession of Ivory – Notification under Section 40(4) of Wild Life Protection Act – Gazette Publication Mandatory – State issued notifications permitting declaration of ivory articles by a film actor and granted ownership certificates – Notifications not published in the Official Gazette – Held: Power under Section 40(4) must be exercised strictly in the manner prescribed – Non-publication in the official gazette renders the notifications void ab initio – Subsequent ownership certificates issued are unenforceable in law [Paras 10-12, 14] –

Statutory Interpretation – Requirement of Gazette Notification – Cannot be waived – Court rejected State's contention that alternate publicity (press circulation and website posting) satisfies requirement – Held: In absence of official gazette publication, the notifications are non est – Relying on Nazir Ahmad v. King-Emperor, I.T.C. Bhadrachalam Paperboards v. Mandal Revenue Officer – Exercise of delegated power must strictly follow statutory prescription [Paras 11-12] –

Public Interest Litigation – Locus Standi – Maintainability upheld – Despite contentions of political or personal motive, Court held the writ petitions raised genuine questions about legality of executive action under the Wildlife Act – Petitioners had standing to question misuse of statutory powers [Para 13] –

Retrospective Regularisation – Not Permitted – Notifications held to be 'stillborn' and incapable of subsequent validation through belated gazette publication – De facto doctrine inapplicable to statutorily void acts [Paras 12, 14] –

Criminal Proceedings – No Interference – Though petitioners prayed for directions to expedite pending criminal proceedings against the actor, Court declined to interfere – Held: Criminal matters already pending and monitored; such relief not warranted in writ jurisdiction [Para 2] –

Decision: Writ Petitions allowed – Government Orders dated 16.12.2015 and 17.02.2016 and Ownership Certificates dated 16.01.2016 and 06.04.2016 quashed as void and unenforceable – State may issue fresh notification under Section 40(4) in accordance with law – No costs.