Contract Law – Specific Performance of Agreement of Sale – Appeal against trial court’s decree for specific performance – Dispute regarding nature of the agreement (sale vs. mortgage) – Defendant’s claim of mortgage arrangement rejected due to lack of evidence – Plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform contractual obligations established – Trial court’s decree for specific performance upheld – The appellate court dismissed the appeal, confirming that the agreement in question was a valid contract of sale, and the plaintiff had substantially fulfilled their obligations under the agreement [Paras 12-40].

Evidence Evaluation – Burden of Proof on Defendant – Defendant failed to produce evidence to substantiate the claim of a mortgage deed instead of a sale agreement – Plaintiff successfully demonstrated the execution of a sale agreement through attestor and scribe testimonies – Defendant’s failure to disprove the plaintiff’s evidence and refusal to examine a crucial witness (defendant’s wife) led to an adverse inference – The appellate court found that the plaintiff's case was supported by credible evidence, while the defendant's allegations were unsubstantiated [Paras 16-23, 39].

Decision – Dismissal of Appeal – The appeal was dismissed, and the trial court’s judgment for specific performance was upheld – The court noted that the defendant had accepted 95% of the sale consideration, enjoyed possession of the property, and had no credible basis to claim the transaction was a mortgage rather than a sale – The appellate court emphasized that the contract was fair, free from fraud, and that the plaintiff had consistently shown readiness and willingness to perform the contract [Paras 29-41].

Criminal Procedure – Quashing of Proceedings – Section 174-A IPC – The applicants sought quashing of the proceedings under Section 174-A IPC, initiated on the basis of an FIR rather than a written complaint by the court, which issued the proclamation under Section 82 CrPC. The High Court, relying on the settled legal position, held that proceedings under Section 174-A IPC can only be initiated on the basis of a written complaint by the court and not on a police report. The court emphasized that lodging an FIR under Section 174-A IPC contravenes the provisions of Section 195(1)(a)(i) CrPC and undermines personal liberty protected under Article 21 of the Constitution. The proceedings against the applicants were quashed [Paras 4-5].

Decision: Application allowed; proceedings pending against the applicants were quashed. The Registry was directed to communicate the order to the concerned court forthwith [Para 5].

Criminal Law – Bail Application – Addition of Charges under Section 302 IPC – The petitioner was initially granted bail under Sections 304 and 201 IPC for the death caused by an overdose of intoxicants. Later, Section 302 IPC was added based on medical evidence indicating a head injury. The petitioner was re-arrested. Court noted that out of 26 prosecution witnesses, none had been examined, and the petitioner had already been in custody for nine months. Given that co-accused were granted bail, and the trial was unlikely to conclude soon, the petitioner was granted regular bail [Paras 1-10].

Bail Jurisprudence – Principle of ‘Bail is the Rule, Jail is the Exception’ – The court relied on the principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, as established in State of Rajasthan v. Balchand (1977), emphasizing the right to a speedy trial and the presumption of innocence. The court balanced the petitioner’s prolonged incarceration with the fact that no witnesses had been examined and co-accused were on bail [Paras 6-10].

Decision:

Petition allowed – Petitioner granted regular bail on furnishing bail bond and surety bond to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate or trial court. The court clarified that the observations made in the order should not influence the merits of the trial.

Criminal Procedure – Quashing of FIR and Proceedings – Proceedings under Section 174-A IPC based on FIR quashed as being unsustainable under law – Held that Section 174-A IPC, though a cognizable offense, falls within the purview of Section 195(1)(a)(i) Cr.P.C. – FIR and police report for Section 174-A IPC cannot form the basis for cognizance unless accompanied by a complaint from the Court that initiated proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. – Reliance on precedent that emphasizes the need for a court complaint to invoke Section 174-A IPC [Paras 1-24].

Personal Liberty – Article 21 of the Constitution – Emphasized that permitting FIR under Section 174-A IPC would amount to depriving personal liberty without due process – The court reaffirmed that the personal liberty of an individual must be protected against legislative ambiguities that could otherwise lead to unwarranted arrest and prosecution [Paras 22-23].

Decision: Application allowed – Proceedings under Section 174-A IPC quashed – Registry directed to send a copy of the order to the concerned Court forthwith [Paras 25].

Criminal Procedure - Revision against dismissal of complaint - Section 397 of Cr.P.C. - Complaint under Section 125-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and Sections 177, 193, 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC dismissed at the preliminary stage under Section 203 of Cr.P.C. by Judicial Magistrate. Petitioner alleged respondent provided false information about educational qualifications in affidavits for election nominations. The court found no sufficient ground for proceeding, noting that discrepancies in educational qualifications were minor and not material to a criminal offense. Complaint dismissed for lack of prima facie case. Revision petition dismissed. [Paras 1-24].

Evidence - Educational qualifications in election affidavits - Minor discrepancies in the respondent's educational qualifications as mentioned in different election affidavits were held to be clerical or typographical errors. The court ruled that such errors did not constitute grounds for criminal prosecution under Section 125-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. [Paras 14-16].

Limitation - Time-barred complaint - Complaint filed in 2019 for alleged false declarations made in 2005 and 2014 election affidavits held to be time-barred under Section 468 of Cr.P.C., which prescribes a limitation period of one year for offenses punishable with imprisonment up to three years. [Paras 28-28].

Decision: Revision petition dismissed. Complaint dismissed as being time-barred and lacking a prima facie case. [Paras 23-24].
 

Criminal Procedure – Quashing of FIR – FIR registered under Sections 306 and 114 IPC for abetment of suicide quashed – Court observed that mere involvement in an extramarital affair does not constitute abetment of suicide – Allegations must show clear instigation or a direct role leading to the suicide – Absence of mens rea and direct act by the accused to instigate the deceased to commit suicide – Reliance placed on Supreme Court decisions emphasizing that extramarital affairs, while morally questionable, do not automatically amount to abetment under Section 306 IPC [Paras 13-20].

Mens Rea – Abetment of Suicide – Court held that to constitute abetment under Section 306 IPC, there must be an intentional act or instigation by the accused leading the victim to commit suicide – Merely being in an extramarital relationship is insufficient to establish criminal liability unless accompanied by active instigation or aiding in the suicide [Paras 15-17].

Decision:

Applications allowed – FIR and consequential proceedings quashed as they do not establish a prima facie case of abetment to suicide under Section 306 IPC – Continuation of proceedings deemed an abuse of the legal process and contrary to principles of justice [Paras 21-23].

Criminal Law - Abetment of Suicide - Extra-Marital Affair - Mens Rea - The applicants, accused of abetting the suicide of the deceased husband due to an alleged extramarital affair, sought quashing of the FIR. The court held that mere involvement in an extramarital affair does not constitute abetment under Section 306 IPC unless there is clear evidence of instigation or intentional aiding of the suicide. The court found that the necessary mens rea for abetment was absent, as there was no direct or active act by the accused that led the deceased to commit suicide. The FIR and proceedings were quashed. [Paras 15-17, 23].

Evidentiary Value - WhatsApp Chats and Call Recordings - The court considered the allegations based on WhatsApp chats and call recordings between the accused and held that even if the affair is assumed to be true, it does not amount to abetment of suicide under the law. The evidence did not establish any direct instigation or intention to cause the suicide. [Paras 7-8, 18].

Precedents - Reliance on Supreme Court Judgments - The court referred to various Supreme Court decisions, including K.V. Prakash Babu v. State of Karnataka and M. Mohan v. State Represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, to emphasize that mere extramarital relations, without more, do not satisfy the legal requirements for abetment of suicide. [Paras 8-10, 16-18].

Decision: The FIR and subsequent proceedings under Sections 306 and 114 IPC were quashed as they did not establish a prima facie case of abetment of suicide against the accused. [Paras 23].

Family Law – Appeal against Decree of Restitution of Conjugal Rights and Dismissal of Divorce Suit – Appeal Allowed – Marriage Irretrievably Broken Down Due to Cruelty by Wife – Allegations of Dowry Demand Found to Be False – Divorce Granted – The appellant, Basant Kumar Dwivedi, challenged the decree for restitution of conjugal rights and the dismissal of his divorce suit by the lower court. The court found that the respondent wife had willfully deserted the appellant since 1995, offered extreme cruelty by falsely accusing the appellant and his family of dowry demands, and lodged false criminal prosecutions. Based on these findings, the court allowed the appeal, dissolved the marriage, and set aside the lower court’s orders. [Paras 3-16]

Evidence Evaluation – False Allegations and Witness Testimonies – Appellant Entitled to Divorce on Grounds of Cruelty and Desertion – The court critically evaluated the evidence, particularly the testimony of the respondent's brother, which disproved the allegations of dowry demand. The false and reckless allegations coupled with the respondent's conduct of desertion for nearly 29 years without just cause constituted mental cruelty. The court determined that the appellant could not be reasonably expected to continue in the matrimonial relationship, warranting the dissolution of marriage. [Paras 12-14]

Decision – Decree for Restitution of Conjugal Rights Set Aside – Marriage Dissolved – Appeal Allowed – The High Court found that the lower court had misread the evidence and relied on conjectures. The findings of cruelty and desertion by the respondent were upheld, leading to the setting aside of the restitution decree and granting of divorce. No maintenance was awarded as the respondent was gainfully employed, and no children were involved. Both appeals were allowed. [Paras 15-18]

Civil Procedure – Remand by First Appellate Court – Challenge in High Court against the remand order of the First Appellate Court that sent the original suit (OS No.227 of 1995) back for fresh disposal in the light of additional evidence – High Court scrutinized whether the First Appellate Court’s decision adhered to the procedural requirements under Order 41, Rule 28 of CPC – High Court determined that the First Appellate Court erred in remanding the entire suit rather than simply directing the trial court to take additional evidence and send it back for final disposal by the appellate court – High Court set aside the remand order and restored the appeal for proper disposal under the specified CPC procedures [Paras 1-16].

Evidence Evaluation – Introduction of additional evidence – Appellants sought to introduce additional evidence during the appellate process, which the First Appellate Court allowed subject to relevancy and proof, leading to an initial decision to remand the suit to the trial court for reconsideration – High Court found this approach flawed, emphasizing that the appellate court should have either taken the additional evidence itself or directed the trial court to take the evidence and return it for appellate consideration, rather than remanding the entire case – Relevance of Order 41, Rules 23 and 28 highlighted [Paras 6-14].

Decision – Reversal of First Appellate Court’s Remand Order – Held – The remand of the original suit by the First Appellate Court was held to be procedurally improper and contrary to the principles outlined in Order 41, Rule 28 of CPC – High Court ordered the restoration of the appellate case and directed the First Appellate Court to process the additional evidence appropriately and dispose of the appeal expediently – No costs awarded [Paras 15-16].