Civil Procedure – Written Statement – Order 8 Rule 1 of CPC – Revision petition filed challenging the acceptance of a written statement beyond the stipulated 90 days – Plaintiff contended that the trial court erred in allowing the written statement without a formal application for condonation of delay – Held: The court cannot extend time for filing the written statement on its own, and an application for condonation is mandatory – Written statement filed after 30 days requires a valid application explaining the delay, in accordance with judicial precedents such as Salem Advocate Bar Association and Kailash v. Nanhku [Paras 6, 10, 12].

Judicial Discretion – Condonation of Delay – Written Statement Filing – Defendant filed the written statement late without seeking condonation of delay – The trial court accepted the written statement without recording reasons – Held: The trial court’s acceptance of the written statement without a condonation application violates Order 8 Rule 1 of CPC, and the defendant must file an application explaining the delay [Paras 9, 10, 12].

Inherent Power of the Court – Article 227 of the Constitution – Plaintiff invoked Article 227 seeking judicial intervention against the trial court’s procedural lapses – Held: The inherent power of the Court under Article 227 allows rectification of procedural errors, and the trial court’s failure to follow due process in accepting the late written statement justifies interference [Paras 8, 11, 12].

Decision: Allowed – The order of the trial court dated 02.08.2023 accepting the written statement set aside – The respondent is granted liberty to file a written statement along with an application for condonation of delay – CRP(MD)No.1853 of 2024 closed as infructuous [Paras 13, 14].

Criminal Procedure – Acquittal – Victim's Right to Appeal – The petitioner, a de facto complainant, challenged the acquittal of the accused under various sections of the IPC, arguing that as a "victim" under Section 2(wa) of the CrPC, he had the right to appeal – The Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal on the ground that the petitioner could not be termed a 'victim' – Held: The High Court observed that under Section 372 of the CrPC, a victim has the right to appeal against an acquittal – The petitioner, having alleged loss, injury, and damage caused by the accused, falls within the definition of 'victim' and therefore had the right to appeal – [Paras 7, 10, 18, 22].

Criminal Law – Trial Procedure – Non-Examination under Section 313 CrPC – The petitioner contended that the trial court erred in not examining the accused under Section 313 of the CrPC – The trial court acquitted the accused without recording their statements – Held: The High Court found that the trial court did not err, as there was no incriminating evidence against the accused that necessitated examination under Section 313 – Since the primary witnesses (PW1 and PW2) did not provide any evidence against the accused, the trial court's decision was upheld – [Paras 15, 16, 17].

Contempt of Court – Allegations Against Magistrate – The petitioner accused the trial magistrate of obtaining signatures on blank papers and of improper conduct – Held: The High Court found the allegations baseless and without substance – It was determined that such allegations could amount to criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – The petitioner was directed to show cause why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against him – [Paras 28, 29, 31].

Decision: Criminal Revision dismissed – The High Court found no error in the trial court’s procedure or the acquittal of the accused – The petitioner was directed to show cause for allegations against the magistrate amounting to criminal contempt – [Paras 35, 37].

Service Law - Disqualification for Having a Third Child – Rule 3 of Maharashtra Civil Services (Declaration of Small Family) Rules, 2005 – The petitioner alleged that respondent no. 1, a Police Patil, was disqualified from holding office due to having a third child after the commencement of the 2005 Rules – Court held: The rules disqualify government/public servants from Group A to Group D for having more than two children after the commencement of the rules – Respondent no. 1 was appointed in 1999, before the commencement of the 2005 Rules, but the rules would still apply if the number of children increased after 2005 [Paras 3-6].

Police Patil as a Public Servant – Applicability of 2005 Rules – The court referred to a Division Bench decision in Atul Ramdas Dabare vs. State of Maharashtra (WP No. 449/2017), which held that a Police Patil is a public servant – Court further noted that the Maharashtra Village Police Patil (Recruitment, Pay Allowances, and other Conditions of Service Order), 1968, was amended in 2024 to apply the 2005 Small Family Rules to Police Patils – Court held: The 2005 Rules, as amended in 2024, apply to Police Patils, but the 2024 amendment was not in force when the impugned orders were passed [Paras 7-10].

Remand for Fresh Consideration – Application of Rules – Given that the State Government has expressly made the 2005 Rules applicable to Police Patils as of 2024, the court found it appropriate to remand the matter to the Sub Divisional Officer (SDO) for reconsideration – Court held: The SDO is to reconsider the matter afresh in light of the 2005 Rules and the 2024 amendment [Paras 10-12].

Decision – Petition partly allowed – Impugned orders dated 14/08/2019 and 01/06/2019 quashed – Matter remanded to the Sub Divisional Officer, Umred, District Nagpur for fresh consideration in accordance with the law – Parties directed to appear before the SDO on 01/10/2024 [Paras 11-13].

Section 295A of IPC – Outrage of Religious Feelings – Shouting ‘Jai Sriram’ in a Mosque – Not Outrageous – The petitioners were accused of entering a mosque and shouting ‘Jai Sriram’ with the intent of disrupting communal harmony. The court held that shouting ‘Jai Sriram’ does not constitute an insult or malicious act intended to outrage religious feelings under Section 295A of the IPC, particularly when there is no disruption of public order or deliberate insult to religious beliefs – Petitioners' actions did not meet the threshold for criminal offense under the said section [Paras 5-6].

Criminal Intimidation under Section 506 of IPC – Ingredients Not Established – The complaint alleged that the petitioners threatened the mosque members. However, the court found that the complaint did not specify any actionable threats or fear of harm that would amount to criminal intimidation under Section 506. The lack of specific allegations led the court to dismiss this charge [Paras 6-7].

Abuse of Process – Quashing of FIR – No Prima Facie Case – The court observed that none of the alleged acts committed by the petitioners met the essential ingredients required for the offenses under Sections 447, 295A, 505, or 506 IPC. Continuing the criminal proceedings would be an abuse of process, resulting in a miscarriage of justice. – The petition was allowed, and the FIR and all related proceedings were quashed [Paras 7-8].

Decision:

The writ petition was allowed, and the entire proceedings in Crime No. 86 of 2023 pending before the II Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Puttur, Dakshina Kannada, were quashed.

Anticipatory Bail – Conditions Imposed – Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Freedom of Press – The petitioner, a journalist and managing editor of a YouTube news channel, was granted anticipatory bail with a condition that he should not publish news related to the death of Bishop K.P. Yohannan – Held: The condition restricting the petitioner’s journalistic freedom was unreasonable – The right to freedom of expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution cannot be curtailed as part of a bail condition unless justified under Article 19(2) – The Court deleted the condition restraining the petitioner from airing news on the subject, observing that such a condition amounts to a gag order, which is disproportionate and violates the petitioner’s fundamental rights [Paras 12-17].

Criminal Law – Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Complaint for dishonor of cheques under Section 138 of the NI Act – The petitioner, residing outside the territorial jurisdiction, argued that the Magistrate should have conducted an inquiry under Section 202 CrPC before issuing summons – Held: Under Section 145 of the NI Act, evidence of the complainant can be given by affidavit, which streamlines the trial process. The Magistrate’s role is to decide whether there are sufficient grounds for proceeding. If evidence supports the complaint, an inquiry under Section 202 CrPC is not mandatory for public servants – Complaint supported by an affidavit is sufficient for issuing process [Paras 3c, 3e, 5a, 9].

Criminal Procedure – Section 202 CrPC – Applicability in NI Act Cases – Whether the amendment of Section 202 CrPC mandates an inquiry before issuing process to an accused residing beyond the jurisdiction of the Court – Held: Section 202 CrPC is not mandatory in complaints under Section 138 NI Act supported by an affidavit, especially when filed by a public servant – No infirmity found in the orders of the Magistrate or Sessions Judge rejecting the application for an inquiry under Section 202 CrPC [Paras 4, 4a, 4c, 9].

Decision: Criminal Revision Application Dismissed – The order passed by the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate and the Learned Chief Judge was affirmed – The court upheld the validity of the summons issued to the petitioner under Section 138 of the NI Act without a mandatory inquiry under Section 202 CrPC – The Magistrate had examined the complaint and accompanying affidavit, and therefore, no further inquiry was required before issuing process [Paras 3d, 5, 9].

Family Law – Maintenance – Revision Application – Compliance with Guidelines – The petitioner contended that the maintenance order awarded by the Family Court was harsh and not based on legal evidence – The trial court did not properly assess his financial capacity and failed to consider the fact that the petitioner is unemployed – The petitioner also claimed that the trial court ignored the fact that respondent No.1 is employed and earns ₹10,000 per month – Held: The High Court found that the Family Court did not comply with the guidelines set by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha, which requires parties to file affidavits disclosing their assets – Consequently, the maintenance order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Family Court for fresh consideration in compliance with the Supreme Court's directives [Paras 7, 13].

Interlocutory Orders – Maintainability of Revision – The respondents argued that the revision petition against the maintenance order was not maintainable, as it was an interlocutory order – Held: The High Court, referring to judgments from various High Courts, found that an order of maintenance is not an interlocutory order but an intermediate or quasi-final order that can be challenged through a revision petition under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 – It was established that orders affecting substantial rights of a party are not considered interlocutory and are subject to revision [Paras 16-18].

Decision: Revision petition allowed – The order dated 06.01.2023 by the Family Court is set aside – The matter is remanded to the Family Court for fresh decision after ensuring compliance with the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha – Parties directed to appear before the trial court on 30th September 2024 [Para 13].

Tenancy Law – Eviction Decree – Grounds of Eviction – Applicants-tenants challenged the judgment of the District Court and Additional Small Causes Court Pune, which decreed eviction on grounds of arrears of rent, destruction/injury to the premises, and erection of a permanent structure – Appellate Court confirmed the decree – Held: Ground of default in payment of rent was not valid due to the premature filing of the suit, but eviction on the grounds of injury to the premises and erection of permanent structures was upheld – Revision allowed in part [Paras 1, 4, 15, 39, 68].

Default in Payment of Rent – Validity of Notice – Demand notice for arrears of rent was issued, but the suit was filed before the expiration of 30 days from the notice, violating Section 12(2) of the Bombay Rent Act – Amended ground of default was added after the Bombay Rent Act was repealed and replaced by Maharashtra Rent Control Act (MRC Act) – The suit for eviction on this ground was not maintainable due to non-compliance with statutory notice requirements – Held: The Appellate Court erred in accepting the ground of default for eviction [Paras 19-26, 30-31, 33].

Permanent Structure – Injury to Suit Premises – Tenants constructed a platform (Ota), showcases, and rolling shutters without the landlord's consent, and replaced a 9” brick wall with a glass showcase – Evidence showed permanent constructions were made inside and outside the premises – Held: Such constructions without consent amounted to erection of permanent structures and injury to the premises under Section 108(o) of the Transfer of Property Act read with Section 13(1)(a) and 13(1)(b) of the Bombay Rent Act [Paras 36, 43-47, 53-54, 62].

Decision – Revision Application partly allowed – The decree of eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent set aside – However, eviction upheld on grounds of injury to the premises and erection of permanent structures – Applicants to hand over possession of the premises to Respondents [Para 76].

Criminal Law – Murder – Conspiracy and Evidence Destruction – Section 120B and Section 302 IPC – The appellant, along with two co-accused, conspired to murder her 4-year-old daughter to eliminate her as an obstacle to her immoral lifestyle with her co-conspirators – The child's body was exhumed from a plot after the appellant misled the police with a missing complaint –  Circumstantial Evidence – Conviction based on circumstantial evidence was sustained by the court – Appellants A1, A2, and A3 charged with conspiring to kill a minor child (X) and conceal her body – Prosecution relied on the "last seen" theory, recovery of the body, and incriminating materials collected from the crime scene – Conviction under Section 302 IPC by the trial court was set aside, and the court held that the evidence established culpable homicide under Section 304 Part I IPC – Held: Prosecution established a complete chain of circumstances leading to the guilt of the accused – Conviction altered to Section 304 Part I IPC [Paras 10-63].

Witness Testimony – Credibility of Witnesses – Witnesses (PW1, PW3, PW5) corroborated the presence of the appellants at the crime scene on the day of the incident – PW3 and PW5 saw A1, A2, and A3 in the house where the crime occurred – The reliability of their testimony was not undermined despite discrepancies in call records – Held: Testimonies of witnesses, corroborated by forensic and mobile phone records, were credible and supported the prosecution case [Paras 36, 53].

Circumstantial Evidence – Last Seen Theory – The court examined the applicability of the last seen theory where A3 was last seen with X – Time gap between last sighting and the discovery of the body was significant – Held: Last seen theory, although weak, was supported by other evidence in this case – However, the time gap required cautious application of the theory, and other evidence was necessary for conviction [Paras 37].

Discovery of Body – Recovery of the body based on the disclosure statements of the appellants under Section 27 of the Evidence Act – The court examined the recovery process and compliance with legal requirements – Held: The discovery of the body and recovery of incriminating materials (MO1) corroborated the prosecution's case and was admissible under Section 27 [Paras 38, 53].

Murder or Culpable Homicide – Nature of injuries inflicted on the victim suggested culpable homicide – No conclusive evidence of intent to murder – PW19 (forensic expert) stated that injury No. 25 was fatal but did not conclusively establish intent to kill – Held: Prosecution failed to prove intent to kill under Section 300 IPC, but evidence pointed to culpable homicide under Section 304 Part I IPC [Paras 39-49].

Sexual Assault – Conviction under POCSO Act – The trial court convicted A1 under Section 10 of the POCSO Act based on presumptions under Sections 29 and 30 – Forensic expert (PW19) stated no evidence of penetrative sexual assault – Held: Presumption under Section 29 POCSO Act not applicable as prosecution failed to discharge its burden to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction and sentence under POCSO Act set aside [Paras 54-59].

Criminal Conspiracy – Conviction under Section 120B IPC – Call records and witness testimonies established a conspiracy between A1, A2, and A3 to kill X – Continuous calls between A1 and A2 before and after the incident, coupled with the discovery of the body, indicated a premeditated conspiracy – Held: Conviction for conspiracy under Section 120B IPC upheld [Paras 50-53].

Decision: Conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC set aside – Appellants found guilty under Section 304 Part I and sentenced to life imprisonment with fines – Conviction under POCSO Act and JJ Act for A2 also set aside – Criminal conspiracy charge under Section 120B IPC sustained [Paras 62-63].