Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Section 483 - Bail - NDPS Act - Custodial necessity - Petitioner arrayed as an accomplice based on information from co-accused Jawan Singh - No recovery of contraband effected from the petitioner - Co-accused and other similarly placed persons already granted bail by a Coordinate Bench - Investigation complete and charge sheet filed - Held, looking at the period of custody and the fact that further proceedings will take time, the Court deemed it appropriate to grant bail. [Paras 1-9].

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, Sections 8 and 21 - Prosecution Procedure - Evidentiary requirements - Recovery of 27.77gm of Heroin from co-accused - Petitioner implicated in the distribution chain based on hearsay from co-accused - Lack of legal evidence - Held, naming a person and forwarding them for trial requires legal evidence; it is not the concern of the police to ignore whether sufficient evidence is available or not. The prosecution's failure to advise against recommending a charge sheet despite deficiency of evidence noted. [Paras 10-11].

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Section 273 - Trial Court Duty - Compensation for groundless prosecution - Corresponding to Section 250 CrPC - Non-application of mind at grass-root level - Held, Trial Courts are required to look into the deficiency of evidence at the stage of framing of charge; if deficiency exists, it warrants the invocation of Section 273 BNSS to award compensation to innocent persons for unnecessary custody and prosecution. [Paras 11-12].

Decision: Application allowed – Petitioner released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties – Copy of the order directed to be sent to ACS Home and DGP Rajasthan for taking action against non-application of mind in investigations.

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 - Section 528 - Quashing of FIR - Scope of interference - Rice millers challenged FIRs alleging shortage of paddy stocks - Held - At the quashing stage the High Court must not act as a trial court by weighing evidence or testing the truth of allegations - The only test is whether the allegations taken at face value prima facie make out the ingredients of the alleged offence - Investigation at a nascent stage should not be scuttled - [Paras 49-51, 95-96]

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 - Section 316(5) - Criminal Breach of Trust by Agent - Definition of Agent - Petitioners contended they were job workers and not agents - Held - Execution of agreement and entrustment of government paddy creates a relationship of agency coupled with dominion over property - Fiduciary nature of possession and unexplained shortages revealed during inspection demonstrate criminal breach of trust - Characterization of transaction as job work does not detract from the legal effect of entrustment - [Paras 56, 99-100]

Arbitration and Civil Remedies - Parallel Proceedings - Overlapping liability - Existence of arbitration clause in Custom Milling Agreement - Held - Mere existence of an arbitration clause or civil remedy for contractual breach cannot substitute or override the criminal process where acts constitute offences under law - Civil and criminal liabilities may coexist where allegations disclose commission of a cognizable offence - [Paras 32-34, 85-87]

Criminal Procedure - Delay in FIR - Misappropriation of public funds - Complaint lodged several months after inspection report - Held - Delay in lodging an FIR involving misuse of public funds and welfare-oriented procurement schemes does not vitiate proceedings - Delay is a matter of evidence to be examined during trial and not a ground to quash the investigation at the threshold - [Paras 60-63, 102-104]

Agreement - Terms and Conditions - Joint Custody - Non-inclusion of government employees as accused - Held - Mere non-inclusion of Corporation employees as accused is not fatal to the prosecution - Any conspiracy or role of officials will be revealed during the course of investigation - [Paras 64-65, 105]

Decision: All criminal petitions dismissed – Miscellaneous applications closed.

Tenancy – Declaration – Burden of Proof – Primary Onus on Plaintiff – In a suit for declaration of tenancy, the burden of proving tenancy lies squarely upon the person claiming to be a tenant — Respondent/plaintiff produced no rent receipts and no tenancy agreement and admitted having taken no action for 30 years regarding alleged non-issuance of rent receipts — Held: Failure to discharge this primary burden is fatal to the plaintiff's case [Paras 12–13, 22].

Tenancy – Long Possession – Permissive Possession – Long standing possession or permissive long possession does not by itself establish that a person is a tenant — Appellate Court erred in treating continuity of possession during gaps between nokar-namas as casting doubt on the respondent's status as a gardener — Such consideration was extraneous and irrelevant to the core question of proof of tenancy [Paras 14, 17–20].

Nokar-namas – Salary Receipts – Unilateral Documents – Evidentiary Value – 116 salary/payment receipts produced by the petitioner showed payments made to the respondent at Rs.50/- per month, later increased to Rs.100/-, indicating salary and not rent — Receipts signed by the respondent/plaintiff cannot be rent receipts, as rent receipts must be signed by the landlord — Even assuming nokar-namas were unilateral and not signed by the petitioner, they indicate the respondent accepting his status as a gardener, disentitling him from claiming tenancy [Paras 15–16].

Appellate Court – Perverse Reasoning – Illegal Onus – The Appellate Court's reasoning that once the petitioner/defendant's case based on nokar-namas and payment receipts was found doubtful, the plaintiff's positive contention of tenancy must be accepted, is perverse — This amounts to placing an illegal burden on the defendant to disprove tenancy rather than requiring the plaintiff to prove it — Such reasoning, if sustained, would cause miscarriage of justice [Paras 22–23].

Decision: Petition allowed — Impugned judgment and decree dated 07.10.2013 quashed and set aside — Civil Appeal No. 65 of 2012 dismissed — Judgment and decree dated 02.01.2012 of the Trial Court dismissing the suit confirmed.

Matrimonial Law - Hindu Marriage Act 1955 - Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) - Dissolution of marriage - Cruelty and Desertion - Husband alleged wife ill-treated his mother, humiliated him for his appearance, and neglected household duties - Wife alleged physical assault and dowry harassment - Parties living separately since 2011 - Held - Sustained bitterness and multiple criminal litigations indicate a complete breakdown of marriage - Family Court order dissolving marriage confirmed - [Paras 5-13 and 44-50]

Hindu Marriage Act 1955 - Section 9 - Restitution of conjugal rights - Wife sought to join husband despite filing Section 498A IPC cases - Held - Given the gravity of allegations and 15-year separation, no possibility of reunion exists - Petition for restitution rightly dismissed - [Paras 33-47]

Hindu Marriage Act 1955 - Section 15 - Remarriage during pendency of appeal - Husband remarried one day after the decree of divorce - Held - Remarriage contracted before the expiry of the limitation for filing an appeal has no validity in law - However, as per settled law, such invalidity does not affect the core of the divorce decree if otherwise sustainable - [Paras 27-28 and 34-38]

Hindu Marriage Act 1955 - Section 25 - Permanent Alimony - Maintenance - Husband previously agreed to pay Rs.1.33 Crores in Lok Adalat settlement but failed to discharge full amount alleging wife’s non-cooperation - Wife suffering from cancer and residing with parents - Held - Regardless of breach of compromise terms, the wife is entitled to the agreed amount of Rs.1.33 Crores as full and final settlement for alimony and maintenance - Respondent directed to pay the amount within three months - [Paras 19-21 and 47-50]

Matrimonial Law - Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage - Role of Courts - Held - While irretrievable breakdown is not a statutory ground for divorce under HMA for High Courts, it is a relevant factor to be considered while deciding petitions on grounds of cruelty and desertion - Long separation and lack of possibility of reunion justify the dissolution of marriage - [Paras 29-33 and 46]

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Order of dissolution of marriage and dismissal of restitution of conjugal rights affirmed – Respondent-husband directed to pay Rs.1,33,00,000/- to the Appellant-wife within three months.

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 13(1)(ia) - Cruelty - Standard of Proof - Dissolution of marriage sought on grounds of harassment, suspicion of character, and extra-marital affairs - Appellant-wife failed to provide specific instances, dates, or examine material witnesses such as her parents or paternal uncle to corroborate the claims - Held, cruelty must be specifically pleaded and proved with cogent evidence; vague allegations without proof do not constitute cruelty. [Paras 17-21, 40-42].

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 13(1)(ia) - Matrimonial Law - Alleged suicide attempts and physical abuse - Appellant claimed to have attempted suicide twice due to ill-treatment - No medical evidence, hospital records, or testimony from parents who reportedly facilitated treatment were produced - Held, mere trivial irritations or normal wear and tear of matrimonial life, or vague allegations without proof, cannot constitute cruelty. [Paras 28-30, 41].

Family Courts Act, Section 7(a) - New ground in appeal - Void Marriage - Minority at the time of marriage - Appellant argued during the appeal that the marriage was void due to her being a minor at the time of solemnization - Petition before the Family Court was filed only for dissolution on the ground of cruelty - Held, a ground for declaring a marriage as a nullity cannot be raised for the first time in appeal without specific pleadings and a petition for the same before the trial court. [Para 34].

Decision: Family Court Appeal dismissed – Order dated 30.01.2018 in O.P. No. 1542 of 2005 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Hyderabad is confirmed – No order as to costs.

Income Tax – Section 263 – Revisionary Jurisdiction – Twin Conditions – No Enquiry vs. Inadequate Enquiry – Before the Commissioner can invoke revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263, twin conditions must be satisfied: (i) the assessment order must be erroneous, and (ii) as a consequence, prejudice must be caused to the interest of revenue — Where the AO had raised specific queries regarding utilisation of Rs. 6 crores out of the accumulated funds under Section 11(2) and the assessee had furnished full details vide letters dated 30.01.2019 and 03.12.2019 along with Form 10, board resolutions and breakup of utilisation, the AO had applied his mind and taken a plausible view — Such a case is not one of 'no enquiry' but at best one of 'inadequate enquiry', which does not confer jurisdiction on the CIT to invoke Section 263 — Held: Revisionary proceedings not sustainable [Paras 7–10, 17].

Income Tax – Section 263 – Role of Commissioner – Must Himself Conduct Enquiry Before Declaring Order Erroneous – Where the AO has conducted an enquiry on an issue, the Commissioner, before holding the assessment order to be erroneous, must himself conduct necessary enquiries or verification to demonstrate that the AO's finding is erroneous or unsustainable in law — The Commissioner cannot merely remand the matter to the AO to find out whether the order is erroneous — In the present case, the CIT (Exemptions) conducted no independent enquiry and invoked revisional jurisdiction on mere conjectures, suspicions and surmises — Held: Order under Section 263 not sustainable [Paras 9–10].

Income Tax – Section 11(2) and 11(3) – Accumulated Income – Year of Taxability – Accumulated amount of Rs. 14.51 crores in AY 2016-17 was to be utilised by 31.03.2021 — Any non-utilisation under Section 11(3)(c) would attract taxation in AY 2022-23, being the year immediately following expiry of the accumulation period — CIT's concern was about utilisation of Rs. 6 crores out of this accumulated amount in AY 2017-18, which could only attract clause (a) or (d) of Section 11(3) if misapplied — Since no such finding of misapplication was returned by the CIT after conducting independent enquiry, the revisionary order was unsustainable — Held: Taxability, if any, was to be examined in AY 2022-23 and not in the relevant AY 2017-18 [Paras 11–12].

Income Tax – Section 263 – Explanation 2 – Show-Cause Notice Must Specify Invocation – Where the show-cause notice issued under Section 263 does not mention that Explanation 2 is being invoked, the subsequent invocation of Explanation 2 in the revision order without confronting the assessee is not appropriate and is unsustainable in law — Held: Invocation of Explanation 2 in the revision order without prior notice to assessee is bad in law [Para 13].

Decision: Appeal dismissed — No substantial question of law arises — ITAT order setting aside the revisionary order of CIT (Exemptions) confirmed — No costs.

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Section 37 – Bail – Commercial Quantity – Prolonged Incarceration – Successive Bail Petition – Petitioner apprehended on 22.04.2024 with 540 grams of heroin recovered from personal search – Co-accused found with 480 grams – Challan filed – No prosecution witness examined out of 17 total – Petitioner in custody for over two years and seven days – Second bail petition, previous having been dismissed as withdrawn on 27.08.2025 – State objected to maintainability of successive petition and urged rigors of Section 37 NDPS Act as bar – Held: An accused has a right to move successive bail applications and the Court must consider whether any fresh ground has been made out to take a different view – Every day spent in custody provides a fresh cause of action under certain circumstances and accused cannot be kept in custody for an indefinite period – Grant of bail on account of undue delay in trial is not fettered by Section 37 of the NDPS Act given the imperative of Section 436A CrPC applicable to offences under the Act – Where prolonged incarceration militates against the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21, constitutional principles must override the statutory embargo under Section 37 – Trial not likely to conclude in the near future – Co-accused already granted bail – Petitioner entitled to bail on ground of prolonged incarceration – Petition allowed [Paras 8–14].

Decision: Petition allowed – Petitioner ordered to be released on bail on furnishing personal and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate – Observations not to be construed as expression of opinion on merits of the case and not to influence outcome of trial – Pending application rendered infructuous.

Criminal Law – Rape – Minor Victim – Consent Immaterial – Section 376(2)(n) IPC – Conviction Confirmed – Accused convicted by the trial court for kidnapping and rape of PW1, a minor girl aged 15 years and 6 months at the time of incident – Accused claimed consensual relationship – PW1's testimony established that sexual intercourse took place on multiple occasions (6 to 7 times) – Held: Since PW1 was a minor at the time of the offence, her consent is immaterial in law – Conviction and sentence under Section 376(2)(n) IPC confirmed [Paras 21–23, 25].

Kidnapping – Abduction – Sections 363 and 366 IPC – Conviction Set Aside – PW1's testimony was contradictory and unsatisfactory regarding kidnapping and abduction — PW1 categorically admitted that she voluntarily accompanied the accused when her parents had gone to Mumbai, that her joining the accused was not under any threat or pressure, and that out of desperation (after being beaten by her brother) she herself called the accused and asked to accompany him to Rampur — PW1 further admitted no threat or coercion during stay at Rampur — Held: Prosecution case of abduction, kidnapping, threatening or inducing is doubtful — Conviction under Sections 363 and 366 IPC set aside [Paras 20, 25].

Age Determination – Minor – Documentary Evidence – Birth Certificate – Section 94, Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 – Date of birth of PW1 established as 22.07.1998 through birth certificate issued by East Delhi Municipal Corporation (Ext. PW5/A) — Accused contended that menarche attained in 2007 indicated PW1 was 18 years at time of incident — Held: Onset of menarche varies from person to person and depends on biological and environmental factors — menarche cannot be a reliable or legally recognised method of age determination when documentary evidence is available — PW1 established as 15 years and 6 months old on date of incident [Paras 21, 25].

Statement under Section 313 CrPC – Use as Evidence – Accused's Section 313(1)(b) statement admitting consensual sexual intercourse read with PW1's testimony — Held: While Section 313 statement cannot be the sole basis of conviction, it can be read along with other evidence on record — Accused's own admission of sexual intercourse, coupled with established minority of PW1, renders consent immaterial — Conviction under Section 376(2)(n) IPC confirmed [Para 23].

Non-Compliance – Section 232 CrPC – Non-compliance of Section 232 CrPC does not ipso facto vitiate proceedings unless it results in serious and substantial prejudice to the accused — Accused raised no such claim of prejudice [Para 7].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed — Conviction and sentence under Sections 363 and 366 IPC set aside — Conviction and sentence under Section 376(2)(n) IPC confirmed — Pending applications closed.

Commercial Courts Act – Section 12-A – Pre-Institution Mediation – Urgent Interim Relief – Test from Plaintiff's Standpoint – Non-compliance with Section 12-A is permissible only when the suit contemplates urgent interim relief — The test is not whether the prayer for urgent interim relief is actually granted or denied on merits, but whether, on an examination of the nature and subject-matter of the suit and the cause of action, the prayer for urgent interim relief could be said to be contemplable when seen from the standpoint of the plaintiff — Urgent interim relief must not be a camouflage or disguise to bypass the mandatory mediation requirement; however, when a real apprehension exists and precipitative action by the defendant is alleged, the test is satisfied — Post-filing conduct of the plaintiff is not a decisive criterion for determining whether the bar under Section 12-A applies — Held: Plaint cannot be rejected at the threshold for non-compliance with Section 12-A when urgent interim relief is genuinely contemplated from the plaintiff's standpoint [Paras 37–53].

Commercial Courts Act – Section 12-A – Rejection of Plaint – Drastic Power – Strictly Construed – The power to reject a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is a drastic measure that terminates a civil action at the threshold and must be exercised strictly in accordance with the conditions enumerated therein — The word "shall" in Order VII Rule 11 CPC obliges the court to reject the plaint only when the conditions are strictly satisfied — The court must do a meaningful, not formal, reading of the plaint — If the plaint does not disclose a cause of action or the suit is barred by law, rejection follows; otherwise, it does not [Paras 7, 38, 47].

SARFAESI Act – Section 34 – Bar – Scope – Substantive prayers for specific performance of a Framework Agreement and profit-sharing agreement are not matters that the Debt Recovery Tribunal is empowered to determine under the SARFAESI Act — The bar under Section 34 applies to actions taken or to be taken in pursuance of powers conferred under the SARFAESI Act and does not extend to bar a civil suit seeking specific performance of a settlement agreement — Consequential prayer for release of secured assets does not attract the bar under Section 34 — Held: Bar under Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act cannot be applied for rejection of the plaint at the threshold [Paras 34–35].

Cause of Action – Defendant Not Signatory to Framework Agreement – Where the plaint contains specific averments that a defendant, though not a signatory to the Framework Agreement, has acted upon and availed benefits under the agreement and has continued precipitative action against the plaintiffs despite the settlement, there is sufficient cause of action pleaded — Defendant no. 2 having initiated SARFAESI proceedings despite the Framework Agreement and defendant no. 3 having entered into a profit-sharing agreement pursuant to the Framework Agreement — Held: Plaint discloses adequate cause of action against all defendants; rejection is not warranted [Paras 30–36].

Decision: Interim Applications for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC dismissed — Plaint to proceed to trial.