Criminal Law – Prevention of Corruption – Discharge – Petitioner, a Building Inspector, sought discharge from corruption charges arising from illegal construction of hotel in restricted heritage zone – Prosecution alleged conspiracy with building owner (A-6) and failure to act despite prior complaints – Court held that prima facie evidence including complaints dated 13.09.2006 and 25.11.2006, duty records, and witness statements indicate culpable omission – Held: Discharge rightly rejected by Special Court [Paras 3-12].

Conspiracy – Public Servant’s Omission – Wilful Inaction – Revision Petitioner was duty-bound to inspect and act upon a complaint dated 13.09.2006 – Court found that despite being present and on squad duty, Petitioner failed to take timely action, enabling near-completion of illegal building – Held: Petitioner’s omission facilitated offence, forming sufficient basis for prosecution – Discharge not permissible at this stage [Paras 8, 10-12].

Criminal Procedure – Scope of Discharge – Section 239 CrPC – Court reiterated that discharge is maintainable only where prosecution records fail to disclose strong suspicion or prima facie involvement – Held: Conspiracy cannot be ruled out solely on plea of late joining or post-facto actions – Trial court to decide involvement based on evidence – No interference warranted in revisional jurisdiction [Paras 10-12].

Decision:

Criminal Revision Petition dismissed – Interim stay vacated – Special Court directed to expedite the trial [Paras 13-14].

Motor Accident Compensation – Dependency Units – Minor Dependents – Appeal by insurer challenging calculation of dependency on the ground that minor dependents should count as half unit under Rule 220-A(2) of UP Motor Vehicle Rules – Held: Constitution Bench judgment in Pranay Sethi and Sarla Verma lays down that each dependent, irrespective of age, is to be treated as one unit – Tribunal rightly followed binding precedent, ignoring contrary rule which offers lesser benefit to claimants [Paras 5–7].

Motor Accident Compensation – Consortium – Quantum – Tribunal awarded Rs. 40,000/- each to widow, two minor children, and mother of deceased – Held: Award of individual consortium amounts to each dependent is justified and consistent with law laid down in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram – No illegality found [Paras 8–9].

Motor Accident Claims – Interpretation of Statutory Rule vs. Supreme Court Precedent – Held: When Supreme Court judgments provide more beneficial treatment to claimants, they prevail over subordinate statutory rules – Pranay Sethi and Sarla Verma to apply over Rule 220-A(2)(iii) of UP Rules as being more advantageous and constitutionally affirmed [Para 6–7].

Motor Vehicles Act – Beneficial Legislation – Held: In view of the Act being a welfare legislation, interpretation favouring the claimants must prevail – Calculation method yielding higher compensation under binding precedent to be preferred [Paras 6–7].

Appeal – Maintainability – No Error Found – Where the Tribunal’s reasoning is based on binding precedent and awards fall within established norms, interference by appellate court is unwarranted – Appeal dismissed at admission stage [Paras 10–12].

Decision: Appeal dismissed at admission stage – Award of Rs. 23,98,774/- with interest @ 7% p.a. to claimants affirmed – Dependency unit calculation and consortium payments held valid as per binding Supreme Court judgments – Direction issued for return of statutory deposit [Paras 10–13].

NDPS Act – Bail – Commercial Quantity – Stringent conditions – Petitioner, a foreign national, caught with 416 grams of MDMA (commercial quantity) – Bail sought on ground that grounds of arrest not communicated in writing as required under Article 22(1), Section 47 BNSS and Section 52(1) NDPS Act – Held: Arrest memo signed and explained in English; communication to friend also made – No demonstrable prejudice shown – Procedural irregularity, if any, is curable – Restrictions under Section 37 NDPS Act apply – Bail denied [Paras 6–24].

Constitution of India – Article 22(1) – Grounds of Arrest – Compliance – Communication need not always be in writing if substantial compliance is made – If grounds are explained and understood, requirement is fulfilled – No violation shown in present case [Paras 17–20].

BNSS – Section 47 – NDPS Act – Section 52 – Grounds of arrest – Substantial compliance sufficient – Presence of arrest memo, explanation in English, and early legal representation indicate awareness of charges – Custody not rendered illegal [Paras 18–23].

Distinction – Applicability of Pankaj Bansal line of cases – Held: Stringent interpretation in Pankaj Bansal, Prabir Purkayastha, and Vihaan Kumar not applicable where there is no demonstrable prejudice and NDPS conditions under Section 37 prevail – Facts distinguishable – No automatic bail for procedural lapse [Paras 14–19, 22].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Bail denied – Court finds compliance with mandatory requirements – Section 37 NDPS Act limitations not satisfied – No violation of constitutional or statutory rights demonstrated.

Criminal Law – Summoning of Additional Accused – Section 319 CrPC – Power to Summon Not Automatic – Petitioner injured in assault named five accused including private respondents in FIR – Police found private respondents innocent and placed them in Column No. 2 – During trial, complainant reiterated same allegations in testimony – No fresh or additional material presented to justify their summoning – Held: Power under Section 319 CrPC is extraordinary and must be exercised sparingly only on strong and cogent evidence indicating likelihood of conviction – Mere repetition of FIR content insufficient [Paras 7–10]

Evidentiary Threshold – Testimony of PW-1 – No Independent Material – Complainant, though injured eyewitness, offered no new material in chief-examination beyond what was recorded in FIR – Hon’ble Court held that evidence must go beyond probable suspicion and create near-certainty of guilt for summoning under Section 319 – Allegations found to be generic and possibly exaggerated [Paras 8–10]

FIR Delay – Doubts on Credibility – Incident dated 07.07.2018 but FIR lodged after 10 days on 17.07.2018 – Trial Court noted unexplained delay, which casts doubt on spontaneity and reliability of accusations – No fresh injuries or medical evidence brought during trial to substantiate the role of private respondents [Para 9]

Abuse of Process – Over-implication of Accused – Hon’ble Court cautioned against tendency of complainants to amplify number of accused to include peripheral or unrelated persons – Specific finding that attributing individual superficial injuries to each of 5 alleged assailants lacks prudence and may indicate exaggeration – Summoning rejected to prevent misuse of judicial process [Para 10]

Interpretation – Guiding Principles from Hardeep Singh Case – Section 319 CrPC allows summoning of even discharged or not charge-sheeted persons – However, the evidentiary standard required is higher than for framing charge – Satisfaction must be equivalent to prima facie case capable of ending in conviction if unrebutted – Merely naming someone in FIR does not meet this test [Paras 7, 10]

Decision: Revision Petition dismissed – No error found in Trial Court's dismissal of Section 319 CrPC application – No new evidence beyond FIR narration – Trial Court rightly exercised judicial restraint – Observations not to affect merits of ongoing trial.

Criminal Law – Section 21, 25, 29 of NDPS Act – Commercial Quantity – Bail Rejected – Petitioners, Nigerian nationals, arrested with 500g and 300g heroin respectively, also linked to further recovery of 4 kg of chemical substances used for drug preparation – Involvement in manufacturing process alleged – Held: Recovery falls under ‘commercial quantity’ attracting Section 37 NDPS Act – Twin conditions for bail not satisfied – Bail refused [Paras 2-4, 16-17].

Foreign Nationals – Illegal Entry – Forged Passports – Petitioners unable to prove valid immigration or nationality – Furnished fake accommodation and identity details – No arrival/departure stamps on passports – Attempted to mislead authorities by falsely claiming to be from UK and Singapore – Held: Petitioners are flight-risks and misuse of forged documents warrants continued custody [Paras 11, 19-20].

Constitutional Law – Violation of Article 22(1) – Grounds of arrest not supplied in writing – Petitioners claimed arrest invalid under Constitution and NDPS Act – Held: No prejudice shown due to procedural lapse – As per Supreme Court in Darshan (2025 INSC 979), mere procedural lapses do not ipso facto vitiate arrest or entitle bail [Paras 7, 14-15].

Delay in Trial – Prosecution examined only 2 out of 13 witnesses in over 4 years – Petitioners alleged violation of Article 21 – Held: Liberty must be balanced with public interest – In view of serious charges and bar under Section 37 NDPS Act, delay alone not sufficient ground for bail [Paras 5-6, 18].

Search & Seizure – No Independent Witnesses or Videography – Petitioners challenged validity of recovery – Held: Absence of videography/independent witness not fatal – Police evidence cannot be disbelieved solely on that basis – Cited precedents: Surinder Kumar, Kallu Khan, Ram Swaroop [Paras 8, 12-13].

Decision: Bail applications dismissed – Petitioners to remain in custody – No expression on merits of the case [Paras 20-21].

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.

Land Revenue – Khatedari Rights – Urban Land – Waiver – UIT challenged orders of RAA and BOR (2003) conferring khatedari rights on Girdhari – Court held that UIT had accepted and acted upon those orders by issuing pattas under Section 90-B and granting construction permissions – Held: UIT, having waived its right and acted in acquiescence, was estopped from reasserting ownership claim [Paras 6–15].

Estoppel – Settlement by Legal Heir – Khatedari Rights – Respondent Koyali earlier withdrew her claim over Khasra Nos. 83 and 104 and gave written no-objection to UIT for pattas – Later sought declaration of khatedari rights on same land – Held: Not maintainable – Having accepted benefit of settlement, Koyali was estopped from reasserting rights over land she had relinquished [Paras B(6)–B(13)].

Joint Cultivation – Khatedari Entitlement – Widow’s Rights – Girdhari and his brother Bhera Ram were admitted joint cultivators – Widow Koyali, as sole legal heir of Bhera Ram, entitled to 50% share in Khasra No. 108 – RAA’s 2005 order declaring shared tenancy affirmed – Held: Koyali entitled only to half share in Khasra No. 108 [Paras B(14)–B(15)].

Civil Procedure – Ex Parte Order – Review – Will Not Proved – Hanuman Ram, son of Girdhari, sought recall of ex parte order claiming rights under an unproven Will – Court found notices were refused by him and he had acted in acquiescence – Held: BOR erred in allowing his appeal – Reversal of BOR’s 2018 order to extent of Hanuman’s claim [Paras B(16)–B(21)].

Urban Development – Pattas under Section 90-B – Validity – Judgment in Rem – Divisional Commissioner’s 2007 cancellation of pattas issued by UIT was quashed in Writ Petition No. 42/2008 – Court reaffirmed that the quashing was a judgment in rem – No relief possible based on cancelled order – Connected writ petitions dismissed or disposed of accordingly [Paras C(1)–C(6), D(1)–D(4)].

Decision: Petition by UIT dismissed – Orders dated 28.06.2003 and 03.09.2003 upheld – Koyali not entitled to khatedari rights over Khasras 83 and 104 due to waiver – Entitled to 50% share in Khasra No. 108 – Hanuman Ram’s claims dismissed – Connected writ petitions dismissed or disposed of in view of finality of earlier orders or pending special appeals.

Civil Procedure – Condonation of Delay – Computation of Period of Limitation – Scope under Section 115 CPC – Petitioner challenged order dated 09.12.2024 rejecting review of earlier order dated 12.07.2019 concerning impleadment/substitution—Delay of 18 days occurred in filing revision petition after receiving certified copy—Respondents objected that effective delay was nearly six years from original order of 2019—Held: Challenge confined only to order dated 09.12.2024; earlier order’s validity may be examined at hearing of revision but not relevant for limitation computation—Hence delay to be reckoned from 09.12.2024 [Paras 10–11].

Condonation of Delay – Principles – Bona Fides and Sufficient Cause – Delay explained by petitioner due to bereavement following death of elder brother—Certified copy delayed due to winter court holidays—Court reiterated that while considering condonation, merits of main matter are irrelevant—Only bona fides of cause and balance of equities matter—Relied on H. Guruswamy & Ors. v. A. Krishnaiah (Deceased by LRs), 2025 SCC OnLine SC 54 [Para 11].

Decision – Delay of 18 days condoned—Revision petition to be registered and listed for admission after one week—Miscellaneous case disposed of without costs [Paras 12–14].

Criminal Law – Snatching – Conviction under Section 379-A(2) IPC – Reversed – Prosecution case based on complaint alleging mobile phone snatched by appellant and co-accused – Complainant and alleged victim (PW-1 and PW-2) turned hostile and denied appellant's involvement – Admitted in cross-examination that no mobile phone was in possession at the time of incident – Ownership of allegedly snatched mobile not proved as bill was in name of third party – Held: Essential ingredient of snatching not proved beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 2, 11].

Evidence Act – Recovery of Stolen Property – Police witnesses (PW-4 and PW-7) testified to recovery based on disclosure by appellant – No independent witnesses joined at the time of recovery – Investigating Officer failed to confirm basic facts like time of complaint or recovery – Recovery not proved to be reliable – Presumption under Section 114(a) of Evidence Act not attracted – Recovery at best could lead to inference of receiving stolen property, not robbery/snatching [Paras 12].

Juvenile Co-accused – Acquittal – Co-accused found to be juvenile and acquitted by Juvenile Justice Board – Trial Court failed to consider this exculpatory aspect in assessing appellant's guilt – Further weakens prosecution version and identification of accused [Paras 2, 8, 11].

Held: Conviction under Section 379-A(2) IPC unsustainable – Appellant acquitted – To be released forthwith if not required in any other case [Para 12].