Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India read with Sections 482, 427(1) of Cr.P.C. – Petitioner sought direction for concurrent running of sentences imposed in two separate NIA cases – Delhi High Court declined to exercise discretion under Section 427(1) of Cr.P.C. – Held, offences committed by petitioner in two separate cases cannot be considered part of the “same transaction” – Maximum sentence not awarded by trial courts – Offences under UAPA are grave, impacting national security and societal harmony – Consecutive running of sentences upheld. [Paras 1-51]

Role of Petitioner in Criminal Conspiracy and Terrorist Activities – Convictions in separate cases for raising funds and conspiring to carry out terrorist attacks during Ardh Kumbh Mela and planning assassination of a political leader – Petitioner pleaded guilty to charges – Both cases involved distinct facts and separate trials – Petitioner found guilty of serious offences affecting national security. [Paras 24-29]

Guiding Principles for Exercise of Discretion under Section 427 of Cr.P.C. – Consideration of separate transactions, totality of sentences, gravity of offences, and societal impact – Judicial discretion to be exercised judiciously, not mechanically – Concurrent running of sentences not favored in cases involving serious offences with wide societal impact. [Paras 20-23, 35-47]

Decision – Petition for concurrent running of sentences dismissed – Sentences in two NIA cases to run consecutively. [Para 51]

Criminal Law – Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Challenge to impugned order rejecting deferment of hearing on charge – Accusations of criminal conspiracy and corruption in Delhi Excise Policy 2021-22 – Petitioner contends investigation incomplete and seeks delay until supplementary chargesheet against co-accused is filed – Learned Trial Court dismissed application, stating arguments on charge can be halted if further incriminating evidence is filed – Held, maintaining the impugned order with instructions for timely supply of supplementary chargesheet and documents – Ensuring fair trial and speedy proceedings – Petition dismissed. [Paras 1-25]

Fair Trial – Rights of Accused – Section 207 Cr.P.C. – Emphasizes the importance of providing accused with all material collected by the prosecution – Ensures preparation of defense and arguments on charge – Held, accused entitled to additional documents filed against co-accused – Arguments on charge may be revisited based on new evidence – Directions for prompt provision and scrutiny of supplementary chargesheets. [Paras 17-20]

Decision – Impugned order upheld – Directions for timely supply of supplementary chargesheet and documents to accused – Emphasis on fair trial and adherence to principles of natural justice – Petition disposed of with instructions for expeditious proceedings. [Paras 22-25]

Civil Procedure – Setting Aside Ex-Parte Decree – Civil Revision against lower court orders dismissing application to set aside ex-parte judgment and decree – Plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of an agreement to sell against the petitioner – Ex-parte decree passed – Application to set aside ex-parte decree on grounds of non-service at correct address dismissed by trial court and appellate court – High Court held that the petitioner had knowledge of the decree as of 14.05.2012 but filed the application on 17.05.2013 – No explanation for delay provided – Application dismissed for lack of merit – Revision petition dismissed. [Paras 1-7]

Service of Summons – Address Discrepancy – Analysis – Held – Summons were served at the same address as mentioned in the execution petition, which the petitioner acknowledged – Petitioner’s contention of incorrect address found baseless – Delay in filing application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC not justified by any evidence. [Paras 3-6]

Decision – Dismissal of Revision Petition – Court found no illegality or irregularity in the orders of the trial and appellate courts – Revision petition dismissed – No merit found in petitioner’s claims. [Paras 7]

Family Law – Dissolution of Marriage – Appellant-husband filed for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, citing cruelty and desertion by the respondent-wife – Family Court dismissed the petition – High Court upheld the dismissal, finding no substantial evidence of cruelty or desertion [Paras 1-30].

Cruelty and Desertion – Insufficient Evidence – Allegations of cruelty included harassment on petty issues, false accusations, and police complaints – Respondent alleged dowry demands, physical abuse, and forced abortions – High Court found both parties’ claims lacked corroborative evidence – No specific instances of cruelty or desertion substantiated by credible testimony [Paras 10-20].

Mediation and Settlement Attempts – Case referred to Mediation Centre, unsuccessful mediation – Despite prolonged separation and appellant’s offer of monetary settlement, irretrievable breakdown of marriage not recognized as a ground for divorce under current law [Paras 15, 27, 29].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Held – Appellant failed to prove allegations of cruelty and desertion with specific instances – Family Court’s order upheld – No error found in the Family Court’s detailed reasoning and judgment [Paras 30].

Service Law – Reinstatement – Concealment of Material Facts – Appeal by the State against reinstatement order granted to respondent who had resigned under alleged threat. Court finds material concealment by respondent regarding previous writ petition dismissals and rejections of representation by Police Headquarters – Appeal allowed, setting aside impugned judgment – Observations on litigant’s duty to disclose all material facts and consequences of suppression [Paras 1-17].

Litigant Conduct – Duty of Disclosure – Emphasizes the importance of full and honest disclosure by litigants seeking equitable relief from writ courts – Misrepresentation or suppression of facts seen as abuse of judicial process – Cites Supreme Court rulings highlighting consequences for misleading the court [Paras 13-16].

Equitable Jurisdiction – Principles – Discusses the equitable nature of writ remedy and the requirement for clean hands by petitioners – Court underscores that litigants must present all relevant facts truthfully and fully to seek court’s intervention [Paras 16-18].

Decision:

Appeal allowed – Impugned judgment set aside – Directions for the State to consider the respondent’s engagement against a suitable post considering her background and previous service [Para 19].

Professional Misconduct – Complaint Locus – Petitioner challenges the complaint filed by the judgment debtor alleging professional misconduct – The Court held that the complainant, being the judgment debtor and not the petitioner’s client, lacked the locus to file the complaint – Section 35 of the Advocates Act mandates that complaints of professional misconduct must come from those with a legal right or interest in the matter – Complaint quashed on grounds of lack of locus and absence of engagement by the complainant [Paras 1-14].

Section 35 of the Advocates Act – Reason to Believe – Statutory requirement for the Bar Council to have reasons to believe professional misconduct based on relevant materials – The Court emphasized that the State Bar Council must apply its mind to determine the existence of such reasons, avoiding arbitrary or irrational actions – The complainant did not meet the criteria for initiating proceedings under Section 35, rendering the Bar Council’s actions invalid [Paras 10-14].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Held – Notice dated 22-07-2023 issued by the Karnataka State Bar Council quashed – Complaint found to lack maintainability as the complainant did not have locus to file against the petitioner – Proceedings invalid due to non-compliance with statutory requirements for establishing misconduct [Para 15].
 

Family Law – Customary Divorce – Defendant claimed to have divorced first wife Stella by customary practice and subsequently married the deceased Margarette Arulmozhi – Court held that Indian Christian Marriage Act does not recognize customary divorce – First marriage subsisting at the time of alleged second marriage, making the latter invalid [Paras 14-17].

Nomination in Service Records – Defendant nominated as beneficiary in deceased’s service records – Court ruled that nomination for benefits does not equate to legal heirship or marital status – Defendant not considered legally wedded husband based on nomination [Paras 21-22].

Settlement Deed – Validity – Defendant executed settlement deed in favor of Margarette Arulmozhi, later unilaterally cancelled after her death – Court held unilateral cancellation invalid – Deceased’s father entitled to property as per Indian Succession Act [Paras 10-13, 23].

Live-in Relationship – Legal Status – Court distinguished between live-in relationship and legal marriage – Defendant’s relationship with deceased considered non-marital due to subsisting first marriage – Legal consequences of marriage not applicable to live-in relationships [Paras 26-30].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Trial court’s judgment affirmed – Declaration of title and possession granted to the plaintiff – Plaintiff entitled to succeed property as legal heir under Indian Succession Act [Paras 31-32].

Pre-Arrest Bail – Custodial Death Allegations – Seriousness of Offences – Petitioner, a police officer, sought pre-arrest bail in a case involving allegations of wrongful confinement, assault, and custodial death of complainant’s mother. Judicial inquiry suggested suicide, but conflicting evidence, including post-mortem reports showing multiple injuries, led to the denial of bail – High Court emphasized severity of allegations and upheld judicial finding of prima facie case – Application for anticipatory bail dismissed [Paras 2-14].

Custodial Torture – Judicial Inquiry and Evidence – Inquiry by ACJM-II found evidence of suicide but complainant’s deposition and medical evidence indicated custodial torture – Court noted multiple anti-mortem injuries and contradictions in the inquiry report – Highlighted need for thorough investigation and accountability in custodial death cases [Paras 5-12].

Decision- Applications for pre-arrest bail are dismissed. Petitioners may seek regular bail upon surrender within four weeks, to be considered on merits without prejudice from this order [Para 16].

Rent Control – Sub-Tenancy – Kudikidappu Rights – Petitioner challenged eviction order claiming kudikidappu rights – Original tenant sub-leased property without landlord’s consent – Land Tribunal dismissed kudikidappu application – Concurrent findings by Rent Control Court and Appellate Authority upheld – High Court emphasized limited scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 [Paras 2-16].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Scope and Limits – High Court reiterated that revisional powers under Section 20 are confined to jurisdictional errors and not to re-appreciation of evidence – No interference warranted as findings were based on sufficient evidence – Eviction under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(4)(i) confirmed [Paras 13-16].

Decision: Revision petition dismissed. High Court found no jurisdictional error in the orders of the Rent Control Court and Appellate Authority, which justified the eviction based on the sub-tenancy and rejection of kudikidappu rights.