Criminal Law – Section 91 Cr.P.C. – Scope and Timing – Accused sought production of company records to assist in answering CBI queries during investigation into bank fraud – Records handed over to Resolution Professional during insolvency proceedings – Held: Section 91 can be invoked at investigation stage, but discretion lies with court – Where accused is already being confronted with the documents during interrogation, no necessity for court to direct production – Petition under Section 91 Cr.P.C. held premature and misconceived [Paras 26–28, 34, 41–42].

Investigation – Right of Accused – Fairness – Petitioner claimed right to fair investigation under Article 21 – Argued that inability to access documents impaired ability to respond – Held: Accused is only required to cooperate and may state inability to recall facts due to lapse of time – No obligation on prosecution to supply documents before filing charge sheet – IO advised to give sufficient time to peruse old or voluminous records if required [Paras 30, 33, 36, 43].

IBC Proceedings – Consequence of CIRP – Petitioner’s claim that documents were with Resolution Professional post-CIRP under IBC – Held: Petitioner cannot compel production from third parties during investigation where documents already available to investigating agency – Accused may procure documents independently or after filing of charge sheet under Section 207 Cr.P.C. [Paras 4, 31–32, 37].

Judicial Discretion – Section 91 Cr.P.C. – Held: Application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. lies at court’s discretion – Test is whether document is necessary or desirable at that stage – Special Judge rightly held that production not necessary at present – No perversity or illegality found in impugned order [Paras 27, 42, 44].

Distinction from Cited Precedents – Petitioner relied on Om Prakash Sharma, Satish Mehra, and Nitya Dharmananda – Held: These decisions pertain to post-charge sheet stage or discharge proceedings – Not applicable to present case involving ongoing investigation [Paras 39–40].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Impugned Order dated 20.12.2023 upheld – Court holds that Section 91 Cr.P.C. cannot be used by accused during investigation to compel production of documents already with investigating agency – However, Investigating Officer directed to grant adequate time to accused when confronting him with voluminous or old records, to ensure fair investigation.

Criminal Law – Murder – Common Intention – Evidence of Eye-witnesses – Conviction Upheld – Appellants convicted under Sections 302/34, 324/34, and 325/34 IPC for murdering a 13-year-old boy and grievously injuring his father and other family members – Trial Court convicted 3 out of 8 accused – High Court found that all three convicted accused acted with common intention and came armed to assault the deceased and others – Medical and ocular evidence corroborated each other – Minor inconsistencies in testimonies did not affect core of prosecution’s case – Held: Conviction justified and supported by credible eye-witnesses including injured witnesses [Paras 3, 39-41, 48-49]

Criminal Law – Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC – Not Attracted – Sudden Fight – Premeditation – Defense Plea Rejected – Appellants argued that the incident occurred due to a sudden quarrel arising from a dispute over cattle – Held: Evidence revealed prior threats, premeditated attack, and targeted killing – Deceased was chased, dragged from hiding, and fatally attacked – Injured witnesses consistently testified to intent and brutality – Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC not applicable – Conviction under Section 302 IPC upheld [Paras 42-47]

Witness Testimony – Family Members as Eye-Witnesses – Credibility – PW.1 (mother), PW.4 & PW.8 (sisters), and PW.11 (father) were injured eye-witnesses – Testimonies corroborated and supported by VDP Secretary (PW.3) and others – Held: Relationship with the deceased does not discredit testimony if otherwise credible and consistent – No reason to disbelieve their statements [Paras 36, 39-41]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 302/34, 324/34, and 325/34 IPC confirmed – No grounds for interference.

Maintenance – Section 125 Cr.P.C. – Interim Maintenance – Assessment of Income – Dependents – Voluntary Financial Obligations – Professional Qualification of Wife – Modification of Quantum.

Matrimonial Law – Interim Maintenance – Quantum Assessment – Deductions and Dependents – The petitioner-husband challenged the Family Court's order awarding ₹15,000/- each to the respondent-wife and minor child as interim maintenance - The petitioner argued that the wife is an MBA and capable of earning, and that he has liabilities towards his aged parents, divorced sister, and loan EMIs - The High Court upheld the maintenance to the wife but modified the child's maintenance - The Court held that the wife's educational qualification does not absolve the husband of his statutory duty if she has no current independent income - It was further held that the petitioner's father (a pensioner) and divorced sister (having independent legal recourse) are not "dependents" for the purpose of Section 125 Cr.P.C. calculations - Personal loan EMIs were ruled as voluntary obligations not deductible from income - Applying the Anurita Vohra formula to the husband's income of approx. ₹60,000/-, the Court found the wife's share reasonable but reduced the child's share to ₹10,000/- considering her tender age of 3.5 years - Paras 1-16.

Employability of Wife – Section 125 Cr.P.C. – Professional Degree – Held: Mere possession of a professional degree (MBA) cannot substitute for actual employment or income - While qualification is a relevant factor, the primary consideration is whether the wife presently has an independent and sufficient source of income to maintain herself with dignity - The wife's responsibility towards a minor child and her health issues were rightly considered by the Family Court to negate the argument of potential employability - Paras 8, 15.

Definition of Dependents – Moral vs. Statutory Duty – Parents and Siblings – Held: A father receiving a regular pension (₹17,000/- p.m.) cannot be treated as financially dependent on the son for Section 125 Cr.P.C. calculations - Similarly, a divorced sister has legal remedies to claim maintenance from her former husband; assistance to her falls within the realm of moral duty, not legal dependency enforceable under Section 125 Cr.P.C. - Such voluntary/moral obligations cannot dilute the statutory duty towards the wife and child - Paras 10-11.

Deductibility of EMIs – Computation of Income – Held: Monthly installments (EMIs) paid towards personal loans are voluntary financial obligations and cannot be considered mandatory statutory deductions - Maintenance rights of the wife and child cannot be defeated on the account of EMIs paid by the husband towards property or personal loans - Paras 14.

Apportionment of Income – Family Resource Cake – Held: Relying on Anurita Vohra, the income of the earning member is a 'family resource cake' to be distributed equitably - With an income of approx. ₹60,000/-, dividing into four shares (two for husband, one each for dependents) yields approx. ₹15,000/- per share - This calculation was found consistent with law, though the child's share was marginally reduced due to age-specific needs - Paras 12-13.

Decision: Appeal allowed in part - The interim maintenance for the minor child (Respondent No. 2) is reduced from ₹15,000/- to ₹10,000/- per month - The maintenance of ₹15,000/- awarded to the wife (Respondent No. 1) is upheld - Paras 16-17.

Criminal Law – Rape on False Promise of Marriage – Section 376 IPC – Appellant convicted by Trial Court for establishing physical relations with prosecutrix on assurance of marriage – Prosecutrix admitted consensual relationship – No allegation of forcible sexual intercourse – Held: Mere breach of promise, without proof that promise was false at inception, does not constitute rape – Conviction unsustainable [Paras 1, 15, 17].

Evidence – Testimony of Prosecutrix – Reliability – Prosecutrix alleged repeated phone calls, messages, travel from Kolkata to Delhi and stay together – No corroborative evidence collected – Mobile phones not seized – No call detail records – No proof of train journey or stay in Delhi – Serious lacunae in prosecution case [Paras 11–13].

False Promise of Marriage – Prior Knowledge of Marital Status – Evidence on Record – Prosecutrix and appellant shared common relatives – Testimony of PW-11 and PW-12 revealed that relatives were aware of appellant’s marriage – Possibility that prosecutrix was aware of appellant’s marital status cannot be ruled out – Prosecution failed to establish deception at inception [Paras 14–15].

Consent – Voluntary Relationship – Prosecutrix admitted consensual physical relations – No allegation that appellant promised to dissolve earlier marriage – Absence of inducement vitiating consent – Sexual relationship between consenting adults does not attract Section 376 IPC [Paras 15–16].

Medical and Forensic Evidence – Lack of Support – Prosecutrix refused internal medical examination – FSL report did not yield any incriminating result – Medical evidence failed to corroborate prosecution version [Para 16].

Benefit of Doubt – Criminal Jurisprudence – Where two views possible, the one favouring the accused must prevail – Cumulative effect of inconsistencies, lack of corroboration and doubtful consent entitled appellant to acquittal [Para 17].

Relief – Conviction and Sentence Set Aside – Judgment dated 08.08.2017 and order on sentence dated 21.08.2017 quashed – Appellant acquitted – Personal bond cancelled and surety discharged [Paras 17–18].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction under Section 376 IPC set aside – Appellant acquitted.

Bail – Murder – Organised Crime – Rejection – Petitioners (Accused Nos.6 and 7) sought bail in case involving murder committed by organised crime syndicate under KCOCA – Alleged direct participation in assault on deceased with deadly weapons – Held: Serious overt acts attributed, offence punishable with death or life imprisonment – Bail not justified [Paras 10–15].

Criminal Law – Karnataka Control of Organised Crime Act – Applicability – Prosecution alleged formation of organised crime syndicate by Accused No.3 and participation of petitioners with intent to earn money through illegal means – Confessional statements recorded before Deputy Commissioner of Police admissible under Section 19 KCOCA – Prima facie material sufficient to invoke KCOCA [Paras 11–12].

Evidence – Eye Witness – Credibility at Bail Stage – CW.2, eye witness, named petitioners in statement under Section 161 CrPC and reiterated same under Section 164 CrPC – Witness saw petitioners assault deceased with machete and knife on vital parts – Held: At bail stage, Court cannot discard consistent eyewitness account supported by medical evidence [Paras 3, 8, 14].

Medical Evidence – Multiple Injuries – Gravity of Offence – Post-mortem report revealed 31 external injuries – Cause of death due to multiple injuries – Held: Nature and number of injuries demonstrate brutal assault, militating against grant of bail [Paras 8, 14].

Parity – Bail to Co-accused – Distinction – Petitioners relied on bail granted to Accused No.10 – Court held Accused No.10 was not an assailant and did not actively participate – Held: Parity not applicable where role of petitioners is materially different [Paras 3, 13].

Bail Jurisprudence – “Bail is Rule” – Limitation – Reliance placed on Supreme Court decision reiterating bail as rule – Held: Principle not absolute – In cases involving organised crime, direct participation, threat to witnesses and severe punishment, bail can be denied despite youth or lack of antecedents [Paras 4–5, 14–15].

Threat to Witnesses – Consideration – Prosecution apprehended threat to CW.2 and other witnesses if petitioners released on bail – Held: Likelihood of intimidation a relevant factor in denying bail [Paras 8, 14].

Decision: Criminal Petition dismissed – Petitioners not entitled to bail in Spl.C.C. No. 2055 of 2024 arising out of Crime No. 353 of 2024 – Bail refused considering gravity of offence, prima facie evidence and threat to witnesses.

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Bail – Section 37 NDPS Act – Prolonged Incarceration – Article 21 Constitution of India – Bail application rejected where commercial quantity of Heroin and Charas were recovered from a vehicle linked to the applicant, and bank transactions indicated involvement in drug trafficking – Applicant sought bail citing prolonged pre-trial detention (over three and a half years) as a violation of the right to speedy trial under Article 21, relying on Supreme Court precedents like Union of India v. K. A. Najeeb and Rabi Prakash v. The State of Odisha – Court noted that the co-accused, Bashir Ahmed, was granted bail by the trial court despite similar allegations – Prosecution argued that the applicant was involved in criminal conspiracy, acted as a courier for Bashir Ahmed, and had significant bank transactions related to drug trade – Court found sufficient evidence of prima facie involvement in illicit traffic of commercial quantity contraband – Held that the statutory bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act applies, and the applicant failed to satisfy the twin conditions for bail, particularly regarding non-involvement in the offence – The plea of prolonged incarceration was rejected in light of the nature and gravity of the offences and their impact on society – Bail application dismissed. [Paras 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17]

Criminal Procedure – Bail – Speedy Trial – Article 21 Constitution of India – Section 37 NDPS Act – While prolonged incarceration can be a ground for bail, especially under Article 21, this principle is not absolute and must be harmonized with statutory restrictions in special statutes like the NDPS Act – The Supreme Court in Union of India v. K. A. Najeeb held that Section 43D(5) of UAPA (analogous to Section 37 NDPS Act) does not oust the ability of Constitutional Courts to grant bail on grounds of Article 21 violation, particularly when there is no likelihood of trial completion within a reasonable time and incarceration has exceeded a substantial part of the prescribed sentence – However, the present case involves commercial quantity of contraband, triggering the rigors of Section 37 NDPS Act – The Court, relying on Union of India v. Vigin K. Varghese, emphasized that a finding of non-guilt based on prolonged incarceration must be supported by a careful appraisal of material and cannot be a casual observation – In the absence of material to satisfy the twin conditions of Section 37, the plea of prolonged incarceration alone is insufficient to grant bail, especially given the gravity and societal impact of drug trafficking offences – The application for bail was dismissed. [Paras 3, 8, 9, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Bail application dismissed along with connected application(s) – [Paras 17, 18].

Criminal Law – Mischief by Fire – Conviction under Section 436 read with Section 34 IPC – Revisional Challenge – Petitioners convicted for forcibly entering complainant’s house and setting it on fire while minor girls were present – Trial Court conviction affirmed by Appellate Court – High Court held that no illegality, impropriety or perversity found in concurrent findings – Revision dismissed [Paras 1–5, 28–30].

Evidence – Child Witnesses – Credibility – PWs 1, 4 and 5, minor sisters of the complainant, were eyewitnesses to the incident – Defence alleged tutoring and unreliability – Court held that testimony of child witnesses is admissible and reliable if natural, consistent and free from tutoring – Evidence found trustworthy and unshaken in cross-examination [Paras 16–19].

Identification – Dock Identification – Test Identification Parade – Necessity – Petitioners argued that identification for the first time in Court without prior T.I. Parade was fatal – Witnesses stated that accused were previously known to them – Held: Where accused are known to witnesses, absence of T.I. Parade is not fatal – Dock identification valid [Paras 20–22].

Criminal Trial – Appreciation of Evidence – Ocular Testimony – Conviction based on eyewitnesses – Court reiterated that reliable ocular evidence alone is sufficient for conviction – Minor discrepancies do not vitiate prosecution case when core version remains intact [Paras 18–21, 27].

Criminal Procedure – Compromise – Non-compoundable Offences – Petitioners sought quashing on basis of compromise under Section 482 CrPC – Offence under Section 436 IPC held to be grave and heinous – Held: Proceedings involving serious non-compoundable offences cannot be quashed on the basis of compromise – Compromise petition rejected [Paras 7–8, 24].

Investigation – Non-examination of Investigating Officer – Effect – Defence argued that failure to examine I.O. and non-seizure of articles vitiated trial – Court held that lapses or defects in investigation are not fatal when prosecution case is supported by credible eyewitness testimony [Paras 25–26].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Scope – Interference with Concurrent Findings – High Court reiterated that revisional power is limited and does not permit reappreciation of evidence unless there is patent illegality or miscarriage of justice – No such infirmity found in present case [Paras 28–29].

Decision: Criminal Revision dismissed – Judgments and orders dated 21/11/2000 and 24/04/2001 affirmed – Petitioners directed to surrender before Trial Court to undergo remaining sentence – Benefit of set-off under Section 428 CrPC granted – Interim orders vacated.

Lease – Eviction – Expiry of Lease by Efflux of Time – Registered lease deed dated 02.09.2002 executed for fifteen years – Lease period admittedly expired on 01.09.2017 – Plaintiff sought eviction on ground of expiry and non-renewal – Defendants contended renewal clause in lease deed – Held: Lease stood terminated by efflux of time and defendants became unauthorised occupants thereafter [Paras 6, 17–21].

Lease – Renewal Clause – Mandatory Conditions – Clause providing renewal for further fifteen years subject to lessee issuing three months’ prior notice and execution of fresh registered lease deed on mutual terms – No evidence produced to show issuance of mandatory notice or consensus ad idem for renewal – Mere existence of renewal clause does not amount to automatic extension – Held: Renewal not established and tenancy not continued [Paras 18–20].

Specific Performance – Renewal of Lease – Prior Suit – Appellant had earlier filed suit for specific performance seeking renewal of lease – Said suit dismissed and findings attained finality – Held: Appellant cannot indirectly claim renewal in eviction proceedings contrary to binding findings [Para 21].

Second Appeal – Scope – Section 100 CPC – Concurrent Findings of Fact – Trial Court and First Appellate Court concurrently held lease expired and no renewal proved – No perversity, illegality or misreading of evidence shown – Held: High Court cannot reappreciate evidence or interfere with concurrent findings in absence of substantial question of law [Paras 14–16, 22–23].

Substantial Question of Law – Absence – Questions raised pertained to appreciation of evidence and interpretation of contractual terms already settled by courts below – Not open, debatable or unsettled questions of law – Held: No substantial question of law arises warranting admission of second appeal [Paras 22–23].

Equitable Relief – Time to Vacate – Though second appeal dismissed, Court granted six months’ time to appellant to vacate premises considering nature of occupation – No order as to costs [Para 24].

Decision: Second appeal dismissed at admission stage – Concurrent judgments and decrees of Trial Court and First Appellate Court confirmed – Appellant granted six months’ time to vacate suit schedule premises – No costs – Pending applications closed.

Succession Law – Probate – Will proved genuine but probate denied – Xerox copy of Will dated 22.01.1996 propounded by husband of testatrix – Allegation that original Will was stolen by appellant – Trial court accepted genuineness of Will based on attesting witness testimony and consistent evidence – However, probate dismissed due to concealment of fact that property had already been sold by original petitioner – Substituted petitioner did not challenge dismissal – Held: Execution of Will proved, but no interference warranted with dismissal of probate due to suppression of material facts [Paras 1, 8, 13–18]

Evidence Act – Secondary Evidence – Section 65(c) – Requirements for admissibility of copy of lost Will – Petitioner alleged original Will was stolen by son – No direct proof of theft produced, but complaint filed and consistent narrative maintained – Held: Case fell under Section 65(c) – Copy admissible – Attesting witness testimony credible and unshaken – Trial court justified in treating Will as genuine despite absence of original [Paras 15–17]

Indian Succession Act – Section 237 – Probate of Copy of Lost Will – Court reiterated that probate of copy is permissible where original lost or destroyed by accident or other unintentional means – Allegation of theft by son, along with prior consistent complaint, sufficient in circumstances – Will admitted to be in existence through conduct of objector, who attested subsequent Will referencing it – Held: Pre-conditions under Section 237 satisfied – Genuineness of Will established [Paras 13, 17]

Conduct of Objector – Estoppel by Conduct – Objector and his wife attested subsequent Will executed by father in 2004 acknowledging title through 1996 Will – Later challenged genuineness of 1996 Will only after cancellation of 2004 Will – Court held such conduct undermines credibility of objection – Testimony of attesting witness (PW-1) found reliable – Objector’s shifting position discredited [Paras 10, 17]

Procedural Law – Suppression of Material Facts – Dismissal of Probate Petition – Original petitioner sold property during pendency of probate proceedings without disclosure to court – Trial court rightly dismissed petition for suppression – Substituted petitioner failed to challenge such dismissal – Held: No interference warranted with trial court’s decision to deny probate despite Will being held genuine [Paras 8, 18]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Execution and genuineness of Will upheld – Dismissal of probate petition due to suppression of material facts by original petitioner sustained – No interference warranted – Pending applications also dismissed.