Non-Lodging of FIR – Remedy Available under Section 156(3) CrPC – Writ of Mandamus Denied

The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus to compel the police to lodge an FIR regarding a complaint dated 25.09.2024, as no action had been taken by the authorities. The court referred to the judgment in Lalita Kumari vs. Government of U.P., which emphasizes the duty of the police to register an FIR if a cognizable offence is disclosed. However, the court held that since the petitioner had an alternate remedy under Section 156(3) CrPC or Section 200 CrPC, a writ of mandamus could not be granted unless the exceptions outlined in Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of Trade Marks applied. The court directed the petitioner to pursue remedies available under CrPC – Petition dismissed.

Writ Petition – Maintainability – Constructive Res Judicata – Petitioners arrested by NIA sought habeas corpus in an earlier writ petition, which was dismissed as withdrawn – Petitioners filed a fresh writ challenging their arrest and remand orders – NIA raised the plea of constructive res judicata, arguing the present writ was not maintainable – Held: The withdrawal of the earlier petition did not bar the present writ petition as liberty to “agitate the same issues before Competent Court/Forum” was granted by the Division Bench – The principle of constructive res judicata does not apply when liberty has been expressly granted by the court, and issues concerning personal liberty require a liberal approach – Petition maintainable ​.

Habeas Corpus – Challenge to Arrest and Remand – Petitioners contended that their arrest by the NIA and subsequent remand to custody were illegal – The arrest was challenged on the ground of non-compliance with the Supreme Court’s guidelines in D.K. Basu v. State of W.B. – Held: The petition raised serious issues of personal liberty, including the illegality of the arrest under Articles 14, 21, and 22 of the Constitution – The matter was admitted for arguments on merits ​.

NIA Act – Appellate Remedies – Petitioners argued that no statutory remedies under the NIA Act were available to challenge the remand orders as they are interlocutory in nature – Held: Section 21 of the NIA Act does not provide for an appeal against interlocutory orders, such as remand orders – Therefore, the petitioners’ only remedy is through writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution ​.

Res Judicata – Withdrawal of Writ Petition – NIA argued that withdrawal of the earlier writ without specific permission barred the petitioners from filing a fresh writ – Held: The Supreme Court’s decision in Sarguja Transport Service was considered, but it was clarified that personal liberty cases, such as habeas corpus petitions, are outside the strict application of res judicata principles – The earlier withdrawal did not preclude the present writ petition ​.

Decision: Preliminary objection by NIA rejected – Writ petition held maintainable – Matter listed for arguments on merits.

Bail Application – Non-compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act – Denial of Bail - Petitioner sought bail on grounds of non-compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act, claiming he was not informed of his right to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate – Held: The petitioner was served with a notice informing him of his right, and he explicitly refused the presence of a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate in writing – As such, the search did not violate Section 50 – Bail denied [Paras 1-4, 12-15].

Representative Samples – Alleged Discrepancies – Bail Rejected - The petitioner argued that the samples drawn from the seized contraband did not match the seized substance, questioning the validity of the evidence – Held: Such factual disputes must be resolved at trial, not during bail hearings – Bail request denied [Paras 5-6, 19-20].

Search in Presence of a Gazetted Officer – Sufficiency of Compliance - Refusal of search in presence of a Gazetted Officer does not amount to non-compliance with Section 50 if the suspect is properly informed of his rights – The court noted prior cases, affirming that substantial compliance is not sufficient, but specific procedures were followed in this instance – Search upheld, bail denied [Paras 7-9, 16].

Precedent – Violation of Section 50 NDPS Act – Commercial Quantity of Contraband - The court distinguished this case from earlier rulings like Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja (2011) and State of Rajasthan v. Ram Chandra (2005), ruling that individual notice had been given and the accused declined further safeguards – The presence of commercial quantities further disfavored bail – Bail denied due to involvement of commercial quantities [Paras 10, 17-18].

Indian Succession Act – Probate and Letters of Administration – Will Dispute – Appellants challenged the grant of probate for the Will dated 30th July 1956, executed by deceased Ibrahim in favor of his grandson (Respondent) – The Trial Court granted probate despite the non-production of the original Will – Appellants argued that the Will was surrounded by suspicious circumstances, excluding other heirs, and the original Will was not produced – The High Court found the Trial Court erred in granting probate because the Will did not appoint an executor as required under Section 222 of the Indian Succession Act – Held: Respondent entitled to Letters of Administration with Will annexed, not probate [Paras 52-55].

Secondary Evidence – Admissibility of Certified Copy of Will – Appellants contended that secondary evidence should not have been allowed, as there was no proof the original Will was lost – The High Court held that secondary evidence is admissible under Section 65(c) of the Indian Evidence Act if the original document is lost or untraceable – Respondent proved that the original Will was not found despite search – Certified copy from the Sub-Registrar’s office was accepted as secondary evidence [Paras 43-45].

Execution of Will – Proof and Attestation – The Respondent called the son of the scribe and the daughter of one attesting witness to prove the Will’s execution – As one attesting witness was deceased and the other could not be traced, the High Court applied Section 69 of the Indian Evidence Act, allowing proof of the handwriting of one attesting witness when both witnesses are unavailable – The Court held the execution of the Will was sufficiently proven [Paras 46-48].

Suspicious Circumstances – Exclusion of Other Heirs – Appellants alleged that the exclusion of other legal heirs, including the testator's wife and grandchildren, was suspicious – The High Court noted that only some properties were bequeathed to the Respondent, while other properties remained for other heirs – The delay in bringing the Will to light was explained by the Respondent, who discovered the Will only after his father’s death in 2005 – No suspicious circumstances were found [Paras 49-51].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – The Trial Court’s order granting probate was set aside – Letters of Administration with Will annexed granted to Respondent – Status quo to continue for six weeks [Paras 52-55].

Criminal Law – Quashing - Forgery and Cheating – Non-compliance with mandatory provisions – Section 156(3) of CrPC – Quashing of Proceedings - Petitioners challenged the criminal proceedings initiated under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 469, and 471 of the IPC, arguing non-compliance with Sections 154(1) and 154(3) of the CrPC during the filing of the complaint under Section 156(3) – Held: The mandatory requirements of prior applications under Sections 154(1) and 154(3) were not met, as required by the precedent set in Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P. – Thus, the criminal proceedings were quashed for non-compliance with these provisions [Paras 1-3, 8-10, 20-21].

Affidavit Requirement under Section 156(3) CrPC – Legal Compliance - The Court reiterated that applications under Section 156(3) must be supported by a sworn affidavit, as highlighted in Priyanka Srivastava – In the present case, no such affidavit was filed, leading to the quashing of the complaint [Paras 15, 18-19].

Retrospective Application of Priyanka Srivastava Guidelines – Clarification - The petitioner’s counsel argued that the Priyanka Srivastava guidelines do not apply retrospectively – Held: The provisions in question were codified long before the petition was filed, and the judgment merely reaffirmed existing requirements – Hence, the argument of non-retrospective application was dismissed [Paras 12-14, 16].

Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Abuse of Process - The Court found that continuing the proceedings without compliance with the statutory provisions would amount to an abuse of process – Thus, the criminal proceedings were quashed [Paras 22-23].

Criminal Law – Murder Conviction – Intentional Killing – Appellant convicted under Section 302 IPC for killing the deceased with an axe – Prosecution’s case was based on the eyewitness testimonies of P.W.1 (wife of the deceased) and P.W.2 (son of the deceased) – Held: The appellant, after an initial altercation, went to his house, returned with an axe, and inflicted a blow on the deceased’s head – Evidence established the intentional nature of the act, and the conviction was upheld [Paras 15, 18, 20].

Delay in Filing FIR – Justified – There was a five-day delay in lodging the FIR – However, the delay was explained by the immediate efforts to save the life of the injured, as the deceased was referred to multiple hospitals before his death – The court found the explanation satisfactory, and the delay did not prejudice the prosecution's case [Paras 16, 17].

Non-Recovery of Weapon – Not Fatal – The murder weapon, an axe, was not recovered – However, consistent eyewitness accounts and medical evidence confirmed the nature of the injury (sharp cutting blow to the head), making the non-recovery of the weapon immaterial to the conviction [Paras 19, 20].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 302 and 324 IPC upheld – The appellant to serve life imprisonment as ordered by the Trial Court [Paras 20, 21].

Excessive Demand for Final Payment – Validity of Sale Deed Terms – Declaration Rejected - The appellant sought a declaration that VUDA's demand for Rs.533,275.37 was excessive and arbitrary – Held: The sale deed explicitly provided that the price mentioned was tentative, and the appellant agreed to pay any excess amount upon final determination of compensation – The appellant cannot contest these terms after signing the agreement – Decision: Declaration denied.

Civil Court Jurisdiction – Suit for Declaration and Injunction – Maintainable - The appellant contended that the civil court lacked jurisdiction – Held: Civil courts have jurisdiction over civil matters unless expressly excluded, and the relief sought is within the civil court's authority – Decision: Civil court has jurisdiction, suit is maintainable.

Permanent Injunction – Consequential Relief Denied - The appellant sought a permanent injunction to prevent VUDA from collecting the alleged excess amount – Held: Since the primary relief of declaration was denied, the consequential relief of permanent injunction cannot be granted – Decision: Injunction denied .

Final Price of Plots – Bound by Terms of Sale Deed - The appellant argued that the final price was arbitrary – Held: The sale deed clearly states that the price was tentative and subject to adjustment based on land acquisition proceedings – The appellant agreed to these terms – Decision: Appellant bound to pay the final price.

Bail – Robbery and Criminal Trespass – Section 483 of the BNSS – Grant of Bail - The petitioners were charged with committing robbery by breaking into a jewellery shop and stealing silver ornaments and watches worth Rs.1,596,000 – The petitioners claimed innocence, stating they were unaware of the charges until they were arrested – Held: The petitioners had been in judicial custody for over 90 days, the investigation was complete, and the charge-sheet had been filed – Decision: Bail granted.

Previous Criminal Record – Risk of Tampering with Evidence - The prosecution opposed the bail, citing the petitioners' involvement in similar crimes and the risk of tampering with evidence – Held: Despite the prosecution's concerns, bail was granted on the basis of the petitioners' prolonged judicial custody and completion of the investigation – Decision: Bail granted with conditions.

Principle of Bail – Bail is the Rule, Jail is an Exception - The court reaffirmed the principle that "bail is the rule, jail is an exception," citing precedents such as Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement and Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India – Decision: Bail granted in light of established legal principles.

Criminal Law – Unlawful Assembly – Murder Conviction – Appellants were convicted under Sections 147, 148, 302 read with Section 149 IPC for their involvement in the unlawful assembly that caused the death of Bisu @ Biswanath – Prosecution witnesses (P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.9) gave inconsistent testimonies about the specific role of the appellants in the attack – Held: Conviction under Section 147 of IPC is unsustainable as the prosecution failed to prove that the appellants were members of the unlawful assembly beyond reasonable doubt.

Witness Testimony – Inconsistencies in Evidence – P.W.1, the deceased’s brother, alleged that the appellants assaulted the deceased, but his testimony was contradicted by P.W.2 and P.W.9 – P.W.1 had not mentioned this during the investigation, and P.W.9's statement was taken more than a month after the incident – These contradictions and delays rendered the evidence unreliable – Held: Testimonies of key witnesses did not conclusively establish the appellants' role in the offence.

Acquittal – Benefit of Doubt – In the absence of conclusive evidence, the court found it unsafe to sustain the conviction – Appellants were acquitted of all charges due to the failure of the prosecution to establish their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellants acquitted – Bail bonds of the appellants stand cancelled [Paras 20, 21].