Civil Writ - U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act 1973 - Section 41(3) - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Maintainability - Alternate Remedy - Revision - Dispute over jurisdiction of the Authority to change land use - Held - Availability of an alternate remedy under Section 41(3) of the Act is not an absolute bar to a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India especially where the jurisdiction of the Authority is challenged as being a pure question of law - Rule of exhaustion of statutory remedies is a rule of policy and convenience rather than an absolute bar - Petition held maintainable [Paras 23-26, 52]

U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act 1973 - Sections 13 14 and 15 - Land Use Conversion - Residential to Nursing Home - Meerut Master Plan 2031 - Building Byelaws 2008 - Held - The Authority possesses the power to amend layout plans and land use in accordance with Government Order dated 13.10.1998 and Section 13 of the Act provided it does not affect the primary character of the Master Plan or Zonal Plan - Nursing homes are permissible ancillary activities in residential areas subject to specific conditions including minimum plot size of 300 sqm and road width of 12 meters - Respondent No. 6 satisfied conditions on a 36-meter wide road - Conversion was processed following due publication and invitation of objections - No jurisdictional error or colourable exercise of power found [Paras 28-38, 41-46, 51, 53]

U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act 1973 - Sections 26 27 and 28 - Compounding - Unauthorized Construction - Deviation from sanctioned map - Held - Compounding of construction is permissible after the demolition of non-compoundable areas - Respondent No. 6 complied with directions to demolish 206.25 sqm of objectionable structure - Compounding of the remaining structure was validly approved after land use was regularized from residential to nursing home - Petitioner cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate by refuting regulations while seeking their enforcement [Paras 8, 16-17, 47, 50]

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – No order as to costs – Respondent No. 6 directed to file an affidavit before the Authority undertaking compliance with parking regulations and medical waste management to ensure residents are not adversely affected.

Civil Law - Fixation of Boundary - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order VII Rule 3 - Plaint Schedule - Suit for boundary fixation - Conflicting decisions of Single Benches regarding whether the defendant’s property must be described in a separate schedule in the plaint - Reference to Division Bench - Court examined the scope of Order VII Rule 3 which requires description of immovable property sufficient to identify it - Held - It is not mandatory to schedule the property of the defendant in a suit for fixation of boundary - Plaintiff cannot be expected to be aware of the precise details of the defendant's property such as extent and survey numbers - Sufficient to indicate the common boundary shared with the defendant while describing the plaintiff’s property - Appukuttan Nair v Sadasivan Nair 2022 (7) KHC 250 approved - Nandakumara Varama v Usha Varma 2015 (1) KLJ 73 overruled - [Paras 1-2].

Civil Law - Remand of Suit - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order XLI Rule 23 - Erroneous exercise of jurisdiction - First Appellate Court remanded the suit for fresh identification of property with reference to sale deeds produced at the appellate stage - High Court found that the Commissioner had already identified the properties and the dispute was limited to a specific strip of land - Materials on record including the Commissioner's report and recitals in the documents were sufficient for a final decision - Held - Remand is unnecessary when materials for proper determination of issues are available before the First Appellate Court - The Appellate Court is duty-bound to appreciate the evidence and decide the lis on merits instead of remanding the matter - Order of remand set aside - [Paras 6-14].

Decision: Remand order set aside – First Appellate Court directed to re-hear the appeal on its merits – Parties directed to appear before the First Appellate Court on 23.06.2026.

Criminal Law - Unlawful Activities Prevention Act 1967 - Section 15 - Terrorist Act - Definition and Means - Interpretation of other means of whatever nature - Principle of ejusdem generis - Held - To qualify as a terrorist act the act must be done with intent to threaten unity or strike terror using specified hazardous means - A stone does not fall within the category of bombs or explosives as specifically indicated in the provision - Symbolic Rail Roko protests and stone-pelting during political demonstrations without intent to strike terror or threaten national security do not constitute terrorist acts under Section 15 - [Paras 91-106]

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 227 - Discharge - Scope of judicial scrutiny at the stage of framing charges - Mini-trial prohibited - Held - The trial court cannot test the reliability or veracity of witness statements or seek corroboration at the discharge stage - Evidence must be taken at face value to determine if a prima facie case exists - Trial court erred in conducting a roving enquiry into the credibility of witnesses who implicated the respondents in stone-pelting and arson - [Paras 51-53, 79-84]

Indian Penal Code - Section 149 - Unlawful Assembly - Continued presence - Common object - Held - Continued presence in an assembly after it turns violent and indulges in criminal acts like stone-pelting or damaging government property is sufficient prima facie to make an individual a member of an unlawful assembly - Respondents presence at the site where a police officer was injured and a vehicle capsized attracts vicarious liability under Section 149 - [Paras 81-82]

NIA Act 2008 - Section 20 - Transfer of case - Jurisdiction of Special Court - Held - Since the High Court concurred with the discharge of respondents under the scheduled offence (UAPA) but found sufficient grounds for IPC offences the Special NIA Court no longer retains jurisdiction to try the case - Case directed to be transferred to the regular jurisdictional court - [Paras 108-109]

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Discharge under Section 16 UAPA affirmed – Discharge under IPC sections set aside – Case transferred to the regular jurisdictional court for trial on IPC charges.

Writ Law - Suppression of material facts - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Petitioner No. 3 Prerit Goel sought quashing of Look Out Circulars in CWP-12631-2023 claiming to be an Indian citizen residing in Haryana - High Court allowed the writ petition on 20.01.2026 quashing the circulars subject to undertakings - Order was challenged in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 10530 of 2026 where Supreme Court granted liberty to seek travel permission from the High Court - Petitioner filed application seeking travel to London from April to September 2026 - During arguments it was disclosed for the first time that petitioner held a passport of the Republic of Vanuatu and was not an Indian citizen at the time of filing the original writ petition - Petitioner filed a subsequent affidavit citing inadvertence and bonafide mistake for non-disclosure - High Court observed that citizenship assumes paramount relevancy in petitions seeking cancellation of Look Out Circulars where flight risk is a primary concern - Held - Petitioner obtained the final order by suppressing material facts - Travel application dismissed with cost of Rs. 50,000 to be deposited with Poor Patients Welfare Fund PGIMER Chandigarh - [Paras 1-9].

Civil Law - Inherent Powers - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 151 - Travel Permission - Applicant sought discretionary relief to travel abroad during pendency of SLP against final disposal of writ petition - Court found that the applicant had posed as an Indian citizen while holding foreign citizenship - Ratio Decidendi - A petitioner invoking the power of judicial review under Article 226 is expected to disclose all material facts without suppression - The possibility of the Court refusing the main relief of quashing Look Out Circulars could not be ruled out had the fact of foreign citizenship been known - Held - Conduct of applicant in suppressing material facts disentitles him from seeking permission to travel - Application dismissed - [Paras 5-7].

Decision: CM-8060-CWP-2026 allowed taking affidavit on record – CM-5629-CWP-2026 dismissed with cost of Rs. 50,000 – Copy of order to be sent to Supreme Court in SLP (C) No. 10530 of 2026.

Indian Penal Code 1860 - Section 307 - Attempt to Murder - Intention - Parties were close relatives - Incident occurred after the father of the victims challenged the appellant - Held - Facts do not establish a clear intention to commit murder or cause death - Mens rea for Section 307 IPC not established beyond doubt - [Paras 27-33]

Indian Penal Code 1860 - Sections 320 and 326 - Grievous Hurt - Permanent disfiguration - Appellant caused sharp incised wounds on the faces of PW8 and PW9 - Medical evidence confirmed injuries measuring up to 7 cm - Held - Permanent disfiguration of the face falls under Sixthly of Section 320 IPC - Offence under Section 326 IPC is clearly established - [Paras 30-35]

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 222 - Conviction for minor offence - Cognate offences - Trial court framed charge under Section 307 IPC but not under Section 326 IPC - Held - Section 326 IPC is a minor and cognate offence to Section 307 IPC - Court is empowered to convict for a minor offence even if no specific charge was framed provided the ingredients are common - [Paras 35-36]

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 232 - Non-compliance - Procedural irregularity - Trial court failed to conduct a hearing as contemplated under Section 232 - Held - Omission to comply with Section 232 CrPC does not ipso facto vitiate the proceedings unless the accused demonstrates serious and substantial prejudice - [Para 8]

Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Testimony of Injured Witnesses - Evidentiary Value - Reliability - Conviction based on victims PW8 and PW9 - Held - Testimony of an injured witness is accorded special status as the injury is an inbuilt guarantee of their presence at the crime scene - Strong grounds required to reject such testimony - [Paras 23-28]

Criminal Law - Recovery of Weapon - Non-recovery - Weapon of offence not recovered during investigation - Held - Recovery of the weapon is not a sine qua non for conviction if the prosecution case is otherwise proved beyond reasonable doubt through reliable ocular testimony - [Para 34]

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 307 IPC set aside – Appellant found guilty under Section 326 IPC read with Section 34 IPC – Sentence reduced to 2 years rigorous imprisonment – Fine of Rs 10,000 sustained with default sentence.

Civil Law - Partition - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Sections 16 and 17 - Territorial Jurisdiction - Suit for partition of multiple properties including a residential flat in Mumbai - Appellant challenged the jurisdiction of the Sub Court Chavakkad regarding the Mumbai property - Section 16(b) mandates suits for partition to be filed where the property is situated - Section 17 provides an exception for suits involving immovable properties situated within the jurisdiction of different courts allowing the suit to be instituted in any court within whose local limits any portion of the property is situated - High Court observed that Section 17 engrafts an exception to the general rule in Section 16 - Relying on Apex Court precedent in Shivnarayan v. Maniklal it was held that the word property in Section 17 includes plural properties - Held - The existence of one item or even a portion of properties within the territorial limits of the trial court is sufficient to confer jurisdiction over all items sought to be partitioned - Trial court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit - [Paras 5-8].

Civil Law - Procedure - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 21(1) and Section 99 - Objection to Territorial Jurisdiction - Appellant raised the plea of lack of territorial jurisdiction for the first time in appeal - Section 21(1) prohibits appellate courts from allowing such objections unless taken in the court of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity - Section 99 provides that no decree shall be reversed in appeal for any error or defect not affecting the merits of the case or the jurisdiction of the court - High Court clarified that the term jurisdiction in Section 99 does not encompass territorial jurisdiction - Held - The contention regarding lack of territorial jurisdiction is not available to the appellant as it was not raised before the trial court - [Paras 9-10].

Civil Law - Succession - Nomination - Kerala Co-operative Societies Act - Effect of nomination - Appellant claimed absolute ownership of the Mumbai flat asserting that the shares were transferred to his name by the Society based on a nomination made by the original owner Velayudhan - High Court applied the principle settled by the Supreme Court in Indrani Wahi v. Registrar of Coop. Societies - Held - A nominee is merely the hand to receive the assets on behalf of all the heirs entitled to the assets under the law of succession - Nomination does not affect the rights of legal heirs - The property enures to all legal heirs and remains liable for partition - [Paras 11].

Civil Law - Bar of Jurisdiction - Kerala Co-operative Societies Act - Section 100 and Section 69 - Dispute - Maintainability of suit - Appellant argued that the suit was barred under Section 100 read with Section 69 of the Act - Section 69 provides a mechanism for settlement of disputes touching the business or management of a society - Section 2(i) defines dispute - The Court distinguished between disputes touching the business of a society and inter se title disputes among legal heirs - Held - A suit for partition between legal heirs regarding entitlement to the assets of a deceased member relates to inter se title and does not fall within the definition of a dispute under the Act - Civil Court jurisdiction is not barred - [Paras 12-13].

Civil Law - Equity - Partition - Claim for equitable allotment - Appellant being a resident of Mumbai sought allotment of the Mumbai flat to him in equity having expended amounts for registration - High Court declined to interfere with the preliminary decree but left the plea of equity open - Held - The plea for equitable allotment shall be considered by the trial court during final decree proceedings - [Para 13].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Preliminary decree for partition affirmed – No order as to costs.

Criminal Law - Cheque Dishonour - Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 - Section 138 - Revision against conviction - Complainant advanced friendly loan of Rs. 1,50,000 and Rs. 2,20,000 for medical expenses of petitioner wife and newborn child - Cheque for Rs. 3,70,000 dishonoured for insufficient funds - Petitioner-accused claimed cheque was blank security document issued during employment at complainant shop and alleged unproven settlement of Rs. 1,00,000 - JMFC Sirsa convicted petitioner on 25.07.2022 and ASJ Sirsa dismissed appeal on 10.03.2025 - High Court noted petitioner admitted signatures on cheque and written agreement Ex.C-3 acknowledging liability - Held - Scope of interference in revision against concurrent findings is extremely limited to jurisdictional error or perversity - High Court does not re-appreciate evidence as an appellate court - Mere bald assertions regarding security cheque or settlement without cogent evidence fail to rebut statutory presumption under Section 139 - Revision dismissed - [Paras 1-12].

Evidence Law - Statutory Presumptions - Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 - Sections 118 and 139 - Presumption of consideration and discharge of liability - Accused admitted signatures on cheque but denied filling particulars and receiving legal notice - Argued agreement was executed on blank papers - Held - Once signature on cheque is admitted the law presumes it was issued in discharge of legal liability - Onus shifts to accused to lead evidence to the contrary - Voluntary signing and handing over a blank cheque allows the payee to fill particulars and does not invalidate the instrument - Failure to put suggestions of forgery or settlement to complainant during cross-examination is fatal to the defense - Testimony of advocate appearing as witness for limited purpose of proving notice cannot be relied upon to prove a settlement not mentioned in examination-in-chief - [Paras 2.4-11].

Decision: Revision petition dismissed – Judgment of conviction and order of sentence affirmed – All pending applications disposed of.

Civil Law — Supervisory Jurisdiction — Article 227 — Maintainability — Challenge to Ex-Parte Decree — Legal representatives of the judgment debtor challenged an ex-parte money decree dated 01.01.1985 and a restraint order dated 08.08.1993 passed in execution proceedings after a delay of over 29 years — Held: Petition under Article 227 challenging a decree assailable under CPC provisions is ordinarily not maintainable; however, since the petition was entertained four years ago and pleadings were complete, the Court proceeded to examine the matter on merits rather than relegate the parties — Ratio in Virudhunagar (supra) applies with full force against petitioners [Paras 19–21, 36].

Civil Procedure — Execution of Decree — Legal Representatives — Binding Effect — Sections 2(11), 50 and 146 CPC — Judgment debtor died in 1988 after the suit was decreed ex-parte in 1985; second execution application filed in 1989 against legal representatives — Submission that decree is not binding on legal representatives who were not parties to the suit, rejected — Decree is enforceable against legal representatives of a deceased judgment debtor under the express provisions of CPC [Paras 22–23].

Civil Procedure — Execution Proceedings — Auction Sale — Decree Holder as Auction Purchaser — Order XXI Rule 72 CPC — Decree holder purchased property at auction with express permission of the executing court — Earlier auction without court permission was set aside on objection of judgment debtors; fresh auction conducted thereafter with requisite permission — Auction confirmed on 13.08.1999; sale certificate registered; actual physical possession delivered; execution proceedings closed in full satisfaction — All objections under Section 47 CPC decided on merits; no further challenge laid thereto — Held: No infirmity in auction sale; executing court cannot go behind the decree and challenge to its validity not permissible in supervisory jurisdiction after 40 years [Paras 28–36].

Civil Procedure — Finality of Decree — Challenge After 40 Years — Abuse of Process — Petitioners suppressed material facts and filed incomplete order sheet to obtain ex-parte interim stay against eviction although possession had already been delivered to decree holder — Contradictory pleadings on question of knowledge adopted in petition and written submissions — Court found petitioners guilty of raising false and misleading pleas to secure interim order — Conduct condemned — Cost of Rs. 2/- imposed so as to convey the worth of their objections and conduct [Paras 47–49].

Decision: Petition dismissed with cost of Rs. 2/-; petitioners directed to deposit cost before Registrar General by 07.07.2026; District Magistrate, Saharanpur directed to recover cost as arrears of land revenue in case of default; administration directed to ensure no hindrance in securing actual and physical possession of contesting respondents; compliance report directed on or before 12.08.2026.

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Section 354A - Appeal against Acquittal - Sexual Harassment - Ingredients - Prosecution must prove physical contact or advances involving sexual intent or unwelcome sexual conduct - Testimony of victim (PW2) and witnesses (PW3, PW7) failed to establish sexual intent in the act of catching the victim's hand - Held - Ingredients of sexual harassment not made out - [Paras 15-21]

Indian Penal Code 1860 - Section 503 and 506 - Criminal Intimidation - Threat to Injury - Essential ingredient is the intent to cause alarm to the person threatened - Victim and her brother provided slightly different versions of the threat - No evidence that the alleged threat caused alarm to the brother (PW7) - Held - Essential ingredients of Section 506 IPC not seen made out - [Paras 18-22]

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012 - Sections 7, 8, 11 and 12 - Sexual Assault and Harassment - Definitions - Act requires specific sexual intent for assault or specific conduct like sexual remarks or gestures for harassment - Testimony of victim did not fulfill requirements of Section 7 or Section 11 - Held - POCSO offences not established - [Paras 23-24]

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 232 - Non-compliance - Procedural irregularity - Trial court failed to conduct hearing as contemplated under Section 232 - Held - Non-compliance does not ipso facto vitiate proceedings unless serious and substantial prejudice is shown to the accused - No prejudice shown in the present case - [Para 8]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Order of acquittal affirmed.