Civil Suit for Injunction – Rejection of Plaint – Jurisdiction under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC – Defendants sought rejection of plaint on various grounds – Challenge to maintainability of a simpliciter suit for injunction without seeking relief of declaration of title – Applicability of principles of estoppel – Challenge to plaintiff’s claim based on unregistered and insufficiently stamped documents – Scope of power under Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Test to determine whether a cause of action is disclosed in the plaint – Importance of considering averments in the plaint and not the contentions in the written statement – Plaintiff’s claim based on Agreement to Sell, General Power of Attorney, and Deed of Apartment – Late Dr. Pushpa Khanna’s physical possession of suit property – Appointment of plaintiff as Interim Administrator of estate – Principles of estoppel in relation to earlier withdrawn suit – Prohibition of claim to ownership based on GPA/Agreement to Sell per Suraj Lamps decision – Clarification on genuine transactions and protection under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act – Application dismissed. [Para 1-16]

Facts: The petitioner sought to quash an order allowing the recall of PW5 for cross-examination through video conferencing in a criminal case where he was accused of abusing a Judicial Officer. [Para 4]

 Issues: The issues were related to the legality of the trial Court's decision to recall PW5 for cross-examination through video conferencing and whether the accused's rights were affected by this decision. [Para 5-6]

 Observations: The Court observed that the application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. must be allowed frequently, and that recording evidence through video conferencing is permissible under the law. The Court referred to the detailed rules and procedures laid down for video conferencing. [Para 7, 9-11]

 Decision: The High Court held that the trial Court's decision was permissible and did not affect the rights of the accused. The petition was dismissed. [Para 12]

Facts:

The accused were charged with the murder of Shihab, allegedly committed using an Ambassador car (MO11) and a motorcycle (MO13). The prosecution claimed that the accused were members of the organization RSS and had targeted Shihab, who was the prime accused in the murder of an RSS member. The case was built on the evidence of two witnesses (PW1 and PW2) and the seizure of the vehicles. The accused denied involvement, claiming false implication due to their RSS membership. [Para 27-30]

Issues:

1. Whether the evidence provided by the prosecution, including the testimony of PW1 and PW2, is sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused. [Para 27-29]

2. Whether the investigation was conducted properly, without bias or external interference. [Para 30-31]

3. Whether the accused were falsely implicated due to their association with the RSS organization. [Para 29]

Observations:

1. The court found that there was no satisfactory evidence connecting MO11 and MO13 to the crime or the accused to the vehicles. [Para 27]

2. The court noted serious lapses in the investigation, including a delay in questioning key witnesses, lack of material evidence, and inconsistencies in the police diary. [Para 30-31]

3. The court expressed concern over the manner in which the investigating officer concluded the accused's guilt without sufficient materials and the impact of such flawed investigation on the credibility of the justice system. [Para 34]

Decision:

The court allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction of accused 1 to 7 and acquitting them. The court emphasized that the acquittal was not due to a finding of innocence but rather due to flawed investigation and lack of evidence. The accused were ordered to be released from custody unless required for any other case. [Para 33-34]

Facts - Police investigation in the present case recorded statements of Mr. Tanveer Khan and Mr. Nirmal Paul, witnesses mentioned by Respondent No.2 in her FIR. The witnesses did not support Respondent No.2's allegations.

- Respondent No.2 falsely claimed that the company, Max Life Insurance, did not take cognizance of her complaints, even though an inquiry was conducted into them.

- There was a three-month delay in lodging the FIR. The Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasized the importance of timely FIRs, citing the case of Thulia Kali V/s. The State of Tamil Nadu.

 Legal Issues

1. Whether the FIR lodged by Respondent No.2 was mala fide and filled with improvements and suppressions of material facts.

2. Whether the case falls under the exceptional categories mentioned in State of Haryana & Ors. V/s. Bhajan Lal that would warrant quashing the FIR under Article 226 or Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

 Observations

The FIR by Respondent No.2 is filled with inconsistencies and deliberate suppression of material facts, and appears to be lodged with mala fide intentions.

- The case qualifies under categories 6 and 7 of principles outlined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. V/s. Bhajan Lal, making it a fit case for quashing the FIR.

 Decision

- The court concluded that continuing further investigation in the FIR would be an abuse of process and should be quashed in the interest of justice.

- Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (b) and the rule is made absolute.

Marriage and Separation – Marriage between parties and subsequent separation; allegations of relationships outside marriage during proceedings. [Para 1-7, 24-27]

Cruelty – Allegations and substantiation of cruelty; Supreme Court's observations; false complaints constituting mental cruelty. [Para 12-13, 19-23]

Desertion – Evidence of long separation without cogent reason; desertion proved. [Para 27]

Divorce Granted – Setting aside of impugned judgment; divorce granted on grounds of cruelty and desertion. [Para 28, 35]

Financial Support and Assistance – Acknowledgment of respondent's financial difficulties; voluntary payment and assurance of BPL Card issuance. [Para 29-34]

Anticipatory Bail – Applicant seeks anticipatory bail for offences under Sections 420 of IPC and various sections of the Information Technology Act, 2018 – Application filed in the wake of apprehension of arrest for involvement in an exam cheating scam – High Court considers the merits of the application. [Para 1]

Prosecution's Allegations – Prosecution builds case on the basis of a scam involving remote access to computers for cheating in exams and subsequent monetary demands – Relies on WhatsApp chats and diary entries as prima facie evidence against the applicant. [Para 2, 5-6]

Prior Judicial Proceedings – Applicant's initial application for anticipatory bail rejected by the Sessions Court – Current application filed as an appeal against the Sessions Court's decision. [Para 3]

Applicant's Defense – Applicant claims false implication and lack of material evidence connecting him to the alleged offences – Seeks protection under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. [Para 4]

Court's Analysis – Court scrutinizes material on record, including payments and WhatsApp chats – Emphasizes the importance of cooperation with the investigation as per prior judicial observations. [Para 6-9]

Custodial Interrogation – High Court finds custodial interrogation necessary for effective investigation – Cites Apex Court's views on the efficacy of custodial interrogation. [Para 10]

Decision – High Court concludes that the applicant failed to make out grounds for anticipatory bail – Application for anticipatory bail rejected. [Para 11]

Criminal Appeal – Conviction based on Extra-Judicial Confession – Evaluation of Extra-Judicial Confession in light of Circumstantial Evidence – Appellant challenges the conviction based on an alleged extra-judicial confession – Analysis of principles governing the acceptance of extra-judicial confessions and their evidentiary value in the context of the case – Consideration of corroborative evidence – Special focus on the credibility and reliability of the witness to whom the confession was made. [Para 23]

Evidentiary Value of Extra-Judicial Confession – Weakness and Prudence – Court's view on the probative value of extra-judicial confessions – Emphasis on voluntariness, truthfulness, and credibility – Examination of circumstances where an extra-judicial confession can be relied upon for conviction – Caution regarding the inherent weaknesses of such evidence – Requirement of corroboration, but not as an invariable rule – Necessity for the confession to inspire confidence. [Para 26-27]

Circumstantial Evidence – Onus of Proof – Principles Governing Conviction – Analysis of the conditions precedent for establishing guilt based on circumstantial evidence – The significance of consistency with the hypothesis of guilt, conclusive nature of circumstances, exclusion of alternative hypotheses, and completeness of the evidentiary chain – Reference to precedents highlighting the criteria for a valid conviction based on circumstantial evidence. [Para 36-37]

Evaluation of Witness Credibility – Inimical Relationship and Bias – Assessment of the reliability of witness testimony in the case – Examination of the relationship between the accused and the witness, and the potential for bias – Consideration of enmity and inimical terms between the parties involved – Relevance of the witness's motives and credibility in accepting an alleged confession. [Para 34-35]

Precedents – Applicability and Clarification – Reference to earlier judgments addressing the admissibility and probative value of extra-judicial confessions – Extracting guiding principles for evaluating extra-judicial confessions – Differentiating the facts of the present case from those considered in cited judgments – Emphasis on a comprehensive analysis of evidence and avoidance of presumptions. [Para 29-32]

Acquittal of the Accused – Failure to Establish Guilt – Inadequate substantiation of charges against the accused – Rejection of the extra-judicial confession as a reliable piece of evidence – Absence of corroborative evidence and credible witness testimony – Inadequate proof of the complete chain of events – Benefit of doubt accorded to the accused, leading to the reversal of the conviction and acquittal. [Para 42-43]

Civil Appeals – Restraining alienation of property – Application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC – Construction of apartments on disputed property – Dispute over ownership and partition of properties – Pleadings and contentions of the parties – Legal principles regarding burden of proof on self-acquired properties – Burden on claimant to establish properties as self-acquired – Examination of conduct of parties in granting injunction – Importance of proper documentation of sold apartments – Defendant’s reliance on mortgage and loan repayment – Security offered during the pendency of the suit – Comparison with relevant legal precedents.

Issues:

1. Whether the Trial Court erred in allowing I.A.Nos.1 and 6, granting temporary injunction and restraining the appellants from alienating the suit schedule property?

2. What should be the appropriate course of action regarding the injunction order?

Observations:

The dispute centers around a suit for partition and declarations regarding certain properties. Among the items of dispute, item Nos.5 and 6 have been the focus of contention due to the construction of apartments on these properties. The appellants argue that substantial investments have been made, apartments have been sold to buyers, and loans have been repaid. They emphasize that there is an urgent need to take note of the apartments sold, their ownership, and consider their conduct. The respondents stress the importance of proving self-acquired properties and present clauses from a Development Agreement. The trial court’s observations, conduct of parties, and the relevance of documentations are points of discussion.

Decision:

The burden lies on the claimant to establish these properties as self-acquired. The trial court’s order granting temporary injunction is scrutinized based on the conduct of parties, the necessity of proper documentation of sold apartments, and the appellants’ reliance on mortgage and loan repayment. The court considers the security offered during the pendency of the suit and compares the case with relevant legal precedents. Appeal Allowed Partly.

Identification Evidence – Examination of Key Witnesses – Trial court and appellate court convicted the accused based on identification testimony – Court examines the evidence of crucial eyewitnesses, PW2 and PW3 – Witness testimony hinges on identification of the accused as the driver of the tanker lorry involved in the accident – Both PW2 and PW3 identify the accused for the first time at the dock – Court highlights the significance of proper identification evidence, referring to the need for test identification parade (TIP) for corroboration – Court emphasizes the importance of familiarity with the accused prior to occurrence for identification to be reliable – Absence of prior familiarity and lack of statements to the police regarding identification – Court assesses the veracity of the identification evidence provided by PW2 and PW3. [Para 13, 16, 22]

Concurrent Conviction and Sentence – Court discusses the legal principles related to identification evidence – Cites the rule of prudence to corroborate identification testimony through TIP – Refers to the exceptions when the court can rely on the testimony without corroboration – Highlights the role of TIP as a stage of investigation, not constituting substantive evidence – Court underscores the discretion of the court of fact in determining the weight to attach to identification without TIP – Court mentions the reliance on the decision in Malkhansingh&Ors. V. State of M.P. – Court refers to the recent decision in Amrik Singh v. State of Punjab regarding the consequences of non-conducting TIP. [Para 14]

Evidentiary Value of Identification – Court analyzes the evidence provided by PW2 and PW3 – Notes the contradiction in their statements regarding the presence of light at the scene of occurrence – Highlights the omission to provide statements about the accused’s actions after the occurrence – Court addresses the absence of familiarity with the accused prior to the occurrence – Court underscores the requirement for proper corroboration through TIP in cases of unfamiliarity – Cites the case of PW15 as insufficient to establish the identity of the accused as the driver – Court examines the reliability of the identification evidence based on these factors. [Para 17, 21, 23]

Acquittal – Court concludes that the evidence of identification presented in the case is insufficient to establish the accused as the driver of the lorry – Conviction and sentence imposed by trial court and appellate court set aside – Accused acquitted – Court emphasizes the need for proper identification evidence in criminal cases and highlights the importance of adhering to legal principles when relying on identification testimony. [Para 24]