Application for regular bail in a case involving grievous assaults stemming from prior enmity and extortion demands – alleged repeated attacks on complainant and his nephew, including within hospital premises – petitioner identified as principal assailant with multiple past criminal involvements.

Family Law – Divorce – Cruelty – Sustained Mental and Physical Cruelty – Divorce Decree Upheld – Marriage between parties solemnized in 1997 – Wife alleged dowry demands and husband’s infidelity – Husband alleged wife’s violent conduct and false complaints – Incident of 21.04.2013, wherein wife and relatives allegedly assaulted husband at his clinic, considered grave cruelty – Wife failed to substantiate allegations of adulterous relationships and dowry – Learned Family Court found that reckless and defamatory allegations, coupled with repeated litigation and prolonged separation, amounted to cruelty – Held: Act of physical violence and sustained vindictive conduct by wife constituted mental cruelty warranting divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) HMA [Paras 36–37, 47–63, 80–81].

Cruelty – Reckless Allegations – Abuse of Legal Process – False Cases and Unsubstantiated Accusations as Cruelty – Appellant-wife filed multiple criminal and civil cases against husband and his family, including under Sections 498A/323 IPC, DV Act, and alleged illicit relationships – Most allegations found unsubstantiated – Appellant’s conduct found to be vindictive and damaging to husband’s mental peace and social standing – Court relied on settled precedent including Vijaykumar Ramchandra Bhate, Raj Talreja, and Mangayakarasi – Held: False and defamatory accusations, without proof, cause mental agony and constitute cruelty [Paras 60–66].

Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage – Not a Separate Ground – Considered as Reinforcing Existing Cruelty – Appellant and Respondent living separately since 2012 – Series of litigations reflected complete breakdown of marital relationship – While irretrievable breakdown is not a ground under HMA, court held it may reinforce cruelty already established – Decree of divorce justified in light of cumulative cruelty and impossibility of continued cohabitation [Paras 73–78].

Evidentiary Value – Allegations Unsupported by Cross-Examination or Proof – Unverified Documents and Statements Disregarded – Wife failed to establish charges with cogent evidence – Alleged photographs, messages, and certificates not authenticated or proven through witness examination – Failure to cross-examine husband on key points weakened her case – Held: Burden of proof not discharged – Allegations rejected [Paras 32, 60–62].

Decision:

Appeal dismissed – Decree of divorce granted by Family Court affirmed – No interference warranted – No order as to costs.

NDPS Act – Regular Bail – Intermediate Quantity – Petitioners (aged 23 and 27) found in possession of 249 grams of charas while travelling in a private vehicle – Held: Possession was prima facie conscious under Section 20 and presumptions under Sections 35 and 54 of NDPS Act apply – Petitioners failed to rebut presumption of conscious possession [Paras 11–12].

NDPS Act – Section 37 – Not Applicable – Charas quantity below commercial threshold – Hence rigours of Section 37 do not apply – Petitioners eligible for regular bail on merits [Para 13].

Bail – Reformative Approach – No prior criminal record – Engagement ceremony fixed – Continued incarceration would hinder reformation and expose petitioners to hardened criminals – Age and absence of flight risk considered in granting bail – Petitioners to comply with stringent conditions to prevent abuse of liberty [Paras 14–17].

Possession – Conscious Possession – Madan Lal v. State of H.P. (2003) 7 SCC 465 relied on – Where accused persons travel together in private vehicle with contraband, presumption of joint and conscious possession applies unless rebutted – Not rebutted in present case [Para 11].

Judicial Discretion – Grant of Bail – Supreme Court decisions in Pinki v. State of U.P., (2025) 7 SCC 314 and other precedents reiterated – Bail must be decided on factors like nature of offence, character of accused, likelihood of absconding, and whether trial can be influenced – Bail granted with conditions to address State’s apprehensions [Paras 9–10].

Decision: Bail granted to both petitioners subject to conditions – Ordered to furnish ₹1,00,000 bond with one surety each – Obligations imposed to ensure cooperation with trial and prevent interference with investigation [Paras 17–18].

NDPS Act – Compliance with Section 50 – Personal Search – Validity of Conviction – Accused alleged total non-compliance with Section 50 – Evidence of PW10 (main raiding officer) confirmed that accused was informed of his right to be searched before a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer – Corroborated by PW5 and PW9 – Casual wording in PW1's testimony not fatal – Held: Compliance with Section 50 duly established – Conviction not vitiated [Paras 11–19].

NDPS Act – Section 42(2) Compliance – Written Intimation – Mandatory Requirements Fulfilled – PW10 reduced information to writing and dispatched to SDPO through PW4 – Documentary evidence and witness testimonies confirmed delivery and acknowledgment – Held: Procedural compliance under Section 42(2) satisfied [Para 26].

Chain of Custody – Seal Discrepancy – Inventory and Seizure – No Tampering – Defence raised concern about use of different seals during seizure and inventory – Court found consistent explanation that separate seals used at different stages – Chain of custody intact – No evidence of tampering – Seal sent to SDPO for safe custody duly proven [Paras 20, 27].

Contraband Weight – LSD and Cocaine – Minor Variance – Commercial Quantity Established – Typographical error in inventory corrected by testimony of PW8 – CFSL weight difference (0.01g LSD and ~0.5g Cocaine) not significant – Contraband still within commercial quantity – Held: No prejudice caused – Recovery valid [Paras 21–22, 29].

Witness Testimony – Inconsistencies in Timing and Description – Credibility Not Affected – Minor contradictions between PW1 and PW2 regarding timing and origin description – Court held such inconsistencies natural due to lapse of time – Witnesses found to be credible – Overenthusiastic or vague statements not enough to discredit evidence [Paras 23–24].

Copy of Panchanama – Non-supply Allegation – No Prejudice Shown – PW10 testified that copy of panchanama was handed over and signed – Non-mention by PW1 and PW3 insufficient to rebut – Court found no material prejudice caused [Para 25].

Investigating Officer – Informant and Complainant Same – Investigation Not Vitiated – Accused objected to PW10 being both informant and investigator – Court noted that investigation was conducted by multiple officers including PI and PSI – Held: No illegality or bias established [Para 28].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 21(b) and 22(c) of the NDPS Act upheld – Prosecution proved case beyond reasonable doubt – All procedural safeguards complied with – No material irregularity or infirmity in findings of trial court [Paras 30–31].

Municipal Laws – NDMC Act – Misuse of Premises – Complaint under Section 252 read with Section 369(1) – Allegation that petitioner, an advocate, used basement of residential premises as office – Held: Legal profession is not a commercial or business activity – Office of an advocate not a “commercial establishment” – Complaint unsustainable [Paras 4–6, 20–24].

Profession vs. Commercial Activity – Distinction – Legal profession depends on individual skill and intellectual effort – No trading or profit motive – Supreme Court precedents (V. Sasidharan v. Peter & Karunakar, AIR 1984 SC 1700; M.P. Electricity Board v. Narayan, (2005) 7 SCC 283) establish that a lawyer’s office is not a commercial establishment [Paras 20–22].

Master Development Plan & Building Bye-Laws – Permissible Use – Clause 10 of MDP 2001 allows 25% of residential premises or 50 sq.m., whichever less, for professional use – Clause 14.12.1(vii) of Delhi Building Bye-Laws, 1983 permits basement use for office or commercial purpose if air-conditioned – Petitioner’s office met these requirements – No violation shown [Paras 29–34].

Inspection Report – Deficiency – No evidence that basement violated height, ventilation, or FAR norms – Inspection failed to note air-conditioning or other structural aspects – Held: No prima facie case of misuse made out [Paras 33–35].

Criminal Procedure – Quashing of Complaint – Pendency of 22-year-old case based on unsubstantiated allegations constitutes abuse of process – In absence of offence under Section 252 NDMC Act, proceedings quashed under Section 482 CrPC following State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604 [Paras 36–37].

Decision: Petition allowed – Complaint No. 487/2004 under Section 252 read with Section 369(1) NDMC Act and all consequential proceedings quashed – Pending applications disposed [Para 37–38

Family Law - Child Custody – Interim Custody – Welfare of Child – Adulterous Relationship of Parent – Not Sole Criterion – Appeal filed by mother challenging interim custody granted to father under Section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act – Family Court found prima facie evidence that appellant was in an adulterous relationship and failed to attend multiple hearings or ensure child’s presence despite court orders – Court held that adultery by itself is not a determinative ground for denying custody unless it demonstrably impacts child’s welfare – However, cumulative neglect, abandonment of maternal obligations, and cohabitation with a married man who faced threats, weigh against the child’s stability and well-being – Held: Interim custody rightly granted to father in child's best interest [Paras 15–25, 27–30].

Guardianship – Paramouncy of Welfare Principle – Best Interests Doctrine – Custody Not Based on Parental Fault Alone – While reiterating legal position from Vineet Gupta v. Mukta Aggarwal [2024 SCC OnLine Del 678] and Ashish Ranjan v. Anupma Tandon [(2010) 14 SCC 274], Court held that parental misconduct such as adultery does not ipso facto disentitle one from custody – The determining factor is whether such conduct undermines the welfare of the child – In present case, mother’s repeated evasion of proceedings, absconding with child, and failure to secure safe environment amounted to abrogation of maternal responsibilities – Justified denial of interim custody [Paras 16–22].

Family Law – Visitation Rights – Balanced Custody Approach – Access Not Denied Entirely – Despite granting interim custody to father, Court upheld appellant-mother’s right to weekly visitation (2 hours every Sunday at supervised children’s room) – Emphasised importance of continued access to both parents during litigation – Directions issued to ensure non-interference and peace during visitation [Paras 9, 26].

Judicial Discretion – Section 12, Guardians and Wards Act – Interim Orders – Discretion Guided by Child’s Welfare – Held: Interim custody orders are discretionary but must be exercised cautiously and only in furtherance of the child’s welfare – Family Court rightly considered police reports, affidavits, mother’s abscondence, and welfare factors before passing impugned order – No appellate interference warranted [Paras 22–29].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Impugned order granting interim custody to father upheld – Visitation rights of appellant-mother to continue as ordered – No order as to costs.

NDPS Act – Suspension of Sentence – Section 389 CrPC / Section 430 BNSS – Commercial Quantity – Appellant convicted for possession of 25.086 kg ganja and sentenced to RI for 10 years with fine of ₹1,00,000 – Application for suspension of sentence during pendency of appeal – Held: Recovery of commercial quantity attracts rigour of Section 37 NDPS Act – Gravity of offence and societal impact weigh against grant of suspension [Paras 13–15, 22–23].

Evidence – Police Witnesses – Non-Joining of Public Witnesses – Credibility – Non-association of independent witnesses at recovery not fatal – Police testimony consistent and corroborated by seizure memo and FSL report – Reliance placed on State v. Sunil, (2001) 1 SCC 652; Ajmer Singh v. State of Haryana, (2010) 2 SCR 785 – Police witnesses competent and reliable in absence of motive to falsely implicate [Paras 14–15].

Evidence – Non-production of CCTV Footage – Chance Recovery – Effect – Omission to produce CCTV or videography does not vitiate seizure – Recovery occurred at 3 AM; documentation corroborated recovery – Non-production not fatal to prosecution [Para 16].

Parity – Bail to Co-Accused – Not a Ground Post Conviction – Co-accused Mukesh granted bail at pre-conviction stage – Parity argument inapplicable after conviction, as presumption of innocence no longer available [Para 17].

Criminal Procedure – Suspension of Sentence – Tests and Considerations – Suspension not a matter of right – Court to consider gravity of offence, period undergone, and prima facie chance of acquittal – Appellant has undergone only 3 years out of 10-year sentence (<50%) – Not eligible for suspension as per Sonadhar v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 3182 and Saudan Singh v. State of U.P., 2021 SCC OnLine SC 3259 [Paras 19–20].

Judicial Principle – Post-Conviction Presumption – After conviction, presumption of innocence stands erased – Suspension of sentence justified only where conviction appears palpably unsustainable – No such case made out here; no fair chance of acquittal shown [Paras 20–22].

Decision: Sentence not suspended – Application dismissed – Appeal to be heard in due course [Paras 23–25].

Civil Procedure – Amendment of Written Statement – Order 6 Rule 17 CPC – Replication – Scope and Pleadings – Petitioners sought amendment of written statement to rebut new facts introduced in replication filed by plaintiffs – Trial court dismissed the application holding replication not part of pleadings – Held: Replication, when permitted by court, forms part of pleadings; defendants have right to counter new averments – Amendment necessary to avoid multiplicity of litigation and enable full adjudication [Paras 6–12].

Replication – Legal Status – Order VIII Rule 9 CPC – Supreme Court Clarification – Following K. Laxmanan v. Thekkayil Padmini (2009 (1) RAJ 78) and Sheikh Noorul Hassan v. Nahakpam Indrajjit Singh (2024 INSC 391) – Replication permissible with leave of court and may be treated as part of pleadings if allowed – Pleas introduced therein must be specifically controverted, failing which deemed admitted [Paras 8–11].

Amendment at Initial Stage – No Prejudice to Opposite Party – Suit still at preliminary stage and issues not framed – Amendment neither alters nature of defence nor prejudices plaintiffs – Liberal approach warranted to ensure complete justice [Paras 9, 12].

Precedents – Reliance – Salig Ram v. Shiv Shankar, 1971 AIR P&H 437 – Replication forms part of pleadings; uncontroverted averments deemed admitted – Hakam Singh v. Jagir Singh, 1991 (2) RRR 170 – Amendment permissible to clarify existing stand without changing nature of defence [Paras 10–11].

Decision: Civil Revision Allowed – Impugned order dated 24.03.2025 set aside – Application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC read with Section 151 CPC for amendment of written statement allowed – Trial Court directed to accept amended written statement and proceed with trial [Paras 13–14].

Negotiable Instruments – Dishonour of Cheque – Complaint by Struck-off Company – Proceedings Quashed – Complaints under Section 138 of the NI Act filed in 2020 by Raghav Aditya Chits Pvt. Ltd. after the company had already been dissolved on 08.08.2018 under Section 248(5) of the Companies Act – Court held that once a company stands struck off and dissolved, it ceases to exist as a legal person – Cheques issued and complaints filed post-dissolution are void and not legally enforceable – Held: Complaints filed by a non-existent company through unauthorised persons are an abuse of process and not maintainable [Paras 3, 3.3, 4.1, 4.3, 5, 11-14].

Company Law – Dissolution under Section 248(5) of Companies Act – Legal Effect – Dissolution notice published by Registrar has effect of terminating company’s existence under Section 250 – Certificate of Incorporation deemed cancelled – Company cannot operate bank accounts, enter into contracts, or initiate legal proceedings unless restored under Section 252 – Held: Proceedings initiated by ex-directors in the name of such company are without authority and legally untenable [Paras 7-10, 12].

Criminal Procedure – Abuse of Process – Trial Proceedings by Non-Existent Complainant – Quashed under Section 482 CrPC – Trial Court’s refusal to dismiss the complaints despite evidence of dissolution was held to be legally erroneous – Proceedings under Section 138 NI Act cannot be continued when the complainant lacks legal status – Continuation would serve no purpose and violate principles of natural justice – Held: Inherent powers under Article 226/CrPC invoked to prevent miscarriage of justice [Paras 5, 13, 14].

Security Cheques – Allegation of Misuse – Cheques issued as security in 2011 misused post-dissolution – Petitioners alleged cheques were never meant for presentation and were filled in with inflated amounts by ex-directors – Complaint was based on allegedly time-barred claims arising out of transactions between 2011 and 2014 – Held: Even if accepted, the complaints were otherwise non-maintainable due to dissolution of complainant [Paras 3.2, 4.8].

Limited Relief – Liberty Reserved – While complaints were quashed, Court clarified that successors-in-interest of the complainant company may pursue alternate remedies against petitioners if permitted under law – Held: This order does not preclude lawful recovery in other forums, subject to legal viability [Para 15].

Decision: Criminal complaints CC No. 2619/2020 and CC No. 4753/2020 titled “Raghav Aditya Chits Pvt Ltd. vs Space Services (India) Pvt Ltd. & Ors.” quashed – Summoning orders dated 21.12.2020 and 05.10.2021 set aside – Petitions allowed – Trial Court order dated 22.12.2022 set aside [Paras 14, 16].