Criminal Procedure – Application under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. – Prayer for Further Investigation – Alleged Death by Burn Injuries – Dismissal of Application Challenged – The petitioner sought further investigation into the death of his niece, alleging that her husband (the accused) made a video call to a relative instead of rescuing her while she was ablaze – Investigation was initially directed under Section 304B I.P.C., but the court found Section 304B inapplicable as the death occurred after seven years of marriage – The Investigating Officer did not include charges under Section 302 I.P.C. despite the petitioner’s requests – The Magistrate dismissed the petitioner’s application for further investigation – Held: The Court found that further investigation would not serve any fruitful purpose as the Investigating Officer was already permitted to continue investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. and would file a supplementary charge sheet if necessary [Paras 1, 9]. 

Witness Statements – Conflicting Testimonies – Victim's Statement to Doctor Contradictory – The petitioner alleged that the accused’s conduct during the incident indicated his guilt, while the Investigating Officer relied on statements from doctors and witnesses suggesting the victim set herself ablaze due to marital discord – The attending doctor stated that the victim claimed to have set herself on fire, while other evidence suggested foul play – Held: Discrepancies in witness testimonies do not necessitate further investigation at this stage, but the trial court may consider invoking Section 311 Cr.P.C. to examine witnesses if needed during trial [Paras 6, 7, 8]. 

Consideration of Section 302 I.P.C. during Trial – Although the investigating agency did not add Section 302 I.P.C. in the charge sheet, the trial court is expected to consider all charges, including Section 302 I.P.C., based on the evidence produced during the trial – Held: The trial court shall be at liberty to amend charges if relevant evidence of murder surfaces [Para 10]. 

Decision – Criminal revision application dismissed – Further investigation not required as the Investigating Officer was allowed to continue the investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. – The trial court shall consider the applicability of Section 302 I.P.C. during the trial, and summon additional witnesses under Section 311 Cr.P.C. if necessary [Paras 9, 10, 11]. 

Criminal Conspiracy – Section 120(B)(2) IPC – Arms Seizure – Section 25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act – Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Recovery Beyond Doubt – Conviction Set Aside – The petitioner was convicted under Section 25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act and Section 120(B)(2) of IPC for illegal possession of firearms based on evidence of a confessional statement and the recovery of arms from a box allegedly belonging to him. However, the prosecution failed to seize the box or prove its ownership, and key witnesses provided contradictory statements about the condition and possession of the box – Held: Conviction set aside due to lack of proper evidence and procedural infirmities [Paras 30-37].

Non-Seizure of Box – Material Evidence Not Properly Connected to the Accused – Infirmity in Prosecution Case – The prosecution failed to seize the box from which the arms were allegedly recovered, and witnesses admitted that the box was not locked or identified as belonging to the petitioner at the time of recovery. The box produced in court later had no conclusive identifiers, which led to a serious doubt about the connection between the petitioner and the recovered arms – Held: Prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 34-36].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Miscarriage of Justice – Conviction Overturned – The trial court and appellate court failed to adequately consider the inconsistencies and procedural shortcomings in the case, leading to a miscarriage of justice. The revisional court exercised its jurisdiction to correct these errors, resulting in the petitioner’s acquittal – Held: Conviction quashed, and petitioner acquitted [Paras 38-39].

Decision – Petition allowed – The conviction and sentence of the petitioner were set aside, and the petitioner was acquitted of all charges due to insufficient evidence and improper seizure procedures. The petitioner’s bail bonds were discharged, and the trial court's records were directed to be returned [Paras 39-41].

Prevention of Money Laundering – Quashing - Issuance of Summons under Section 50(2) and (3) of PMLA – Section 44 PMLA – Dismissed - The petitioner, a former Director of M/s. Farmax India Limited, was summoned under Section 50(2) and (3) of the PMLA while the case under S.C. No. 16/2023 was pending before the Special Court – The petitioner contended that once the complaint was filed and the Special Court had taken cognizance, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) could not issue summons for further investigation without the court's permission – Held: The issuance of summons does not violate Article 20(3) as it does not amount to compulsion to self-incriminate – The court ruled that Section 50 empowers the ED to summon the accused to give evidence or produce documents even after a complaint is filed – The investigation is a continuing process, and no prior permission is required for further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC, which applies to PMLA investigations as well [Paras 12-28].

Fundamental Rights – Article 20(3) of Constitution – Right Against Self-incrimination – The petitioner argued that the summons violated his right under Article 20(3) by compelling him to testify against himself – Held: The right under Article 20(3) applies only when a person is compelled to be a witness against himself – Merely being summoned to produce documents or provide testimony does not amount to compulsion under Article 20(3) [Paras 25-30].

Decision:The writ petition was dismissed – The court upheld the validity of the summons issued by the Enforcement Directorate under Section 50(2) and (3) of the PMLA – No prior permission from the Special Court is required for further investigation or issuance of summons.

Substitution of Plaintiff – Application under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC – Dismissal – The applicant, son of the deceased plaintiff, sought substitution in the pending suit based on an agreement transferring rights to him – The application was filed more than six years after the agreement and after the death of the plaintiff – Held: The application was dismissed due to inordinate delay and lack of sufficient reason for substitution, as the suit had abated [Paras 10-13].

Abatement of Suit – Order XXII Rule 3 CPC – Plaintiff's Death – The plaintiff expired on 24.12.2020, and no application for substitution was filed within the statutory period of three months – The applicant failed to take requisite steps for substitution timely – Held: The suit is abated as there is no surviving right to sue in favor of the applicant [Paras 11, 14].

Reliance on Precedent Cases – Similar Circumstances – The applicant relied on previous judgments for similar relief – Held: The reliance was misplaced given the long delay of over six years and the applicant’s failure to act promptly after the execution of the agreement and the plaintiff’s death [Para 15].

Conduct of Applicant – Inaction and Delay – The applicant was aware of the proceedings and was cross-examined as a witness on behalf of the deceased plaintiff – The delay of more than six years was unexplained and demonstrated lack of diligence – Held: No sufficient reason to allow substitution under the given circumstances [Paras 10, 12-13].

Decision of the Judgement – Application Dismissed – The Court dismissed the application for substitution due to abatement of the suit and non-prosecution, leading to the dismissal of the pending suit against the defendants [Paras 17-18].

Criminal Procedure – Quashing of Complaint – Writ of Certiorari – Petition filed by the Petitioner, a practicing Advocate, seeking quashing of the order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Kurla under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. – Magistrate directed Kurla Police to conduct an investigation and submit a report within four months – Petitioner contended that the order was illegal, as the Magistrate failed to comply with provisions of Section 202(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. by not recording the statement of the complainant and witnesses – Contention raised that the Magistrate at Kurla lacked territorial jurisdiction since the cause of action arose in Goa – Held: Magistrate complied with Section 202 by accepting affidavit in lieu of verification – Magistrate had discretion to order inquiry by Police due to accused persons residing beyond jurisdiction – Petition dismissed as premature, as the investigation under Section 202 was ongoing and the Magistrate had not yet issued process [Paras 10, 11, 19, 20, 27, 28, 33, 34, 38].

Magistrate’s Inquiry – Compliance with Section 202 Cr.P.C. – Petitioner argued that the Magistrate failed to examine the complainant and witnesses on oath as required under Section 202(1)(b) Cr.P.C. before directing inquiry – Court found that an affidavit filed by the complainant was recorded in lieu of verification – Magistrate’s direction for Police inquiry was valid under Section 202, especially since some accused persons resided outside the jurisdiction – Held: Magistrate rightly exercised discretion under Section 202 to direct an investigation by Police – The inquiry was necessary to determine sufficient grounds for proceeding [Paras 19, 20, 23, 24, 25].

Territorial Jurisdiction – Accused's Objection – Petitioner challenged the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate at Kurla, arguing that the alleged offences occurred in Goa, not Mumbai – Court held that the issue of territorial jurisdiction was premature as the Magistrate had not yet formed an opinion or issued process – Territorial jurisdiction would be examined when the Magistrate considers the sufficiency of grounds under Section 203 or 204 Cr.P.C. – Complaint stage under Section 202 involves inquiry into sufficient grounds for process, not determination of jurisdiction [Paras 11, 22, 23, 26, 34, 36, 37].

Premature Challenge – Stage of Investigation – Petitioner’s challenge to the Magistrate’s order was deemed premature – Magistrate had only ordered an investigation under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and had not yet issued process or taken cognizance – Court held that the Petitioner had no cause of action to challenge the order at this stage, as it was possible the Magistrate might dismiss the complaint after receiving the investigation report – Petitioner could challenge the process if issued under Section 204 Cr.P.C., but not prior to that [Paras 26, 27, 28, 33, 34].

Police Inquiry Notice – Section 160 Cr.P.C. – Petitioner received a notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C. from Kurla Police Station, directing her to appear for inquiry – Petitioner argued that this notice gave rise to the cause of action to challenge the Magistrate’s order – Court held that the notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C. was issued for investigation purposes, and the Petitioner was required to appear as a witness – The notice did not provide grounds to challenge the investigation order, as it did not equate to a criminal charge against the Petitioner [Paras 29, 30, 32, 33].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Magistrate’s order directing investigation under Section 202 Cr.P.C. upheld – Complaint not yet at the stage of issuance of process under Section 204 Cr.P.C. – No cause of action for Petitioner to challenge the inquiry order at this stage – Petitioner to await the outcome of the investigation before raising objections regarding territorial jurisdiction or sufficiency of grounds for process [Paras 40].

Criminal Procedure – Anticipatory Bail – Section 438 Cr.P.C. – Application for Anticipatory Bail Post-Cancellation of Bail – Maintainability Challenged – The petitioner sought anticipatory bail after the addition of a graver offence (Section 376 I.P.C.) during investigation. The State challenged the maintainability of the petition, arguing that the petitioner should have either surrendered and sought regular bail under Section 437 Cr.P.C. or filed a revision under Section 401 Cr.P.C. after the bail was cancelled. Held: Once the accused participated in the proceedings, contested the cancellation, and suffered an adverse order, a subsequent application for anticipatory bail is not maintainable. The correct remedy would be to seek revision of the cancellation order [Paras 1, 2, 30, 31]. 

Cancellation of Bail – Addition of Graver Offence – Section 376 I.P.C. – The victim's complaint initially led to registration of a case under Sections 341, 417, 506, and 509 I.P.C. Subsequently, based on her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the prosecution sought to add Section 376 I.P.C. The trial court cancelled the petitioner’s bail after adding this graver non-bailable section – Held: Addition of a graver offence post-grant of bail requires the accused to either surrender and seek bail for the newly added offence or challenge the cancellation in revision. Filing an anticipatory bail application post-cancellation is not permissible [Paras 13, 30, 31]. 

Anticipatory Bail – Liberal Interpretation – Article 21 of the Constitution – The petitioner argued that anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. must be interpreted liberally in light of Article 21 of the Constitution, as held in Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth vs. State of Gujarat and Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia vs. State of Punjab – Held: While anticipatory bail protects personal liberty, it cannot be used as a recourse after bail cancellation following a contested hearing [Paras 9, 10, 26]. 

Procedure Under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. – Compliance with Section 154(1) and 154(3) Cr.P.C. – The Court emphasized that any application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. must comply with the procedure under Section 154(1) and 154(3) Cr.P.C. The magistrate must ensure that the procedure is followed before directing investigation [Paras 7, 8]. 

Decision – The application for anticipatory bail is dismissed as not maintainable, as the petitioner had participated in the cancellation hearing and failed to seek anticipatory bail prior to the cancellation order. The petitioner is at liberty to seek other appropriate remedies in law [Paras 30, 31, 32]. 

Dowry Death – Section 304-B IPC – The petitioner alleged that his sister, Gulshan, was harassed and killed by her in-laws, including her husband, over unmet dowry demands and her inability to conceive – The trial court acquitted all nine accused, leading to this revision petition – Held: The court found that the demand for dowry was sufficiently proven against Gulshan’s husband, Mehfuj Ali, but not against the other accused – Acquittal of Mehfuj Ali quashed, while the acquittal of other respondents affirmed [Paras 12, 25, Conclusion].

Presumption under Section 113-B, Evidence Act – The court emphasized the presumption of dowry death under Section 113-B when cruelty or harassment is shown to have occurred "soon before" the victim's death – Gulshan died within seven years of marriage under unnatural circumstances due to poisoning – The court held that the husband failed to rebut the presumption of dowry-related harassment and cruelty [Paras 12, 26, 28].

Acquittal of Other Accused – Insufficient Evidence – The court upheld the acquittal of the other accused, including Gulshan’s in-laws and extended family, due to the lack of direct evidence linking them to dowry demands or harassment – No sufficient proof of their involvement in the alleged conspiracy or cruelty was presented by the prosecution [Paras 11, 36].

Cause of Death – Suicide or Homicide – The post-mortem and forensic reports indicated that Gulshan died due to poisoning, but no external injuries suggesting force or violence were found – The defence argued that Gulshan committed suicide due to depression over childlessness, which the court found probable in light of the evidence, though not sufficient to exonerate the husband’s role [Paras 12, 28, 36].

Decision: The appeal is partly allowed – Acquittal of respondent Mehfuj Ali is quashed, and he is convicted under Section 304-B IPC for dowry death – Acquittal of the remaining respondents is affirmed – All pending applications are disposed of [Paras 36, Conclusion].

Society Election Dispute – Referral by Deputy Registrar to Prescribed Authority – Validity of Process – Multiple factions of the Arya Pratinidhi Sabha claimed to have held valid elections in early 2021 – The Deputy Registrar, without offering reasons or examining the prima facie validity of the claims, referred the dispute to the Prescribed Authority – Held: The Deputy Registrar is not a mere rubber stamp – Before referring the matter to the Prescribed Authority under Section 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act, the Deputy Registrar must apply judicial mind to ascertain the genuineness of the dispute – Mechanical referral is invalid without forming a subjective satisfaction on whether the competing elections are bona fide – Matter remitted to the Deputy Registrar for fresh consideration [Paras 88-116].

Membership and Election Validity – Role of Deputy Registrar – Where conflicting elections are claimed by different factions, the Deputy Registrar is obligated to preliminarily assess the legitimacy of membership and elections – The Deputy Registrar must ensure that only genuine disputes are referred to the Prescribed Authority – Mechanical referrals undermine the statutory scheme and can lead to prolonged litigation [Paras 99-104].

Decision:Order of the Deputy Registrar dated 23.04.2022 quashed – The matter remitted to the Deputy Registrar for reconsideration by a reasoned and speaking order – The fresh decision must be completed within four months [Paras 116-118].

Kidnapping and Gang Rape – Section 363 and 376D RPC – Conflicting Prosecution Versions – Conviction Set Aside – The appellants were convicted of kidnapping and gang rape by the trial court. The appellants challenged the conviction, highlighting contradictions in prosecution witnesses' testimonies, lack of proper evidence to establish the age of the prosecutrix, and the absence of forensic evidence regarding alleged semen stains – Held: Conviction set aside due to unreliable evidence, serious contradictions in witness testimonies, and failure to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt [Paras 12, 25].

Contradictory Testimonies – Medical Evidence Overlooked – Prosecution Case Weakened – Multiple versions of the incident were presented by the prosecution, leading to confusion. The medical examination of the prosecutrix showed no signs of recent sexual intercourse, and the forensic science report was not produced in court. Additionally, the complainant (PW-3) did not testify, further weakening the case – Held: The contradictions and lack of medical evidence cast serious doubt on the prosecution’s case [Paras 10-15, 23].

Failure to Prove Minority of Prosecutrix – Date of Birth Not Substantiated by School Records – The prosecution failed to produce school records or a matriculation certificate to prove the prosecutrix’s age. The trial court relied on an unverified school certificate to determine the prosecutrix's minority, a crucial aspect in establishing the kidnapping charge – Held: Prosecution failed to prove the prosecutrix was a minor at the time of the alleged incident [Paras 16, 25].

Forensic Evidence Not Presented – No Chemical Examination of Alleged Stains – The prosecution seized a bed sheet and clothing containing alleged semen stains but failed to present the forensic examination report from the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL). This significant omission weakened the prosecution's case – Held: Failure to produce forensic evidence renders the prosecution’s case unreliable [Paras 23, 25].

Decision – Appeal allowed – The judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants under Sections 363 and 376D RPC is set aside. The appellants are acquitted of all charges, and they are to be released immediately [Paras 25-26].