Civil Law – Additional Written Statement – Change of Stand – Abuse of Process – Plaintiff filed suit for declaration of unlawful possession and eviction of defendant – Defendant filed written statement on 08.12.2022 claiming to be a bonafide co-sharer – After framing of issues on 17.05.2023 and commencement of trial, defendant sought to file additional written statement under Order 8 Rule 9 CPC claiming to be a tenant under the plaintiff – Trial Court rejected the application noting wholly inconsistent stand – High Court allowed additional written statement on payment of costs of Rs. 15,000/- – Held: Defendant sought a complete volte-face; retraction of earlier stand and introduction of a totally inconsistent and contradictory case by way of additional written statement is contrary to the mandate of Order 6 Rule 7 CPC and amounts to abuse of process [Paras 2–13].

Order 8 Rule 9 CPC – Scope – Additional Written Statement – Court's Discretion – Order 8 Rule 9 CPC provides that no pleading shall ordinarily be filed after the written statement except by way of defence to a set-off or counter claim, and permits additional written statement only when the Court requires it – Not a provision to enable a party to fill a void left by inadvertence where no such inadvertence exists – Held: High Court erred in treating the filing as a case of inadvertent omission; the defendant wished to change her status entirely, which the provision does not permit [Para 11].

Order 6 Rule 17 CPC – Proviso – Bar on Amendment after Commencement of Trial – Order 8 Rule 9 CPC Cannot Bypass – High Court itself correctly noted that the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC barred amendment of pleadings after commencement of trial and that leave under Order 8 Rule 9 CPC should not be granted to bypass such embargo – Held: Despite stating the correct legal position, the High Court strangely permitted the additional written statement on the ground of relevance and satisfactory explanation of delay, which was inconsistent with its own legal reasoning and unsustainable [Paras 9–10, 12].

Counter Claim – Filing After Commencement of Trial – High Court rightly held that a counter claim cannot be permitted after cross-examination of the first witness for the plaintiff had already commenced; this aspect of the High Court's order was not disturbed [Para 8].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Order of the Calcutta High Court in C.O. No. 3172 of 2025 dated 03.09.2025 set aside – Order No. 18 dated 17.06.2025 of the Xth Judge, City Civil Court, Calcutta in Title Suit No. 1527 of 2022 restored – Parties to bear their own costs [Para 14].

Civil Law - Chronic Litigation - Abuse of Process - Miscellaneous application arising from Registrar order dated 16.10.2025 in a matter involving land compensation claims - Applicant claiming to be a Sanyasi sought further relief for land allegedly encroached by the State in 2002 - Litigation history revealed SLP(C) No. 9085 of 2016 was dismissed in 2021 noting that 0.202 hectares of land was already allotted to the applicant in 2005 - Applicant subsequently filed a recall application, a Writ Petition in the High Court of Allahabad, a Contempt Petition, and a Review Petition, all of which were dismissed or withdrawn - Undisputed facts established that against an original plot of 11000 sq. feet, the applicant received an allotted plot of 21000 sq. feet and monetary compensation totaling INR 7,58,575 - Applicant had already constructed an Ashram and Temple on the allotted land - Court found that the grievance was remedied long ago and the matter had attained finality - Held - The applicant is a chronic litigant whose actions constitute a sheer wastage of precious judicial time - Miscellaneous application dismissed - Direction issued that no future litigation regarding this subject matter shall be entertained by any Court - [Paras 1-10].

Civil Law - Costs - Judicial Restraint - Repeated Filing - Applicant's conduct found to be an abuse of the legal process deserving of heavy costs - Court observed that the applicant appeared in person and claimed to be a Sanyasi - Held - Keeping in view the applicant's status as a Sanyasi, the Court refrained from imposing financial costs while dismissing the application - [Paras 8-9].

Decision: Miscellaneous Application dismissed – No orders as to costs – Direction issued that no litigation in respect of the present subject matter shall be entertained by any Court in future.

Civil Law - Motor Accident Claim - Motor Vehicles Act 1988 - Section 166 - Compensation - Deduction of Statutory Ex-gratia Benefits - Deceased was a 25-year-old Constable in Haryana Police - Tribunal awarded 37,30,680 rupees with 8 percent interest - High Court reduced the total award to 7,70,400 rupees after deducting 29,21,400 rupees being the financial assistance payable under the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules 2006 - High Court held that the mother was not eligible for assistance under the 2006 Rules and the father was a retired pensioner not dependent - Appellants contended that deduction caused financial hardship and the mother's entitlement under the Act could not be settled against assistance she never received - Supreme Court examined the conflict between the Shashi Sharma principle of avoiding dual benefits and the requirement of awarding just compensation under the Act - Held - while the 2006 Rules assistance is deductible to prevent duality of loss of income - such deduction cannot be used to negate the entitlement of a dependent mother who is ineligible for state assistance under the 2006 Rules because the deceased was survived by a widow and child - Statutory rules must be strictly interpreted and cannot result in the illegal enrichment of the insurance company at the cost of a dependent parent - High Court's order modified to add the mother's one-third share of 11,30,600 rupees back to the award - total compensation enhanced to 19,01,000 rupees - [Paras 1-26].

Civil Law - Duality of Benefits - Motor Vehicles Act 1988 - Section 166 - Set-off of Ex-gratia Assistance - Haryana Compassionate Assistance Rules 2006 - Rule 5 - Interpretation of precedent - Principle established in Shashi Sharma dictates that financial assistance equivalent to last drawn salary for a specific period is meant to provide immediate socio-economic support - Held - such payments are deductible while computing compensation under the head of loss of dependency to ensure compensation does not exceed actual pecuniary loss - however - benefits like future escalation of income and other statutory exclusions like family pension or life insurance must remain unaffected and cannot be deducted - [Paras 13-15, 19-21].

Civil Law - Dependency Entitlement - Family Pension Scheme 1964 - Para 4 - Eligibility of Parents - Conflict between state rules and welfare legislation - Under Rule 3 of the 2006 Rules eligibility for assistance is determined by the 1964 Scheme which excludes parents if the deceased employee left behind a widow or child - Deceased was survived by a widow and a daughter - Held - the mother is not an eligible family member for the ex-gratia financial assistance but remains an admitted dependent under the Motor Vehicles Act - the independent legal injury suffered by the mother cannot be ignored - just and adequate compensation requires that her one-third share of the assessed loss of dependency be awarded regardless of the deductions applied to other eligible family members - [Paras 16-18, 22-25].

Decision: Appeal disposed of – Total compensation enhanced to 19,01,000 rupees – Mother's share of 11,30,600 rupees added to the High Court's award – Respondents directed to pay the amount within eight weeks with interest as awarded by the Tribunal.

Writ Law - Road Safety and Trauma Care - Constitution of India - Article 21 - Right to Life - Petitioners filed writ seeking Mandamus for robust emergency care mechanism - argued that lack of quick access to trauma care is a major fatality cause - emphasized that right to trauma care is integral to right to life - Union submitted that it acts as enabler through schemes like PM RAHAT and Good Samaritan Rules - implementation by States is fragmented - Court observed that sustained efforts by Union and States in unison are required to reduce preventable deaths - Held - Right to trauma care recognized as part of Article 21 - interim directions issued to States and UTs for technical integration of ambulance helplines into universal number 112 - implementation of medical rescue protocols - adoption of standardized EMT curriculum - [Paras 1-13].

Writ Law - Good Samaritans - Motor Vehicles Act 1988 - Section 134A - Protection from legal harassment - Petitioners highlighted bystander hesitation due to fear of police summons or legal proceedings - referred to previous judgment in Savelife Foundation v. Union of India regarding protection guidelines ratified through the 2019 Amendment - Held - All States and UTs directed to establish functional physical and digital Good Samaritan Grievance Redressal Systems with designated nodal authorities at State and District levels within three months - [Paras 5-12].

Writ Law - Emergency Medical Services - Central Motor Vehicles Rules - Rule 125H - Ambulance Standards and GPS Integration - Direction sought for compliance with National Ambulance Code and GPS tracking - Held - States directed to ensure full Automotive Industry Standard 125 (AIS-125) compliance for all ambulances - mandate Vehicle Location Tracking Device (VLTD) fitment - real-time integration with helpline 112 - conduct periodic structured audits regarding response times and quality of care - [Paras 2-12].

Writ Law - Cashless Treatment Scheme - Motor Vehicles Act 1988 - Section 134A - PM RAHAT Scheme - Petitioners prayed for cashless schemes for road crash victims - Union already framed uniform national scheme known as PM RAHAT - Held - All States and UTs directed to fully operationalize PM RAHAT scheme within eight weeks including hospital designation - on-boarding of State Health Agencies - deployment of district-police on electronic Detailed Accident Report (eDAR) - non-implementation to be treated as violation of the MV Act - [Paras 11-13].

Decision: Interim directions issued – States and Union Territories directed to ensure time-bound compliance – Matter listed after four months for compliance reports.

Mass Violence – Unlawful Assembly – Murder – Sections 302/149, 436/149, 147, 148, 323, 324 and 379 IPC – Conviction Upheld – A mob of approximately 58 persons, motivated by long-standing village rivalry, surrounded and set ablaze the residential house of Chandra Shekhar Choudhary on the festival of Holi – Five persons, namely Mahanth Indradeo Jyoti, Braj Bhushan Choudhary, Dr. Indranand Mishra, Lalan @ Ravi Bhushan Choudhary and Anil Kumar Jha, died of ante-mortem injuries – Several others including women and children sustained grievous injuries – Trial Court convicted the accused; High Court affirmed – Held: Prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the ingredients of all offences charged; concurrent findings based on proper appreciation of evidence do not warrant interference under Article 136 [Paras 1–31].

Eyewitness Testimony – Corroboration – Injured Witnesses – Prosecution examined 46 witnesses including several injured eyewitnesses (PW-2, PW-4, PW-5, PW-34, PW-35, PW-37, PW-38 and PW-40) who consistently narrated the manner of the attack – Their version stood corroborated by independent witnesses PW-6, PW-8 and PW-41 who had no animus and whose testimonies were unimpeachable – Medical evidence through PW-1, PW-43, PW-44, PW-45 and PW-46 fully established homicidal ante-mortem injuries caused by sharp-cutting and hard blunt weapons, consistent with the ocular version [Paras 8–9, 21].

Defence Witnesses – Alibi – Corroboration of Prosecution – Testimonies of all 13 defence witnesses (DW-1 to DW-13) failed to advance the defence case – On the contrary, they materially corroborated the prosecution version regarding the occurrence and presence of accused at the place of occurrence, wholly belying the plea of alibi [Para 11].

Section 149 IPC – Common Object – Vicarious Liability – Mere Spectator Plea Rejected – Appellants contended that some accused were mere spectators without shared common object and that the incident arose from a sudden altercation regarding a pumping set – Held: Evidence clearly establishes active participation by each accused in different stages — surrounding the house, setting it on fire, chasing victims and assaulting with lethal weapons – Once common object of unlawful assembly is established, every member becomes vicariously liable – Plea of mere presence or spontaneous altercation wholly untenable in light of the scale and premeditated nature of the attack [Paras 23–26].

Abetment – Circle Officer – Section 302/109 IPC – Accused Jagannath Ravidas, the then Circle Officer, arrived at the place of occurrence, forcibly seized the licensed firearm and revolver from deceased Mahanth Indradeo Jyoti and displayed the same before the mob, thereby emboldening the assailants – Both courts concurrently found active facilitation by him at a crucial stage – Held: No ground to take a different view; conviction under Sections 302/109, 436/109 and allied sections affirmed [Paras 5, 27].

Juvenility – Benefit Extended – High Court accepted the plea of juvenility for Appellant Nos. 21, 34 and 38 and referred their cases to the Juvenile Justice Board – This Court by order dated 29.04.2022 extended the benefit of juvenility to accused Jugat Lal Rai – Their conviction maintained but question of sentence directed to be dealt with under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 [Paras 14–16].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Concurrent findings of Trial Court and High Court affirmed – Surviving accused (except those granted juvenility benefit) directed to surrender forthwith before the Trial Court to serve remaining sentence – Bail bonds, if any, cancelled [Paras 30–32].

Criminal Law - Murder - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Section 302 - Sentence modification - Appellant convicted for murder and sentenced to life imprisonment by Trial Court - High Court confirmed conviction based on consistent testimony of eye witnesses PW-1 PW-2 and PW-5 corroborated by medical evidence and discovery of weapon - Supreme Court declined to disturb concurrent findings on conviction - Appellant had undergone actual imprisonment of 23 years 6 months and 3 days without remission - Incident occurred in 1998 when appellant was 21 years old - Court examined the power of constitutional courts to modify life sentences to fixed terms - Held - While conviction is maintained the sentence is modified to the period already undergone - Appellant directed to be set at liberty forthwith - [Paras 1-19].

Criminal Law - Sentencing - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Section 53 and Section 45 - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 433-A - Power of Constitutional Courts - Life imprisonment means imprisonment for the rest of the convict's life subject to the right to claim remission under Articles 72 or 161 of the Constitution or Section 432 CrPC - High Courts and the Supreme Court possess the power to impose a modified or fixed-term sentence as an alternative to the death penalty or life imprisonment - This power can be exercised even where capital punishment is not proposed - Any such fixed-term sentence must not be less than 14 years as per the mandate of Section 433-A CrPC - Such modification does not amount to enhancement of sentence and thus does not require notice under Section 401 CrPC - Held - Imposing a fixed sentence is permissible under the interpretation of the Constitution Bench in Union of India v. V. Sriharan - [Paras 10-16].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Conviction under Section 302 IPC and Section 135 BP Act maintained – Sentence modified to the period already undergone (23 years 6 months and 3 days) – Appellant directed to be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case.

Criminal Law - Dowry Death – Cruelty – Section 304-B, 498-A IPC – Acquittal – Suicide of wife – Husband and in-laws charged of continuous torture and harassment on demands of dowry – Trial court acquitted accused under Section 304-B IPC for absence of dowry demand but convicted under Section 498-A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act relying on oral testimony of PW2 to PW5 and letters (Exts. 6 & 7) allegedly written by deceased – High Court affirmed conviction under Section 498-A but set aside conviction under Section 4 of the DP Act and modified sentence – Held: Evidence both oral and documentary falls short of establishing the charge under Section 498-A IPC; appellant acquitted [Paras 2–12].

Conviction – Inconsistency – Section 498-A IPC – General and Omnibus Allegations – Trial court convicted under Section 498-A IPC despite its own finding that no specific or definite instances, particular day or time of torture were pointed out by witnesses – High Court similarly affirmed conviction while finding absence of specific particulars – Held: Conviction on general and omnibus allegations without specific substantiation is unsustainable; the very basis of conviction was inherently contradictory [Paras 3, 5, 11].

Conviction under Dowry Prohibition Act – Inconsistency with Acquittal under Section 304-B IPC – Trial court having found no demand of dowry established, proceeded to convict accused under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act – Held: Such conviction is plainly inconsistent with the trial court's own finding of no dowry demand; rightly set aside by the High Court [Para 3].

Oral Testimony – Credibility – Omnibus Nature – PW2, PW3, PW4 and PW5 (brother and cousin brothers of deceased) deposed regarding demands of dowry and mediation (Samaj) – PW5 named PW6 as a participant in the mediation but the Investigating Officer (PW10) stated PW6 had made no such statement before police – PW4, an independent witness, was not among the six persons named by PW5 – Held: Testimony of witnesses was general and omnibus; neither specific demands nor persons making such demands nor specific instances were pointed out [Paras 7–9].

Documentary Evidence – Letters Written by Deceased – Proof of Handwriting – Exts. 6 and 7 alleged to be letters written by deceased to her father and brother – Discrepancy as to who produced the letters before police; PW3 stated letters were received by post and covers handed to the I.O., which the I.O. denied – Letters bore no date – I.O. took no steps to verify handwriting as that of the deceased – Contents vague, indicating only discord between families without establishing harassment or torture – Held: In absence of proof of handwriting, no reliance can be placed on the alleged letters [Para 10].

Section 498-A IPC – Scope – Unlawful Demand and Cruelty – Court reiterated that Section 498-A does not require a dowry demand, as any unlawful demand by husband or his family is covered under Explanation (b), and any willful conduct driving wife to commit suicide constitutes cruelty under Explanation (a) – However, on facts, oral testimony failed to establish any unlawful demand or acts of physical or mental torture [Para 11].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgments of trial court and High Court reversed – Appellant acquitted under Section 498-A IPC – Appellant to be released forthwith if not required in any other case [Paras 12–13].

Criminal Law - Recall of witness - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 311 - Recall of prosecutrix - Respondent accused of rape under Section 376 IPC sought recall of PW-1 four years after her last cross-examination to put 94 questions regarding Call Detail Records - Trial Court rejected application citing delay and attempt to prolong trial - High Court reversed and allowed recall - Supreme Court found that PW-1 had already been cross-examined on four separate occasions - CDRs were part of the chargesheet and known to the defense since the start - No satisfactory explanation for the four-year delay - Recall cannot be permitted as a matter of course or to fill lacunae in defense - Held - High Court order set aside and Trial Court order restored - [Paras 1-21].

Criminal Law - Power to summon or recall witnesses - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 311 - Scope and Limits - Power is wide and discretionary but must be exercised sparingly and judiciously - Recall is permitted only if evidence is essential to the just decision of the case - Court must balance fair trial requirements with hardship to witnesses - In sensitive cases involving heinous crimes repeated appearance of victims for cross-examination results in undue hardship - Held - Recall should not be used as a disguise for retrial or to cause unjustifiable hardship to victims - [Paras 7-17].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court judgment dated 14.03.2024 set aside – Order of the Trial Court dated 06.02.2024 restored – Trial Court directed to conclude trial by year-end.

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 141 – Vicarious Liability – Office Bearers of Society – Quashing – Appellant finance company advanced Rs. 4,50,00,000/- to M/s Ravindra Bharathi Educational Society in tranches during July 2018 – Promissory notes and MoU executed acknowledging liability at 30% per annum interest – Cheque No. 003109 dated 18.11.2019 for Rs. 5,12,61,500/- dishonoured with endorsement "Account Blocked" – Statutory demand notice served on 16.12.2019 remained uncomplied with – Complaint filed against Society and its office bearers under Sections 138 and 141 NI Act – High Court quashed proceedings against Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 (Vice-President, Treasurer, Executive Member and Manager) holding averments to be omnibus – Held: Quashing not justified uniformly; position of each respondent must be individually examined with reference to factual material in the complaint [Paras 2–15, 33].

Section 141 NI Act – Vicarious Liability – Dual Requirement – Foundational Averments – Settled law requires that for invoking vicarious liability under Section 141 NI Act, the complaint must specifically aver that at the time the offence was committed, the person accused was both in-charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company or society – Mere designation as office bearer or director is insufficient – Complaint must disclose how and in what manner the accused was responsible for the conduct of the business – Liability is person-specific and cannot be imposed merely by association – However, complaint need not mechanically reproduce exact phraseology of Section 141 if substance of allegations, read as a whole, discloses factual basis for liability – Hyper-technical approach to be avoided [Paras 27–32].

Section 141 NI Act – Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4 – Signatories to Antecedent Financial Documents – Proceedings Restored – Respondent No. 1 (Vice-President) signed the MoU – Respondent No. 2 (Treasurer) signed the dishonoured cheque itself – Respondent No. 4 (Manager) participated in execution of promissory notes and allied payment documents – Such participation is not a matter of mere designation but constitutes prima facie material linking them to the underlying transaction – Held: Complaint discloses sufficient foundational facts to proceed against Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4; High Court erred in extending quashing relief to them without noticing this material distinction [Paras 34–36, 40, 42–43].

Section 141 NI Act – Respondent No. 3 (Executive Member) – No Specific Role – Quashing Upheld – No promissory note, cheque, MoU or allied financial document bore signature of or indicated participation of Respondent No. 3 – Complaint did not travel beyond a general assertion founded upon his official status – Held: In absence of any specific factual foundation connecting him with the transaction giving rise to the dishonoured cheque, there is no deemed liability; quashing of proceedings against Respondent No. 3 is upheld [Paras 37–39].

Quashing – Scope at Threshold Stage – Court does not adjudicate upon truthfulness of allegations or embark upon appreciation of evidence at the stage of quashing – Whether respondents were in fact in-charge of and responsible for affairs of the Society is a matter of evidence to be established at trial – Sufficiency of evidence is not the subject matter of inquiry at this stage; existence of foundational material alone is to be examined [Para 41].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Impugned order of Madras High Court set aside insofar as it relates to Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4 – Complaint in S.T.C. No. 1980 of 2023 restored against Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4 – Quashing of proceedings against Respondent No. 3 upheld – All contentions left open before the Trial Court [Paras 44–45].