Civil Procedure – Ex-Parte Decree – Delay in Filing Application – Scope of High Court’s Revisional Jurisdiction – The appellants, as plaintiffs, obtained an ex-parte decree in a suit for specific performance – The respondents filed an application for setting aside the decree along with an application for condoning the delay of 939 days – The Trial Court refused to condone the delay, resulting in automatic dismissal of the application for setting aside the decree – The High Court, in revision, condoned the delay but erroneously set aside the ex-parte decree despite no revision being filed against its dismissal – Held: The High Court had jurisdiction to condone the delay, but it exceeded its revisional jurisdiction in setting aside the ex-parte decree when no challenge was made to the dismissal of the application for setting it aside – The order restoring the suit was set aside, and the Trial Court was directed to reconsider the application for setting aside the decree on its own merits [Paras 11-16].

Condonation of Delay – Limitation Act, 1963 – Sufficient Cause – The High Court condoned the delay on the ground that the respondents were unaware of the ex-parte decree until they received notice in execution proceedings – The Supreme Court upheld this finding, observing that while there was negligence, the property involved was of substantial value, justifying an opportunity for the respondents to contest the suit – However, condoning delay in filing an application does not automatically warrant setting aside the ex-parte decree, which must be decided independently on merits [Paras 12-14].

High Court’s Jurisdiction – Revisional Powers – Error in Directing Suit Restoration – The Supreme Court held that the High Court, while exercising its revisional jurisdiction, could only examine the issue of delay condonation and had no authority to set aside the ex-parte decree without a separate challenge to the dismissal of the relevant application – The principle that condoning delay does not automatically revive a dismissed application was reiterated – The High Court’s direction to restore the suit was set aside [Paras 15-16].

Appeal Partly Allowed – Trial Court to Decide the Application for Setting Aside the Ex-Parte Decree – The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s order condoning the delay but set aside its order restoring the suit – I.A. No. 1163 of 2021 (application for setting aside the decree) was revived and remanded to the Trial Court for reconsideration on its own merits within two months [Para 16].

Criminal Law - Criminal Proceedings – Allegations of Theft and Conspiracy – Suppression of Material Facts – Complaint Quashed - The second and third respondents (husband and mother-in-law) filed a private complaint under Section 200 CrPC, alleging theft and conspiracy against the appellants (wife and her family) – Summons were issued for offences under Sections 379 and 120-B IPC – However, the respondents had earlier filed a petition for Restitution of Conjugal Rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, but failed to disclose this fact in the complaint – Held: The suppression of material facts and the contradictory actions of the complainants indicate an abuse of process – Decision: Complaint quashed [Paras 3-7].

Powers of High Court – Exercise of Jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC – Failure to Prevent Abuse of Process - The High Court of Himachal Pradesh refused to quash the criminal proceedings – The Supreme Court held that the case was fit for the exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of process – Decision: The High Court erred in not quashing the complaint, and its order dated 02/01/2024 was set aside [Paras 7-8].

Criminal Law – Quashing of Complaint – Prior Matrimonial Disputes Considered – Filing of Complaint After Marital Discord - The complaint was filed after the wife had initiated legal proceedings under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 354 IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act – The alleged theft occurred in August 2020, but the complaint was filed only in October 2021 – Held: The delayed filing of the complaint, along with the contradictory stance of the husband in filing for Restitution of Conjugal Rights, indicates mala fide intent – Decision: Proceedings quashed [Paras 4-6].

Factories Act – Definition of Manufacturing Process – Laundry Services Covered – High Court’s Order Set Aside - The respondent was prosecuted for operating a laundry service without a factory license – The High Court quashed the complaint, holding that dry cleaning does not constitute a "manufacturing process" since it does not result in the creation of a new, marketable commodity – The Supreme Court rejected this reasoning, holding that Section 2(k) of the Factories Act explicitly includes "washing" and "cleaning" within the definition of a manufacturing process – Held: The respondent’s laundry business, involving the cleaning of clothes for delivery, falls within the statutory definition of manufacturing process, and the premises qualifies as a factory under Section 2(m) of the Act [Paras 17, 23, 42].

Interpretation of Welfare Legislation – Strict Adherence to Statutory Definition – Application of Mischief Rule - The Court emphasized that the Factories Act is a welfare statute designed to regulate labor conditions and ensure worker safety – The High Court erroneously applied principles from taxation laws and the Central Excise Act, which require a transformation of goods for an activity to qualify as manufacturing – Held: The Factories Act defines "manufacturing process" in broad terms, and courts must interpret such social legislation in a manner that upholds worker rights rather than restricts regulatory oversight [Paras 21, 30, 35].

Order Issuing Process – Application of Mind – No Need for Detailed Reasons in Summons - The respondent challenged the Magistrate’s summons on the ground that it lacked detailed reasoning – The Supreme Court held that while a non-speaking order may be improper in certain cases, the present matter did not warrant quashing of the complaint – Held: The order issuing process was valid as the Magistrate had applied his mind to the complaint and inspection report, and the matter should be adjudicated in trial rather than dismissed at the threshold [Paras 48-49].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – High Court’s Order Quashing Complaint Set Aside – Proceedings Restored - The Supreme Court found that the High Court’s interpretation of the Factories Act was erroneous and contrary to legislative intent – Held: The complaint against the respondent, along with the order issuing process, is restored before the JMFC, Panaji, for trial in accordance with law [Para 49].

Bail - Dowry Death – Grant of Bail – Stringent Scrutiny Required – Bail of In-Laws Cancelled – The appellant, brother of the deceased, challenged the bail granted by the High Court to four accused persons (the deceased’s in-laws) – The deceased had allegedly been harassed for dowry, with demands escalating from a motorcycle to a car – The post-mortem report confirmed multiple ante-mortem injuries and strangulation, ruling out suicide – The trial court had denied bail considering the gravity of the offence, but the High Court granted bail citing lack of prior criminal history and gender considerations – Supreme Court held that in cases of dowry deaths, courts must adopt stricter scrutiny in bail matters, particularly when forensic evidence indicates foul play – Bail of the mother-in-law and father-in-law cancelled, as they played a primary role in harassment and dowry demands [Paras 7-13].

Judicial Approach in Dowry Death Cases – High Court’s Mechanical Bail Grant Criticized – Supreme Court expressed concern over the High Court’s superficial approach in granting bail, stating that courts must reflect heightened vigilance in such cases – It emphasized that judicial orders in dowry death cases carry a broader social message and should deter systemic crimes against women – Held: Granting bail mechanically in serious offences like dowry death undermines the deterrent effect of the law and erodes public confidence in the justice system [Paras 15-16].

Cancellation of Bail – Role of Accused Considered – Limited Leniency for Sisters-in-Law – The Supreme Court distinguished between the roles of the accused – The father-in-law and mother-in-law were found to have played an active role in the dowry harassment and thus their bail was cancelled – However, the accused sisters-in-law were granted the benefit of doubt due to their relatively minor role, educational background, and personal circumstances – Held: The High Court’s order granting bail to the sisters-in-law upheld, subject to strict compliance with bail conditions [Paras 14, 18].

Impact of Strangulation and Ante-Mortem Injuries – Importance of Medical Evidence – The post-mortem report documented ligature marks and severe physical trauma on the deceased’s body – Supreme Court held that such evidence is a crucial factor in assessing culpability in dowry death cases – Courts must be cautious in granting bail when medical evidence strongly suggests homicide rather than suicide – Held: The presence of significant ante-mortem injuries justified a stricter approach in bail considerations [Paras 6-7].

Decision: Appeals Allowed in Part – Bail of Accused No. 2 (Father-in-Law) and Accused No. 3 (Mother-in-Law) Cancelled – Bail of Accused No. 4 and Accused No. 5 (Sisters-in-Law) Upheld with Conditions – Trial to be Expedited.

Criminal Law – Conviction for Grievous Hurt – High Court’s Conviction under Section 326 IPC Modified to Section 325 IPC - The appellants were convicted under Section 307 IPC by the Sessions Court—High Court altered the conviction to Section 326 IPC but retained imprisonment—Supreme Court found doubt regarding whether the weapons used (bamboo sticks and wooden logs) were "dangerous weapons" under Section 326 IPC—Held: The evidence warranted conviction under Section 325 IPC (grievous hurt) instead—Decision: Conviction modified from Section 326 IPC to Section 325 IPC [Paras 7-11].

Sentencing – Reduction of Punishment – Period Already Undergone Considered Sufficient - The incident occurred in 1994—Appellants had already spent six months in custody and had no other criminal record—Held: Sentencing them to further imprisonment after decades would not serve justice—Decision: Sentence reduced to period already undergone, with fine imposed [Paras 12-13].

Penalty for Default – Additional Imprisonment in Case of Non-Payment of Fine - Supreme Court directed the appellants to deposit the fine within one month—Held: Failure to pay would result in an additional imprisonment of one year minus the period already served [Para 14].

Criminal Law – Appeal Against Conviction - Forgery and Fabrication – Lack of Primary Evidence – Conviction Set Aside – The appellant was convicted on the basis of allegations that he prepared the postal cover in which a forged marksheet was transmitted – The trial court relied on the testimony of a handwriting expert (PW-18) to establish the appellant’s involvement – Supreme Court noted that the original postal cover was never produced or exhibited as primary evidence – Held: Without proving the existence of the primary document, reliance on expert testimony alone was insufficient to sustain conviction – Appellant acquitted [Paras 13-15].

Handwriting Expert Evidence – Corroboration Required – Testimony Not Sufficient to Convict – The Supreme Court reiterated that while expert testimony is admissible under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, it must be corroborated by other substantive evidence – In this case, the expert’s reasoning sheet was not brought on record, and he did not identify the disputed document conclusively – Held: In the absence of supporting evidence, reliance solely on expert opinion was erroneous, rendering the conviction unsustainable [Paras 8-12].

Criminal Trial – Burden of Proof – Prosecution Failed to Establish Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt – The prosecution failed to prove that the postal cover, which allegedly contained the forged marksheet, was linked to the appellant – Supreme Court held that in criminal trials, the burden of proof lies with the prosecution, and any failure to prove material facts must result in acquittal – Held: The trial court, appellate court, and High Court erred in convicting the appellant without substantive evidence beyond expert opinion [Paras 15-16].

Decision: Appeal Allowed – Conviction Set Aside – Appellant Acquitted of All Charges – Trial Court, Appellate Court, and High Court Judgments Quashed.

Matrimonial Law - Divorce – Amicable Settlement – Invocation of Article 142 of the Constitution – Decree of Divorce by Mutual Consent - The Family Court granted divorce to the respondent-husband on the ground of cruelty—The High Court upheld the decree—During the appeal before the Supreme Court, the parties opted for mediation and reached a Final Settlement Agreement—Held: Since the parties had been living separately since 2013 and had resolved their disputes amicably, the Supreme Court invoked Article 142 to dissolve the marriage by mutual consent—Decision: Divorce granted under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act; previous findings on cruelty set aside [Paras 9-14].

Child Custody and Maintenance – ₹2.11 Crores Settlement for Minor Child – Visitation Rights Granted - The parties agreed on financial terms for the minor child's maintenance—The respondent-husband paid ₹2.11 crores to the appellant-wife—Visitation rights were established, allowing the father periodic access to the child, including overnight visits—Held: The agreed settlement for maintenance and visitation was binding on both parties—Decision: Settlement upheld; visitation rights enforced as per agreement [Paras 10-18].

Quashing of Criminal and Civil Cases – Parties Barred from Future Litigation – No Further Claims - As part of the settlement, both parties agreed to withdraw all pending cases, including FIRs and domestic violence proceedings—Held: All pending litigation, including FIR No. 364/2022 under Section 498A IPC, were quashed—Decision: No future claims shall be entertained; all legal disputes between the parties stand resolved [Paras 15-18].

Criminal Law – Quashing – Rape - False Promise of Marriage – Long-Term Consensual Relationship – FIR Quashed – The appellant and the complainant were in an intimate relationship for over 16 years – The complainant alleged that the appellant had engaged in sexual intercourse with her under a false promise of marriage – However, she continued the relationship despite knowing about his marriage to another woman – Supreme Court held that a prolonged relationship spanning 16 years, where both parties were consenting adults, cannot be termed as rape merely because the relationship eventually soured – Held: Criminal proceedings quashed as continuation of trial would amount to an abuse of process of law [Paras 22-25, 37-38].

Consent in Intimate Relationships – Distinction Between Rape and Consensual Sex – The complainant, an educated woman with professional qualifications, continued to engage in a relationship with the appellant for over a decade – She willingly traveled to meet him multiple times and maintained physical relations – Supreme Court reiterated that when a woman, fully aware of the consequences, engages in a voluntary relationship for an extended period, it cannot later be claimed that the consent was vitiated due to misconception of fact – Held: No case of rape is made out as there was no coercion, threat, or deceit in the initial stages of the relationship [Paras 24-30].

Delay in Filing FIR – Questionable Credibility – Malafide Intent Suspected – The complainant filed an FIR in 2022, nearly 16 years after the alleged first incident of rape in 2006 – She remained silent and continued the relationship without lodging any complaint until the appellant married another woman in 2022 – Supreme Court held that such a long delay in filing the FIR casts doubt on the authenticity of the allegations – Held: Delay of 16 years weakens the prosecution case and indicates that the FIR was filed due to personal grievances rather than any real criminal offence [Paras 31-33].

Legal Principles Governing False Promise of Marriage – Protection Against Misuse – Supreme Court referred to precedents emphasizing that a promise of marriage must be false from the inception to vitiate consent – In this case, there was no evidence to suggest that the appellant never intended to marry the complainant – The complainant herself admitted to portraying herself as the appellant’s wife in multiple instances – Held: False promise of marriage cannot be inferred when the relationship is prolonged, consensual, and both parties voluntarily continued engagement [Paras 26-29].

Decision: Appeal Allowed – FIR No. 269 of 2022 and All Criminal Proceedings Against the Appellant Quashed – High Court Order Set Aside.

Limitation Law - Condonation of Delay – No Sufficient Cause – High Court’s Order Set Aside - The respondents sought to set aside an ex-parte decree after a delay of 1312 days, citing misplaced case files and delayed handover by counsel – The Supreme Court held that no reasonable explanation was provided for the delay, especially since the legal heirs of the defendant were aware of the decree when they appeared in execution proceedings – Held: The High Court erred in condoning the delay without sufficient cause, and the Trial Court rightly rejected the application [Paras 6-10].

Ex-Parte Decree – Absence of Due Diligence – Application to Set Aside Decree Rejected - The first defendant, though appearing in the suit, failed to file a written statement and later passed away – His legal heirs contested execution proceedings but did not immediately seek to set aside the decree – The Supreme Court emphasized that a litigant must act diligently – Held: The attempt to set aside the decree after prolonged inaction was an afterthought and could not be entertained [Paras 8-12].

Equitable Jurisdiction – Delay Must Be Non-Deliberate – No Exceptional Hardship Proven - The respondents claimed the suit was collusive and the sale consideration inadequate – The Court found that such contentions were raised belatedly and lacked merit – Held: The law favors diligent litigants, and mere allegations of hardship do not justify setting aside a decree after an unexplained delay [Paras 10-11].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – High Court’s Order Set Aside – Trial Court’s Order Restored - The Supreme Court found that the application to set aside the ex-parte decree was an afterthought and that the High Court’s reasoning was flawed – Held: The order of the High Court condoning the delay is set aside, and the Trial Court’s order rejecting the application for condonation of delay is restored [Para 12].