MONTHLY JUDGEMENTS MAGAZINE APRIL

Lexpedia · 19 May 2025 · 29 min read

The case involved a dispute over immovable property claimed by the plaintiffs through a Gift Deed and by the defendants through a Sale Deed.
The Trial Court upheld the Gift Deed and declared the Sale Deed void, favoring the plaintiffs.
The High Court reversed the decision, dismissing the suit on the ground that the plaintiffs did not seek cancellation of the Sale Deed under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
The Supreme Court held that a non-executant (a person who is not a party to the deed) is not required to seek cancellation of such a document.
Instead, under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, a declaration that the deed is void or not binding is sufficient.
The Court emphasized that the proviso to Section 34 does not compel the plaintiff to seek all possible reliefs, only those directly flowing from the declaration sought.
The Supreme Court restored the Trial Court’s decision, declaring the Sale Deed void ab initio and validating the Gift Deed.

✅ Amruddin Ansari (Dead) Through LRs & Ors. vs. Afajal Ali & Ors.

The case arose after a plaintiff’s father's suit for declaration and injunction was dismissed in default under Order IX Rule 2 CPC due to non-appearance of both parties.
The plaintiff filed an application for restoration of the suit under Order IX Rule 4, but it was also dismissed and attained finality.
Subsequently, the plaintiff filed a fresh suit for the same reliefs, which the Trial Court allowed under Rule 4 of Order IX, CPC.
The First Appellate Court reversed the trial court’s decision, but the High Court reinstated it, holding the fresh suit was maintainable.
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, ruling that dismissal under Order IX Rules 2 or 3 does not amount to a judgment or decree, and thus res judicata does not apply.
The Court clarified that dismissal in default is not an adjudication on merits and not appealable under Order XLIII CPC.
It held that filing a fresh suit under Order IX Rule 4, subject to limitation, is legally permissible and not barred by prior dismissal under Rule 2 or 3.
The Court distinguished this from cases under Order IX Rule 9 or Rule 13, which are appealable and can invoke res judicata.

✅ Angadi Chandranna vs. Shankar & Ors.

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that after the partition of ancestral property, the shares allotted to each co-parcener become their self-acquired property.
The partitioned property is no longer considered joint family property, and each co-parcener has absolute rights over their share, including the ability to sell, transfer, or bequeath it.
Defendant No.1, Chandranna, purchased his brother's share of the ancestral property after the partition using his own income and later sold it to the Appellants.
The Respondents (plaintiffs) argued that the property remained ancestral and could not be sold.
The Court clarified that after partition, any property obtained by a co-parcener using their own funds becomes self-acquired property.
For property to be classified as ancestral, it must be inherited from paternal ancestors up to three generations.
The Court explained that the doctrine of blending self-acquired property with joint family property requires a clear intention to abandon separate rights.

✅ Mohd. Shujath Hussain v. State of Telangana and Others

The Supreme Court dismissed a petition challenging the Telangana High Court's decision, which upheld the Telangana State Judicial (Service and Cadre) Rules, 2023, and a government notification mandating proficiency in Telugu as a qualification for appointment as a Civil Judge.
The petitioner, Mohd Shujath Hussain, argued that the requirement excluded candidates proficient in Urdu, despite Urdu being the second official language of the state.
The bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih refused to interfere with the High Court’s decision, affirming the requirement of Telugu proficiency for candidates aspiring for judicial positions in Telangana.
Senior Advocate Salman Khurshid, appearing for the petitioner, argued that Urdu was recognized as a court language in 31 out of 33 districts in Telangana, and 15% of the state's population speaks Urdu. He contended that excluding Urdu speakers entirely from judicial roles was unfair.
Justice Gavai disagreed, stating that it was not a case of exclusion, but that the Telugu language requirement was necessary for candidates.
The petitioner had previously admitted proficiency in Telugu during the application process by selecting 'yes' to the proficiency question. Despite this, the petitioner challenged the rule, which the bench found unconvincing.
The bench noted that proficiency in Telugu had been an essential requirement since 2007, and Rule 21 of the 2007 Rules allowed for proficiency to be acquired during judicial training. The bench found no reason to overturn this provision.
The petitioner had argued that the inclusion of Telugu was arbitrary and unfair, as Urdu proficiency was not considered an alternative, despite Urdu being recognized as the second official language of the state since 2017.
The High Court had earlier rejected the petition, stating that proficiency in Telugu was a valid and reasonable requirement for judicial officers, aimed at improving judicial administration.
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, ruling that the rule mandating Telugu proficiency was neither arbitrary nor in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court recognized it as a policy decision made for the betterment of judicial administration and dismissed the petition.

✅ Shahjahan vs State of Uttar Pradesh

The Supreme Court reiterated that courts styled as 'Court of Kazi', 'Court of Darul Kaja', or 'Sharia Courts' have no legal recognition and any direction issued by them is unenforceable under law.
The bench, consisting of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, referred to the 2014 judgment in Vishwa Lochan Madan v Union of India, which stated that Shariat Courts and fatwas lack legal sanction.
The case involved a woman challenging the Allahabad High Court's decision upholding the Family Court's ruling, which denied her maintenance based on a compromise deed filed in a Court of Kazi.
The Supreme Court criticized the Family Court for relying on the compromise deed filed in the Court of Kazi, stating that such courts have no legal standing, and any decision by them is only valid between the parties that voluntarily accept it.
The Family Court had dismissed the wife's maintenance claim, stating she was the cause of the dispute, but the Supreme Court found this reasoning unsustainable.
The Supreme Court also criticized the Family Court's assumption that the second marriage of the parties would not involve any dowry demand, calling it an unfounded presumption.
It was noted that the compromise deed did not contain any admission of fault by the appellant, as the Family Court had incorrectly assumed.
The Supreme Court ordered the husband to pay Rs. 4,000 per month as maintenance to the wife, from the date she filed the maintenance petition.

✅ KP Tamilmaran vs State

The Supreme Court confirmed life sentences for nine convicts in the Kannagi-Murugesan honour killing case.
The crime occurred due to their inter-caste marriage, leading to the couple's murder to "restore honour."
The Court described the crime as an example of the deeply entrenched caste system in India, calling it an "ugly reality."
Rs 5 Lakhs compensation was directed to be paid to Murugesan's father and step-mother.
The investigation was initially mishandled by local police, leading to the CBI taking over the case.
The death sentence of Marudupandian (Kannagi’s brother) was commuted to life imprisonment, and life sentences for nine others, including Kannagi’s father, were upheld.

✅ SAKINA SULTANALI SUNESARA (MOMIN) VERSUS SHIA IMAMI ISMAILI MOMIN JAMAT SAMAJ & ORS.

The Supreme Court ruled that a party to a compromise decree must first approach the Trial Court under the proviso to Order XXIII Rule 3 to challenge the compromise before the Appellate Court.
Order XLIII Rule 1-A of the CPC does not grant an independent right to appeal a compromise decree; it allows challenging non-appealable orders within an appeal.
A party challenging a compromise must raise the objection before the Trial Court. If the objection is rejected, they can file a first appeal under Section 96(1) CPC.
The Court affirmed the Gujarat High Court's Larger Bench decision, which clarified the proper procedure to challenge a compromise decree.
The appellant's direct appeal to the Appellate Court was dismissed as it was not permitted under the existing CPC provisions.

✅ ASIM MALLIK Versus THE STATE OF ODISHA

The Supreme Court held that interim bail should not be granted routinely and must remain an exception, applicable only in specific exigencies.
A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran observed that either regular bail should be granted or refused, but interim bail should not be granted repeatedly.
The petitioner, accused under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, had already spent around 3 years in custody.
The Court found the case fit for regular bail considering the long incarceration and directed his release on terms set by the lower court.
The judgment cautioned High Courts against creating a pattern of recurring interim bails, highlighting that such practice was leading to multiple cases reaching the Supreme Court.

✅ PUNIT BERIWALA VERSUS THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS.

The Supreme Court held that delay in registration of an FIR is not a valid ground to quash it if the FIR discloses a cognizable offence punishable with more than three years’ imprisonment.
A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan observed that the High Court erred in quashing the FIR based on a 16-year delay, especially when serious offences under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420, and 120B IPC were alleged.
The Court clarified that Section 468 CrPC, which limits prosecution for minor offences, does not apply to offences punishable with imprisonment over three years.
The cause of action arose only in December 2021, when the appellant discovered the fraud; the complaint was filed within 15 days, fulfilling Section 469 CrPC.
The Court also reiterated that civil proceedings or the existence of cross-FIRs are not valid grounds to quash an FIR; both FIRs should be investigated together.
Accordingly, the High Court’s order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

✅ MD. NAFIS v. NITIN JAIRAM GADKARI

The Supreme Court dismissed petitions challenging a Bombay High Court order that partly struck off pleadings in an election petition against Union Minister Nitin Gadkari related to the 2019 Lok Sabha elections.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N. Kotiswar Singh upheld the High Court’s reasoning, noting no grounds for interference, especially as Gadkari’s 2019 tenure had ended and he had since been re-elected in 2024.
The High Court had refused to quash the election petition altogether, allowing it to proceed but struck out paragraphs related to alleged income and land details of Gadkari’s family and election expenditures, under Order 6 Rule 16 CPC.
The Court reiterated that striking out pleadings is an extraordinary power, but found that in this case, the High Court had applied it judiciously and in line with legal standards.
The remaining portions of the petition, which included allegations about land owned solely by Gadkari and his declared source of income, were retained for trial.
The Supreme Court's dismissal effectively clears the way for limited trial on the maintainable parts of the petition, affirming the High Court's balanced approach.

✅ AMAR JAIN v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

The Supreme Court directed a revision of digital KYC norms to ensure accessibility for persons with visual impairments and acid attack survivors who face difficulty completing facial recognition or live photo tasks.
A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan held that the right to access digital services is a part of the right to life under Article 21, especially in the digital era where access to governance and welfare depends on online platforms.
The Court observed that denial of digital access due to facial disfigurement or blindness violates constitutional rights and the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
The Court emphasised the State’s constitutional duty under Articles 14, 15, 21, and 38 to ensure that digital platforms, e-governance services, financial tech, and education systems are universally accessible.
The Court ordered that eKYC processes must include reasonable accommodation such as alternatives to live photographs and biometric authentication, particularly for the visually impaired and facially disfigured individuals.
It also directed the Central Government and regulators like RBI to revise their guidelines in light of this ruling and ensure inclusive digital infrastructure for vulnerable and marginalised communities.

✅ Sri Shrikanth NS & Ors. v. K. Munivenkatappa & Anr.

The Supreme Court clarified that the power to direct the production of documents under Order XI Rule 14 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) is restricted to the pendency of a suit and cannot be invoked after the dismissal of a suit. Once a suit is rejected under Order VII Rule 11, the Appellate Court is limited to reviewing the correctness of that rejection order, and cannot entertain new evidence.
The bench, comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Prashant Kumar Mishra, addressed a land dispute case in which the Karnataka High Court had upheld the direction of the First Appellate Court to produce a mutation deed during the appeal, even after the suit had been rejected under Order VII Rule 11.
The Court held that Order XI Rule 14 allows document production only during the pendency of the suit. Once the plaint is rejected, the suit effectively terminates, and the stage for introducing new evidence or examining documents does not arise.
The First Appellate Court had erred in directing the production of the mutation deed, which was not part of the original trial proceedings.
The Court emphasized that the Appellate Court's role is limited to examining the validity of the trial court’s rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11, and it cannot go beyond that scope.
Order XI Rule 14 cannot be invoked after the rejection of the suit because it only applies during the pendency of a suit.
No new documents can be introduced in an appeal regarding a rejected plaint unless they were part of the original proceedings.

✅ Hansura Bai and Anr. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr.

The Supreme Court strongly criticized the Madhya Pradesh State for not arresting the police officers involved in the custodial death of Deva Pardhi, accusing the State of trying to protect its own officers.
Justice Sandeep Mehta expressed outrage over the delay in taking action against the accused officers, questioning why they were only moved to line duty instead of being arrested after the death.
The Court observed that the police report, which suggested heart attack as the cause of death, was misleading, especially given the bruises found on Deva Pardhi’s body, calling it an obvious cover-up.
The Court raised serious concerns about the continuing issue of custodial violence in India, pointing out that despite multiple judgments, offenders remain free, which highlighted the State's lack of accountability.
Regarding the bail application for Gangaram, the sole witness, the Court suggested he might be safer in custody due to the high risk of being eliminated if released on bail, underscoring the dangerous environment in such cases.

✅ Chunni Bai v. State of Chhattisgarh

The Supreme Court reduced the sentence of a woman convicted for killing her two daughters, aged 3 and 5, by converting the murder conviction (Section 302 IPC) to culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 304 Part II IPC), considering her mental state at the time of the crime.
The Court acknowledged that the appellant claimed she acted under the influence of an "invisible power" but clarified that this was speculative, and the lack of medical evidence precluded the application of Section 84 IPC (unsound mind).
The Court noted that the absence of motive in the crime, as the mother had no animosity towards her children, raised reasonable doubt regarding her intent to kill, lending weight to her insanity plea even though it was not legally substantiated.
Despite not being granted a full insanity defense, the Court emphasized that the inexplicable behavior of the appellant suggested she may have been temporarily incapable of making a conscious decision, leading to a reduction in her sentence.
The Court concluded that mothers are generally seen as nurturers, and a lack of motive in the case of a mother killing her own children is contrary to societal expectations, further supporting the reduction in the appellant's sentence.

✅ Sanjiv Kumar Rajendrabhai Bhatt v. State of Gujarat and Anr.

The Supreme Court rejected the plea for bail filed by former IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt, who sought suspension of the life sentence imposed on him in a 1990 custodial death case, while directing the expedited hearing of his pending criminal appeal.
Bhatt was convicted in 2019 along with others for the death of Prabhudas Madhavji Vaishnani, who died allegedly due to custodial torture during his detention under Bhatt’s supervision as ASP Jamnagar during a Bharat Bandh.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Bhatt, argued that the death occurred 20 days post-custody, with no immediate complaints of torture, and cited lack of direct medical evidence linking Bhatt to the victim’s death.
Senior Advocate Maninder Singh, for the State, maintained that medical findings showed renal failure due to forced physical exertion during custody, constituting clear evidence of torture, and opposed bail due to Bhatt’s criminal antecedents, including a 20-year sentence in a separate drug planting case.
The Court emphasized that its refusal to grant bail should not influence the merits of the pending appeal, and clarified that the bail rejection order would not prejudice the outcome of the substantive appeal proceedings.

✅ Ramyash @ Lal Bahadur v. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, 2025

The Supreme Court held that the Allahabad High Court's decision to alter the judgment by modifying the conviction was contrary to the provisions of Section 362 of CrPC. The Court emphasized that the provision is strictly limited to clerical corrections, not changes in the substantive aspects of a judgment. The appeal was allowed, and the High Court's order was set aside.
The Supreme Court’s ruling reaffirms the principle that Section 362 of CrPC can only be invoked to correct clerical or arithmetical errors and not to substantively alter judgments or modify the findings of a case. The Court criticized the Allahabad High Court for misinterpreting the provision and making a significant change to the conviction under the guise of a correction

✅ Nafees Ahmad & Anr. v. Soinuddin & Ors., 2025

The Supreme Court held that the Failure to frame points of determination by the Appellate Court does not necessarily invalidate its judgment, as long as substantial compliance with Rule 31 is shown, and no critical points for reconsideration are left unaddressed.
The Allahabad High Court’s decision to set aside the Appellate Court’s judgment was incorrect, as it did not recognize the substantial compliance with Rule 31.
The Court allowed the appeal and restored the Appellate Court’s judgment.

✅ X v. Rajesh Kumar & Ors., 2025

The High Court acted beyond its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC by evaluating evidentiary materials and conducting a premature assessment of sexual intent, which is a matter for trial.
The ingredients of Sections 7 and 8 of the POCSO Act were clearly present on the face of the record and needed to be tested in trial, not dismissed on preliminary interpretation.
There was sufficient prima facie material for the trial to commence, and the quashing of FIR was unwarranted and legally unsound.
The victims’ right to be heard and to testify in court was denied by the High Court’s pre-judgment.
The accused was in a position of trust, and the case involved systemic failures, including incomplete police investigation initially.

✅ Sandeep Todi v. Union of India & Ors., 2025

Frivolous and malicious petitions filed by legal professionals strike at the very foundation of judicial dignity and efficiency, and such conduct must not go unchecked.
The petition in question was not just lacking merit but was a deliberate misuse of judicial remedies available under Article 32, which is to be invoked only in cases of clear violation of fundamental rights.
The conduct of the petitioner, given his legal background, was not excusable. In fact, it was aggravated by his status as an advocate, as lawyers are expected to possess minimum legal understanding and ethical standards.
The attempt to withdraw the petition without consequence was expressly rejected by the Court, with the judges stressing that: “Such actions cannot be allowed to go unpunished, else they would embolden others to act similarly.”

✅ Ranjit Kour & Another Vs UT of J&K, 2025

The allegations made in the FIR, supported by the complainant’s 7-page statement under Section 161 CrPC, were detailed and specific, referring to dates, events, and witnesses.
The mental and physical cruelty described by the complainant, including abandonment, threats, and physical assaults, clearly satisfied the definition of cruelty under Section 498A IPC.
The Court rejected the defense that suicidal ideation or self-harm is a precondition for invoking Section 498A, stating that actual injury or grave danger to the woman’s health (physical or mental) is sufficient.
The High Court found no merit in the contention that the FIR was vague, and emphasized that specificity of each act is not required at the FIR stage, as further detail can be established during investigation.
Accordingly, both petitions to quash the FIR were dismissed, as the Court found a prima facie case of cruelty and abetment, which warranted proper investigation.

✅ Manjunath Tirakappa Malagi & Anr. vs. Gurusiddappa Tirakappa Malagi (Dead through LRs), 2025

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that Order 23 Rule 3A CPC bars a separate suit to challenge a compromise decree on grounds such as coercion or fraud.
The only remedy, as reiterated by the Court, is to file a recall application before the same court which passed the decree.
Since no such application was filed by the appellants’ father (the original party to the compromise), and he had in fact accepted the decree, the sons had no legal standing to file a fresh suit.
The Court upheld the dismissal of the suit and found no error in the lower courts’ reasoning.

✅ Tata Mohan Rao vs. S. Venkateswarlu and Others, 2025

The Court held that the Tahsildar had deliberately and knowingly violated a judicial order, which amounts to civil contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act.
The Court emphasized that public officials are bound by judicial directives and cannot justify lawlessness under any administrative or political pressures.
Despite the serious nature of the offense, the Court issued notice and stayed the sentence for the time being, citing leniency and procedural fairness, but did not condone the conduct.
The bench made it clear that the final decision may include imprisonment, financial compensation to victims, and disciplinary action/demotion.

✅ Rikhab Birani vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh, 2025

The Court reaffirmed that criminal law cannot be used as a tool to pressure a party in a civil dispute.
Mens rea (criminal intent) must exist at the time of making the promise to qualify the act as cheating or breach of trust.
Before issuing summons under Section 204 CrPC, the Magistrate must scrutinize the evidence carefully.
Summoning orders should not be passed casually or as a matter of routine; there must be clear material supporting the ingredients of the alleged offence.
Police officers must ensure charge sheets comply with Section 173(2) by clearly laying out allegations, evidence, and legal applicability.
Courts must refuse to entertain vague or exaggerated allegations camouflaging civil claims as criminal ones.
The Court imposed ₹50,000 in costs on the State of Uttar Pradesh, citing continued misuse of the criminal justice process.
The Chief Secretary of the State was held responsible for ensuring compliance, and liberty was given to recover costs from erring officers.

✅ Aejaz Ahmad Sheikh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., 2025

The Supreme Court expressed serious concern over the frequent failure of trial courts to comply with Section 313 CrPC.
It observed that in many appeals, vital prosecution evidence is not put to the accused, which denies them a chance to explain or defend themselves properly.
The Court stated that such procedural defects, if not noticed and corrected early, become incurable over time, especially after several years have passed since the trial.
To prevent such scenarios, the Court recommended a proactive approach by High Courts:
- At the very beginning of a criminal appeal, High Courts should verify whether proper compliance with Section 313 has taken place.
- If not, they must either record additional statements themselves or remand the case to the trial court for the same.
The Court did not reverse the acquittal in this specific case, as the High Court had acquitted the accused on other valid legal grounds, and remanding the case now was deemed impractical due to time lapse.

✅ Phonographic Performance Ltd. v. Azure Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., 2025

PPL is not authorized to issue licenses for the use of copyrighted sound recordings unless: It is a registered copyright society under Section 33 of the Copyright Act, 1957. or, it is a member of a registered copyright society.
The Court made it clear that mere ownership or assignment of copyright does not grant PPL the power to grant licenses independently.
The Supreme Court stayed the division bench's direction that required Azure to pay PPL based on RMPL’s tariff.
This direction was found to be unlawful, as it was not specifically prayed for by PPL and was outside the scope of the pleadings.
Azure is not required to pay PPL according to RMPL’s rates until the final resolution of the case.
The single judge's injunction, which restrained Azure from using PPL’s music, will not be reinstated.
The stay on the division bench’s decision does not automatically restore the temporary injunction.
Therefore, Azure can continue using the music in its restaurants until the final hearing.

✅ Subhash Aggarwal v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2025

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and held that the absence of motive does not vitiate a prosecution case if the circumstantial evidence is strong, coherent, and forms an unbroken chain leading to no other hypothesis than guilt.
The Court emphasized that motive is relevant, especially in cases based on circumstantial evidence, but its absence is not fatal when other compelling factors exist.
It reaffirmed the ruling in Suresh Chandra Bahri v. State of Bihar, that motive cannot always be unearthed, and its absence does not by itself create doubt if the evidence points clearly toward the accused.

✅ Larsen and Toubro Ltd. v. Puri Construction Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., 2025

The Supreme Court expressed strong disapproval of how arbitration-related matters are argued in courts. It was particularly concerned that Section 34 and Section 37 proceedings, which are meant to be limited judicial reviews, are increasingly treated as regular appellate hearings.
The court specifically pointed out the “tendency of senior members of the bar” to delve into minute factual details, even though such details are not usually relevant in the scope of a Section 34 challenge.
It was also noted that multiple judgments are cited on the same point of law, resulting in the court needing to spend unnecessary time and resources just to sift through these submissions.
The Court emphasized that such practices dilute the efficiency of arbitration and lead to lengthy, complicated judgments that are out of proportion to the legal issues involved.
The bench also reminded that courts need to prioritize cases affecting the common man, and cannot afford to let arbitration proceedings consume excessive judicial resources.

✅ Kamal & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Anr., 2025

The Supreme Court quashed proceedings against the father-in-law and mother-in-law, while allowing proceedings to continue against the husband.
The Court criticized the High Court’s "extremely pedantic approach" and held that mere existence of vague allegations without specific instances does not justify a full-fledged trial against the in-laws.
It emphasized that in matrimonial disputes, especially when complaints are filed after long years of marriage or soon after divorce is initiated, courts must be vigilant to check for malicious prosecution.
The Court found that no specific dowry demand or concrete incidents of cruelty by the in-laws were alleged.
On the other hand, the husband was alleged to have had an affair and to have mentally and physically tortured the complainant, warranting a full trial only against him.

✅ The Correspondence RBANMS Educational Institution v. B. Gunashekar & Another, 2025

Agreement to sell does not confer proprietary interest in the immovable property.
A proposed purchaser cannot sue a third party in possession when no privity of contract exists.
Only the vendor has locus to protect title or possession until the sale deed is executed.
Suit without the vendor as a party is not maintainable.
Trial court and High Court erred in rejecting the Appellant’s Order VII Rule 11 CPC application.

✅ Ranjit Sarkar v. Ravi Ganesh Bhardwaj and Others, 2025

The Supreme Court set aside the Calcutta High Court's decision that acquitted the accused due to the complainant’s absence.
The Court observed that Section 256 CrPC requires acquittal only when the complainant is absent on the day appointed for the appearance of the accused. If the date is set for another purpose, such as for the complainant to show cause, the absence does not automatically lead to acquittal.
The Court held that COVID-19 restrictions and the SOP issued by the High Court mandating no dismissal due to default should have been considered by the trial court.
The High Court erred by treating the complainant's absence on a date set for showing cause as grounds for acquittal.

✅ Chandrashekhar Ramesh Galande v. Satish Gajanan Mulik & Anr., 2025

Reasoning: The Court relied on the well-established legal principle that a mere breach of promise does not amount to cheating unless there is a clear dishonest intention from the outset. The Court further emphasized that promises made for an illegal purpose (such as a promise to guarantee favorable litigation outcomes) are unenforceable under the law and do not amount to an inducement for delivery of property. Therefore, such promises cannot constitute cheating.
Legal Impact: This decision clarifies that in cases of professional misconduct or alleged fraud, the mere failure to fulfill a promise is not sufficient to charge someone with cheating unless there is clear evidence of fraudulent intent from the beginning.
Public Policy Considerations: The case also touches upon the public policy aspect, recognizing that any promise made for an illegal purpose (such as inducing someone to make payments for an illegal guarantee of legal outcomes) cannot be enforced under the law.
Case Precedent: This judgment aligns with previous cases that distinguish between civil breaches of contract and criminal offences like cheating, and reinforces the need for dishonesty or fraudulent intent to be established in criminal matters under Section 420 of the IPC.

✅ Imran Pratapgarhi v. Gujarat Police, 2025

Reasoning: The Court reinforced the mandatory registration of FIRs under Section 154 CrPC when a cognizable offence is disclosed. Section 173(3) BNSS was seen as an exception that permits a preliminary inquiry only when the offence is punishable with 3-7 years of imprisonment and with prior permission from a senior officer.
The Court distinguished between the CrPC and the BNSS, noting that while CrPC mandates immediate FIR registration upon receiving information about a cognizable offence, the BNSS introduces the option of conducting a preliminary inquiry in specific cases before FIR registration.
The quashing of the FIR in the present case highlights the importance of procedural compliance and the potential misuse of FIR registration in cases where a preliminary inquiry might be warranted.

✅ Kulwant Singh v. State of Punjab, 2025

The Court followed strict interpretation of criminal law – a person cannot be prosecuted under NDPS for a substance not explicitly listed.
Reinforces the principle that bail should not be denied when the foundational charge is legally unsustainable.
The Court aligned with prior High Court rulings, promoting consistency in judicial interpretation.
Protects individuals from misuse or overreach of stringent laws like NDPS where statutory elements are not met.
Reflects judicial caution in applying harsh statutes such as NDPS without clear legislative inclusion.

✅ Mohammad Imran Ganai And Anr. Vs Government Through Police Station Dangiwacha, 2025

Section 156(3) CrPC empowers a Magistrate to order investigation before taking cognizance, and this power is not conditional on Section 154 being fully complied with.
Inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC should be used cautiously and only in "rarest of rare" cases.
The court emphasized the self-restraint principle and presumption in favor of investigation once FIR is registered and supported by evidence.
Procedural challenges like absence of prior Section 154 compliance cannot nullify an FIR once substantial materials (like witness statements, bank transactions, etc.) are on record.
This judgment ensures that technicalities do not override the substance of justice when adequate evidence is available post-investigation.

✅ CBI v. Mohd Yasin Malik, 2025

The Court is attempting a delicate balance between the rights of the accused, security concerns, and public confidence in the justice system.
The judicial restraint shown by avoiding dramatic reactions to procedural irregularities, while ensuring future compliance, demonstrates the court's institutional maturity.
By keeping the transfer and amendment petitions alive, the Court is keeping procedural doors open to ensure comprehensive justice.
The matter also touches upon national security and procedural fairness, both critical in terrorism-related cases — hence the multi-dimensional legal strategy by the CBI and NIA.

✅ Nikhila Divyang Mehta & Anr. v. Hitesh P. Sanghvi & Ors., 2025

The Supreme Court emphasized that limitation laws cannot be circumvented by arguments about when a party acquires full knowledge of the cause of action. The limitation period must start from the first knowledge of the cause of action, not after a complete investigation.
The Court rejected the argument that limitation is a mixed question of law and fact, explaining that if the suit is ex-facie barred by limitation, no further evidence is required.

Judgments Monthly Magazine