What are the opening hours?

Monday 10am - 9pm Tuesday 10am - 9pm Wednesday 10am - 9pm Thursday 10am - 9pm Friday 10am - 9pm Saturday 10am - 9pm

https://www.facebook.com/409400085596663/

Nyay Sutra, Sector 7 Dwarka, Delhi (2026)

05/06/2025

Struggling with marital issues? Nyay Sutra is here to guide you through with expert legal support and compassion.
📞 Call now for a confidential consultation: 9654391101

25/05/2025

“Disputed Property Deal Not Criminal Offence: Delhi HC Dismisses Plea for FIR Under Section 156(3) CrPC”

⸻

HEADNOTE:

The Delhi High Court dismissed a petition seeking registration of FIR under Section 156(3) CrPC in a property fraud allegation, observing that the matter was civil in nature. The Court held that where remedies are already being pursued in civil suits, a criminal complaint cannot be used to pressurize the other party. It upheld the Magistrate’s and ASJ’s orders refusing FIR registration.

⸻

BRIEF FACTS:
• In 2008, P.C. Agrawal entered into an Agreement to Sell with Ashok Biswal for property at C.R. Park, based on representations that Biswal had already purchased the property via an earlier agreement from the original owners (Respondents 4 to 6).
• Agrawal paid ₹55 lakhs as advance. However, Biswal later refused to transfer possession or proceed with the deal.
• A civil suit for specific performance was filed.
• Biswal and the original owners then executed a sale deed in favor of Biswal’s wife, allegedly to defeat Agrawal’s claim.
• Agrawal filed an application under Section 156(3) CrPC seeking FIR for forgery, cheating, criminal conspiracy etc. This was dismissed by MM and upheld by ASJ.
• Present petition challenged those orders.

⸻

PETITIONER’S CASE (Agrawal):
• Alleged that agreement shown to him was forged, and several others were similarly deceived.
• Claimed collusion between Biswal, his wife, and the original owners.
• Argued that forgery and misrepresentation created a criminal offence, not just a civil dispute.
• Relied on SC judgments supporting registration of FIR in cognizable offences.

⸻

RESPONDENTS’ DEFENSE:
• Dispute arose out of property development and failed agreements, already subject to civil litigation.
• Petitioner had full knowledge and entered an MoU for settlement as well.
• Multiple agreements were executed, and the property was eventually sold and redeveloped.
• Allegations were motivated attempts to criminalize a civil breach.

⸻

COURT’S REASONING:
• Both the Magistrate and ASJ rightly found the dispute to be purely civil.
• Multiple civil suits (including for specific performance) were already pending.
• The entire set of facts—agreements, payments, possession, and alleged fraud—fell within contractual realm.
• No criminal intent or dishonest inducement at the inception was proven.
• Criminal law cannot be used to settle civil scores or arm-twist the opposite party.

⸻

JUDGMENT:

Petition dismissed.
Delhi HC upheld the orders of MM and ASJ rejecting Section 156(3) CrPC application.
No direction for FIR.

⸻

CITATIONS RELIED ON:
• Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1
• Ramesh Kumari v. State, (2006) 2 SCC 677
• Lallan Chaudhary v. State of Bihar, (2006) 12 SCC 229
• Adarsh Kumar Gill v. State of NCT, 2013 (134) DRJ 550

⸻

NEUTRAL CITATION:

P.C. Agrawal v. State & Ors.
CRL.M.C. 2560/2017 | Judgment Date: 22 May 2025
Court: Delhi High Court
Bench: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna

24/05/2025

“Privity of Contract Established | Delhi High Court Sets Aside District Court Order, Directs Refund of ₹8 Lakh for Cancelled Australia Tour”

⸻

HEADNOTE:

The Delhi High Court held that Marvs Travel India Pvt. Ltd., which had received ₹8 lakhs as advance for an Australia group tour, was jointly and severally liable to refund the amount along with 8% interest—even though the actual service provider (MTG Australia) was not impleaded as a party. The Court ruled that privity of contract existed and the Indian company could not escape liability by claiming to be a mere agent.

⸻

BRIEF FACTS:
• M/S K Home Appliances organized a sponsored Australia tour for 63 distributors.
• ₹8,00,000 was paid in advance to Marvs Travel India Pvt. Ltd. (Respondent No.1).
• The tour was cancelled on 25.03.2020 due to COVID-19.
• Respondent No.1 claimed the contract was with MTG Australia, and they were only acting as an agent.

⸻

DISTRICT COURT RULING:
• Held Respondent No.1 was only an agent.
• Dismissed the suit for lack of privity of contract and for non-joinder of MTG.

⸻

APPELLATE COURT REASONING:
• Emails showed direct involvement of Marvs India (copying communications).
• Payment was made to Respondent No.1, not to MTG Australia.
• Respondent No.1 failed to prove it transferred funds or acted purely as agent.
• Invoices submitted showed vague, unrelated export entries.
• Misappropriation established: Respondent No.1 admitted adjusting funds towards MTG’s dues.
• Privity of contract and misrepresentation upheld—liability arose directly.

⸻

JUDGMENT:
• Appeal allowed against Respondent No.1.
• Marvs Travel India directed to refund ₹8,00,000 with 8% simple interest from 25.03.2020.
• Suit decreed. Respondents 2 & 3 (individuals) were struck off.

⸻

CITATIONS RELIED ON:
• Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. [1893] 1 QB 256
• Central Inland Water Transport Corp. v. Brojo Nath Ganguly, (1986) 3 SCC 156
• Indian Oil Corp. Ltd. v. Amritsar Gas Service, (1991) 1 SCC 533
• Union of India v. Vasavi Co-operative Housing Society, (2014) 2 SCC 269

⸻

NEUTRAL CITATION:

M/S K Home Appliances v. M/S Marvs Travel India Pvt. Ltd.
RFA(COMM) 479/2024 | Judgment Date: 23 May 2025
Court: High Court of Delhi
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vibhu Bakhru & Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tejas Karia

23/05/2025

“Supreme Court: Air Force Schools Under IAF Control Are Amenable to Writ Jurisdiction”

⸻

HEADNOTE:

The Supreme Court held that Air Force Schools—despite being managed by societies—are under deep and pervasive control of the Indian Air Force (IAF), function using public/quasi-public resources, and perform a public function (education). Hence, they fall within the ambit of ‘other authorities’ under Article 12 and are amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

⸻

BRIEF FACTS:
• Dileep Kumar Pandey and Sanjay Kumar Sharma were teaching staff at Air Force School, Bamrauli, Allahabad.
• Their services were terminated—Pandey was declared surplus, and Sharma was subjected to disciplinary action and termination.
• Both filed writs under Article 226 of the Constitution.
• A Single Judge of Allahabad HC held the school was a “State” under Article 12; however, a Division Bench reversed this, holding the school was not amenable to writ jurisdiction.
• The matter reached the Supreme Court in two connected civil appeals.

⸻

ARGUMENTS BY THE APPELLANTS:
• Air Force Schools are funded by IAF and occupy land/buildings constructed with Ministry of Defence authorization.
• Staff pay and appointments are governed by the IAF through its Directorate of Education and Education Code.
• Administrative and disciplinary control rests with officers of the IAF.
• The Indian Air Force Education & Cultural Society (IAFE&CS) functions under Air Force command.
• The school performs a public function (education) and thus should be subject to writ jurisdiction.

⸻

ARGUMENTS BY RESPONDENTS (UOI & School Committee):
• The school is run by a private society funded through Non-Public Funds (regimental and welfare contributions).
• There is no statutory control or direct funding from the Central Government.
• The Education Code is non-statutory, and employment is governed by private contracts.
• Relied on precedents like Army Welfare Education Society v. Sunil Kumar Sharma and St. Mary’s Education Society.

⸻

REASONING OF THE COURT (Split Views):

Majority Opinion – Abhay S. Oka, J.:
• IAF does not exercise pervasive control over the school.
• Education Code lacks statutory force.
• No conclusive proof that school is publicly funded.
• Merely occupying MoD land or applying common pay scales doesn’t establish “State” control.
• Relationship between teachers and school is contractual and lacks public law character.
• Dismissed appeals.

Dissenting Opinion – Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.:
• IAF officers hold key administrative positions and exercise complete functional control over school operations, recruitment, and disciplinary matters.
• Buildings constructed using public funds; CBSE affiliation stated that IAF funds the school.
• Education is a public function, and teachers are at the heart of it.
• Deep and pervasive control + public function = amenable to writ jurisdiction.
• Allowed the appeal; held that school falls under Article 12 and 226.

⸻

JUDGMENT:

Split decision.
• Majority: Dismissed the appeals.
• Dissent (Justice Amanullah): Allowed the appeals; held school amenable to Article 226.
• Final direction: Appeals dismissed, but other remedies (e.g., civil suits) are left open.

⸻

CASES RELIED ON:
• Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi, (1981) 1 SCC 722
• Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. IICB, (2002) 5 SCC 111
• Andi Mukta Sadguru v. V.R. Rudani, (1989) 2 SCC 691
• St. Mary’s Education Society v. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava, (2023) 4 SCC 498
• Army Welfare Education Society v. Sunil Kumar Sharma, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1683
• Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India, (2005) 4 SCC 649

⸻

NEUTRAL CITATION:

Dileep Kumar Pandey & Sanjay Kumar Sharma v. Union of India & Ors.
Civil Appeal Nos. 10899 & 11378 of 2013
Judgment Date: 21 May 2025
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abhay S. Oka & Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah
Court: Supreme Court of India

21/05/2025

“DV Act Proceedings Can Be Quashed Under Section 482 CrPC: Supreme Court Clears Confusion”

⸻

HEADNOTE:

The Supreme Court held that proceedings initiated under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 — though civil in nature — can be quashed by High Courts using inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC or Section 528 BNSS. However, such power should be exercised with caution and only in cases of gross illegality or injustice. The view that DV proceedings are not amenable to quashing was overruled.

⸻

BRIEF FACTS:
• Respondent-wife Vidhi Rawal filed a complaint under Section 12 of the DV Act, 2005 seeking reliefs under Sections 18–23 against her husband Prateek Tripathi, his parents, and brother-in-law.
• Allegations included dowry harassment and domestic violence after marriage in 2019. FIR under Sections 498A, 504, 506 IPC was also registered.
• Appellants approached the High Court under Section 482 CrPC to quash the DV proceedings.
• High Court dismissed the petition, holding that proceedings under DV Act are civil in nature and cannot be quashed under CrPC.

⸻

ARGUMENTS BY APPELLANTS:
• Magistrate under the DV Act functions as a Criminal Court under CrPC.
• Reliefs under DV Act can be civil, but procedure is governed by CrPC as per Section 28 of the Act.
• Section 482 CrPC gives High Court power to prevent abuse of process and secure justice.
• Cited judgments supporting quashing of DV proceedings under inherent jurisdiction.

⸻

RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS:
• Proceedings under Section 12 DV Act are not criminal complaints and are intended to be civil in nature.
• DV Act aims to protect women through civil remedies, not to punish.
• Applications under DV Act are not complaints under Section 2(d) CrPC; hence Section 482 CrPC should not apply.

⸻

COURT’S REASONING:
• While reliefs under DV Act are civil, the forum is a Criminal Court (Judicial Magistrate).
• Section 28(1) DV Act provides that proceedings are governed by CrPC.
• Section 482 CrPC (and 528 BNSS) apply because the court entertaining DV matters is a criminal court, and inherent jurisdiction can be invoked.
• Dismissal of a DV application affects rights of women and should be interfered with only sparingly, in cases of clear abuse or illegality.
• Rejected the view of several High Courts that quashing under 482 is not maintainable.
• Clarified that Courts must respect the object of welfare legislation like the DV Act while exercising discretion.

⸻

JUDGMENT:
• High Court’s judgment quashing Section 482 petitions set aside.
• Petitions restored to be reconsidered afresh on merits.
• Supreme Court explicitly overrules narrow view that DV Act applications are beyond scope of Section 482 CrPC.

⸻

CITATIONS RELIED ON:
• Kunapareddy v. Swarna Kumari, (2016) 11 SCC 774
• Prabha Tyagi v. Kamlesh Devi, (2022) 8 SCC 90
• Rajiv Ghosh v. Satya Narayan Jaiswal, SLP (C) No. 9975 of 2025
• Uttam Singh Duggal & Co. v. United Bank of India, (2000) 7 SCC 120
• ITDC Ltd. v. Chander Pal Sood, (2000) 84 DLT 337 (DB)

⸻

NEUTRAL CITATION:

Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi v. Vidhi Rawal & Ors.
Criminal Appeal Nos. 2688–2689 of 2025
Date: 19 May 2025
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abhay S. Oka & Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ujjal Bhuyan

20/05/2025

BREAKING | Supreme Court Reforms Judicial Entry Norms

In a significant judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that a minimum of 3 years’ active practice as an Advocate is now essential to qualify for Judicial Services.

This ruling reinforces the importance of courtroom exposure and real-world legal practice before stepping into the judiciary.

For law students, fresh graduates, and judiciary aspirants—this is a game-changing development. Build practice. Gain experience. Then pursue the Bench.

Stay informed. Stay empowered.

Follow for more legal updates and reforms.

06/05/2025

Suit Can Be Dismissed on Plaintiff’s Admissions: Supreme Court Applies Order XII Rule 6 CPC

⸻

HEADNOTE:

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, a suit can be dismissed on the basis of the plaintiff’s own admissions without the need to frame issues or conduct a full trial. Admissions can be gathered from pleadings, documents, and prior judgments. In this case, the Court upheld the dismissal of a daughter’s suit for partition due to previous family settlements, decrees, absence of HUF pleadings, and limitation.

⸻

BRIEF FACTS:
• Saroj Salkan, daughter of Late Major General Budh Singh, sued for partition of five properties in Delhi and Haryana, claiming they were ancestral/HUF properties.
• Defendants included her siblings and other family members.
• Earlier civil suits and family settlements (1972–1984) had already determined ownership and partition of the same properties.
• The Trial Court dismissed the suit under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, citing the plaintiff’s own admissions and previous judgments. The High Court affirmed.

⸻

POINTS ARGUED

Appellant (Saroj Salkan):
• The Trial Court erred in invoking Order XII Rule 6 CPC suo motu without any application from the defendants.
• Alleged that the properties were ancestral and the amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 entitled her to coparcenary rights.
• Claimed earlier decrees were collusive and did not bind her.

Respondents (Family Members):
• Appellant failed to plead facts establishing an HUF or any act of blending the properties into common hotchpotch.
• Prior decrees and family settlements settled ownership issues.
• Appellant and her sister had previously sold parts of the disputed properties, acknowledging their lack of ownership.
• Suit was also barred by limitation.

⸻

COURT’S REASONING:
• Order XII Rule 6 CPC allows dismissal based on clear admissions, even without an application and even if the admissions are implied or derived from pleadings, documents, and conduct.
• Prior consensual decrees conclusively established partition and ownership, which the appellant had accepted.
• Appellant failed to prove any HUF or common hotchpotch creation.
• Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act (amended) could not revive rights already extinguished by earlier decrees and limitation.
• Appellant’s actions, including previous alienation of property, confirmed lack of ownership rights.
• No abuse of discretion by the Trial Court or High Court.

⸻

JUDGMENT:

Appeal dismissed.
• Suit for partition rightly dismissed under Order XII Rule 6 CPC.
• Appellant bound by earlier decrees and barred by limitation.

⸻

CASES CITED:
• Uttam Singh Duggal & Co. Ltd. v. United Bank of India, (2000) 7 SCC 120
• Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernandes v. Erasmo Jack De Sequeira, (2012) 5 SCC 370
• Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma, (2020) 9 SCC 1
• Rajiv Ghosh v. Satya Narayan Jaiswal, SLP (C) No. 9975 of 2025

⸻

NEUTRAL CITATION:

Saroj Salkan v. Huma Singh & Ors.
Civil Appeal No. 6389 of 2025
Date: 6 May 2025
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Manmohan & Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol

06/05/2025

“Delhi Court Protects Possession Rights in Family Property Dispute”

⸻

HEADNOTE

The Court decreed a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from forcibly dispossessing the plaintiffs from the first floor of the family property. Plaintiffs established continued possession and the right to peaceful enjoyment despite disputes over ownership.

⸻

BRIEF FACTS
• Plaintiffs (Sanjiv Bansal & wife) occupied the first floor of D-10, Mahendru Enclave, Delhi, since 2003 under sale documents executed by defendants (family members).
• Defendants (mother and brothers) resided on the ground floor.
• Disputes arose; plaintiffs alleged threats of forceful dispossession and false criminal complaints.

⸻

POINTS ARGUED

Plaintiffs:
• Lawful possession since 2003 based on family sale documents.
• Ownership documents not registered but possession was peaceful and continuous.
• Defendants interfered with possession and issued threats.

Defendants:
• Claimed plaintiffs concealed facts and acted aggressively.
• Alleged prior payments and agreements indicating property rights were not exclusive to plaintiffs.
• Mother (defendant no.1) also occupied part of the first floor.

⸻

COURT’S REASONING
• Unregistered sale documents could not confer ownership but did not negate the plaintiffs’ long-standing possession.
• Defendants admitted plaintiffs’ possession during cross-examination and through Local Commissioner’s report.
• Under law, possession alone is a protectable interest against unlawful dispossession.
• Plaintiffs acknowledged mother’s right to visit, showing no intention to restrain her reasonable use.
• Defendants failed to prove that plaintiffs lacked locus standi or cause of action.

⸻

JUDGMENT
• Permanent injunction granted.
• Defendants restrained from forcibly dispossessing plaintiffs and from interfering with peaceful possession and use of the first floor.
• Decree sheet ordered.

⸻

NEUTRAL CITATION

Sanjiv Bansal & Anr. v. Radha Rani & Ors.
CS SCJ/535736/2016 | Judgment Date: 5 May 2025
Court: JSCC/ASCJ/Guardian Judge, North District, Rohini Courts, Delhi
Presiding Judge: Hon’ble Sh. Nitish Kumar Sharma

03/05/2025

Is a Holding Company Automatically Bound by Arbitration? Supreme Court Says No!

⸻

HEADNOTE

Arbitral Tribunal’s Power to Implead Non-Signatories – Supreme Court clarifies limits. Holding companies cannot be impleaded solely for being a parent entity without clear involvement in the contract.

⸻

BRIEF FACTS
• ASF Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. (ABPL), a holding company of ASF Group, challenged an Arbitral Tribunal order impleading it as a party to arbitration, though it was a non-signatory.
• Shapoorji Pallonji & Co. Pvt. Ltd. (SPCPL) had contracts with ASF Insignia SEZ Pvt. Ltd. (AISPL) and Black Canyon SEZ Pvt. Ltd. (BCSPL), not ABPL.
• SPCPL invoked the Group of Companies Doctrine, claiming that all ASF entities operated as a single economic unit.

⸻

POINTS ARGUED

By Appellant (ASF Buildtech)
• ABPL had no direct involvement in negotiation or performance of contracts.
• Mere holding company status cannot justify impleadment.
• Joinder violated the doctrine of separate corporate personality.

By Respondent (Shapoorji Pallonji)
• ABPL and ASF subsidiaries shared management, personnel, and branding.
• The ASF Group acted as a single economic unit.
• Common directors and addresses supported their argument of operational unity.

⸻

REASONING OF COURT
• The Arbitral Tribunal has the power to implead non-signatories under certain conditions.
• However, mere holding company status or common management does not suffice.
• The Group of Companies Doctrine requires positive, direct, and substantial involvement in the contract, which was missing for ABPL.
• The Supreme Court warned against creating dangerous precedents where all holding companies would become liable for subsidiaries’ contracts without proper legal basis.

⸻

JUDGEMENT

Appeal dismissed.
• No legal error found in the High Court’s decision.
• ABPL’s impleadment upheld, but the Court reiterated that such joinder must meet strict legal criteria.
• Urged the Ministry of Law and Justice to reform arbitration laws to clarify powers of arbitral tribunals.

⸻

CASES CITED
• Cox and Kings Ltd. v. SAP India Pvt. Ltd., 2023 SCC Online SC 1634
• Ajay Madhusudan Patel v. Jyotrindra S. Patel, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2597
• Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. Discovery Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., (2022) 8 SCC 42
• Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corporation, (2021) 2 SCC 1

⸻

RELIEF GRANTED
• Appeal dismissed.
• All pending applications disposed of.
• Registry directed to circulate judgment to all High Courts and the Ministry of Law and Justice for legislative consideration.

⸻

NEUTRAL CITATION

ASF Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. v. Shapoorji Pallonji & Co. Pvt. Ltd., Civil Appeal No. 5823 of 2025, Supreme Court of India
Date: 2 May 2025 | Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.B. Pardiwala & Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. Mahadevan

03/05/2025

Supreme Court Upholds Earnest Money Forfeiture for Property Buyer’s Default

⸻

HEADNOTE:

The Supreme Court dismissed the purchaser’s appeal challenging the forfeiture of ₹20 lakh advance payment. The Court held that time was the essence of the contract, the purchaser failed to prove readiness and willingness, and earnest money forfeiture was valid under the agreement terms.

⸻

BRIEF FACTS:
• Agreement to Sell dated 25.07.2007 executed between appellant (purchaser) and respondent (seller) for ₹50 lakh property.
• Purchaser paid ₹20 lakh as advance and agreed to pay balance ₹30 lakh within 4 months.
• Purchaser neither paid the balance nor proved readiness and willingness to perform his part.
• Seller forfeited the ₹20 lakh and sold the property to a third party after delay.
• Appellant filed a suit seeking specific performance and later sought refund of the advance as alternative relief.
• Both Trial Court and High Court dismissed his claims.

⸻

APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS (Purchaser – K.R. Suresh):
• Time was not the essence of the agreement.
• Earnest money forfeiture is not valid without proving actual loss under Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act.
• He was always ready and willing to pay, and seller’s conduct was unconscionable.
• Delay was minor and did not defeat the purpose of the agreement.

⸻

RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS (Seller – R. Poornima & Ors.):
• Time was expressly made the essence of the agreement due to seller’s urgent need for funds.
• Purchaser failed to pay despite repeated requests and notices.
• Earnest money forfeiture was contractual and lawful.
• Purchaser did not properly plead refund of advance in the plaint, as required under Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act.

⸻

COURT’S REASONING:
• Time was expressly agreed as the essence due to seller’s business settlement (OTS) needs.
• Purchaser’s failure to pay the balance was a fundamental breach.
• Earnest money was rightly forfeited, not as a penalty but as per contract terms.
• Section 74 Contract Act does not override express forfeiture clauses unless they are penal or unconscionable, which was not the case here.
• The appellant’s alternative prayer for refund was rejected as it was not specifically pleaded.
• Precedents cited by appellant, like Kailash Nath Associates v. DDA, were distinguished as they involved different factual matrices.

⸻

JUDGMENT:

Appeal dismissed.
Forfeiture of ₹20 lakh earnest money upheld.

⸻

CITATIONS RELIED ON:
• Kailash Nath Associates v. DDA, (2015) 4 SCC 136
• Maula Bux v. Union of India, (1969) 2 SCC 554
• ONGC Ltd. v. Saw Pipes Ltd., (2003) 5 SCC 705
• Saraswati Devi v. DDA, 2010 SCC OnLine Del 3578

⸻

NEUTRAL CITATION:

K.R. Suresh v. R. Poornima & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 5822 of 2025
Date: 2 May 2025
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. Mahadevan

03/05/2025

“Delhi Court Quashes Cognizance in Tanya Saraogi Case: Delay Violated Accused’s Rights”

⸻

HEADNOTE:

The Sessions Court set aside the Magistrate’s order taking cognizance of offences against Tanya Saraogi, holding that the 5-year delay in filing the charge sheet without condonation violated the accused’s statutory and constitutional rights. The order and all subsequent proceedings were quashed.

⸻

BRIEF FACTS:
• FIR No. 115/2020 PS Okhla Industrial Area registered for alleged obstruction of duty and criminal intimidation (Sec 186/353/506/34 IPC).
• Allegations: Tanya Saraogi and others allegedly created a ruckus at a Post Office, disrupted official work, and threatened staff.
• Charge sheet filed after 5 years (02.12.2024).
• Magistrate took cognizance on 04.01.2025 without recording reasons for condoning the delay.

⸻

PETITIONER’S ARGUMENTS (Tanya Saraogi):
• Limitation period expired (Sec 468 CrPC / 514 BNSS). Cognizance taken after 3 years was illegal.
• No application for delay condonation filed by the prosecution.
• No valid explanation given for the delay.
• Procedural errors violated Article 21 (right to fair and speedy trial).
• Cognizance wrongly taken under CrPC when BNSS had already come into force.

⸻

STATE’S ARGUMENTS:
• Opposed the revision.
• Argued that sufficient materials existed to justify proceeding with the trial.
• No specific defense to justify the delay condonation issue.

⸻

COURT’S REASONING:
• Limitation under CrPC applied since both the offence and the limitation period expired before BNSS came into force.
• Under Section 468(2)(c) CrPC, limitation for the alleged offences (maximum punishment 2-3 years) was 3 years.
• Cognizance taken nearly 21 months after limitation expired, without any condonation application or order.
• Section 473 CrPC requires reasons for condoning delay — none recorded.
• No prima facie case under Section 506 IPC (criminal intimidation) as alleged threats did not cause “alarm.”
• Procedural lapses and limitation bar warranted quashing of cognizance and proceedings.

⸻

JUDGMENT:

Order dated 04.01.2025 taking cognizance quashed.
All consequential proceedings also set aside.

⸻

CITATIONS RELIED ON:
• State of Punjab v. Sarwan Singh, (1981) SC 1054
• Vanka Radhamanohari v. Vanka Venkata Reddy, (1993) SC 240
• Sheila Sebastian v. R. Jawaharaj, (2018) 7 SCC 581
• Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. v. State, 2025 DHC 1803
• Balbir Singh & Ors. v. State Govt of NCT Delhi, 2023 DHC 8587
• Naresh Aneja v. State of U.P., 2025 INSC 19
• Jagdish Ram v. State of Rajasthan, (2004) 4 SCC 432
• Sukhdev Raj v. State of Punjab, (2013) CrLJ 2032

⸻

NEUTRAL CITATION:

Neutral Citation: Tanya Anuj Saraogi v. State, Criminal Revision No. 198/2025, decided on 2 May 2025 by Sh. Lovleen, ASJ-03, Saket Courts, New Delhi.

17/04/2025

DELHI HIGH COURT

Gurpreet Singh @ Bawa @ Baba v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Date of Judgment: 16 April 2025 | Bail Appln. 3755/2024
Before: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vikas Mahajan

⸻

Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B
BNSS, 2023 – Section 483
Indian Evidence Act – Section 34

Economic offence – Multi-crore fraud – Bail granted – Right to liberty and speedy trial – 23 months of custody – Trial not commenced – Bail on stringent conditions.

⸻

HEADNOTE:
Delhi High Court granted bail to an accused allegedly involved in a ₹55 crore DDA property fraud. Court held prolonged incarceration violates Article 21, especially when charges are yet to be framed and trial is nowhere in sight. Observed that liberty cannot be denied indefinitely.

⸻

BRIEF FACTS:
Accused allegedly defrauded businessmen by falsely promising recovery of forfeited bid amounts from DDA and allotting forged DDA plots. Forged documents and fake officials were used. Case based largely on documents, diary entries, and oral testimony of complainants. Petitioner in custody since May 2023.

⸻

PETITIONER’S ARGUMENTS:
• In custody for 23 months; trial not commenced.
• Evidence is documentary; no chance of tampering.
• No direct evidence links forged documents to petitioner.
• Diary cited lacks evidentiary admissibility.
• DDA email contradicts timeline of petitioner’s involvement.
• 52 out of 67 demand drafts were credited to DDA’s own account.
• Relied on Manish Sisodia v. ED, Sanjay Chandra v. CBI.

⸻

STATE’S ARGUMENTS:
• Petitioner was declared a proclaimed offender.
• May influence witnesses and tamper with evidence.
• Was instrumental in fraud; victim count was high.

⸻

COURT’S REASONING:
• Trial not likely to conclude soon; over 100 witnesses listed.
• Case rests on documents already recovered and in record.
• No recovery now required from petitioner.
• Custody of 23 months unjustified without progress in trial.
• Imposed conditions to prevent flight risk and witness tampering.
• Applied principles from Sanjay Chandra, Satender Kumar Antil, Manish Sisodia, and Ramkripal Meena.

⸻

JUDGMENT:
Regular Bail Granted
Petitioner directed to furnish personal bond of ₹1,00,000 with like surety and comply with specified conditions.

Nyay Sutra

05/06/2025

25/05/2025

24/05/2025

23/05/2025

21/05/2025

20/05/2025

06/05/2025

06/05/2025

03/05/2025

03/05/2025

03/05/2025

17/04/2025

Address

Opening Hours

Telephone

Website

Alerts

Contact The Practice

Shortcuts

Share

Category

Monday	10am - 9pm
Tuesday	10am - 9pm
Wednesday	10am - 9pm
Thursday	10am - 9pm
Friday	10am - 9pm
Saturday	10am - 9pm