Supreme Court stays proceedings before Trial Court, Justice Bibek Chaudhuri refused to quash FIR in a private dispute under corporate law

In Sarita Bajaj & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Home Department, Govt. of Bihar & Ors. (2025), Supreme Court's bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed an order dated July 18, 2025 staying further proceedings before the Trial Court. Justice Bibek Chaudhuri of Patna High Court had passed a 20-page long judgement dated May 9, 2025, wherein, he concluded:"....I have no other alternative but to hold that in the instant case, the F.I.R. being Kotwali P. S. Case No. 45 of 2024, dated 18th August, 2023, cannot be quashed. 32. The issue involving forgery and a criminal investigation has not been complained of by any instrumentality of the State. The dispute is absolutely private in nature involving two full brothers and their families in respect of partition and subsequent financial irregularity of family-owned companies. Therefore, no writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India lies. 33. The instant writ petition is, thus, dismissed on contest."

Drawing on the judgement passed by National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, Justice Chaudhari was "convinced that the allegation made by the Petitioner for outstanding loan is frivolous as the Learned Court has already adjudicated the matter in detail and has come to its finding."  He observed:"The writ courts often do not delve deeply into factual disputes and the evidences as to whether the signatures done on Securities Transfer Form (SH-4) was fabricated or not and so the Court can not come to the conclusion as to whether the signature is forged or not but has come across the Judgement of NCLAT, New Delhi where it is seen that the Petitioners were previously capable of producing false document."

Sarita Bajaj, the Petitioner had invoked Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the FIR registered on January 16, 2024 at Kotwali Police Station in 2024 for the offences alleged to have been committed under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 

On January 16, 2024, Sushil Kumar Bajaj, the brother of Ajay Kumar Bajaj, Petitioner No. 2, had submitted a written complaint to the Station House Officer of Kotwali Police Station, alleging inter alia, that Ajay Kumar Bajaj (son of Late Purshottam Das), Awi Bajaj (son of Ajay Kumar Bajaj), Sarita Bajaj (wife of Ajay Kumar Bajaj), and Asit Baran Paul (Chartered Accountant) were involved in fabricating documents to unlawfully transfer of shares of Bajaj Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., which belonged to him, into the names of Awi Bajaj and Sarita Bajaj. He also alleged that the accused forged a letter to illegally withdraw funds from the account of Kanika Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., and subsequently transferred the money to another company, Mandyati Dealcom Private Limited. The complainant, Sushil Kumar Bajaj, and the 4th accused, Ajay Kumar Bajaj, are entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)/Family Partition agreement. According to the agreement, it was decided that Bajaj Buildcon Private Limited, along with other associated companies, would be transferred to Ajay Kumar Bajaj. The parties agreed to close all existing bank accounts of the respective companies and subsequently will transfer the shares. 

The terms of the Family Partition clearly indicated that the first party refers to Sushil Kumar Bajaj and his family, while the second party refers to Ajay Kumar Bajaj and his family. Clause 1 of the memorandum outlines the companies that will be transferred to the first party (the informant), and Clause 2 details the companies that will be given to the second party (Ajay Kumar Bajaj) and his family. The informant acknowledged the existence of this partition deed in his written complaint. It was confirmed that following the transfer of ownership, the shares of the respective companies will also be transferred to the names of the relevant parties and their families. In accordance with the agreed arrangement, Petitioner No. 1, Sarita Bajaj, and Petitioner No. 3, Awi Bajaj, were appointed as Directors of Bajaj Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. On February 27, 2021, the informant submitted his resignation from the Directorship of Bajaj Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. and executed a formal instrument of transfer as required under Section 56 of the Companies Act, 2013. 

On February 27, 2021, on 27.02.2021, the informant executed two instruments of transfer. One instrument was executed with Sarita Bajaj, transferring 1,11,800 (One Lakh Eleven Thousand Eight Hundred) shares of Bajaj Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., which belonged to the informant, to her, in strict compliance with the terms of the family partition. It is important to note here that while the informant also resigned from Balaji Electrosteels Limited, as indicated in a notice, dated August 30, 2021, he did not transfer the shares of Balaji Electrosteels Limited, despite being obligated to do so. On February 27, 2021, the informant executed another instrument of transfer, through which he transferred 3,20,000 (Three Lakh Twenty Thousand) shares of Bajaj Buildcon Pvt. ltd to Awi Bajaj. These share transfers were carried out in full compliance with the provisions of the Companies Act, and the relevant details were duly communicated to the Registrar of Companies. In fact, the informant formally surrendered the shares to be transferred, and a certificate of transfer was subsequently issued. The instruments of transfer were properly stamped, executed in the presence of witnesses, and have never been contested or disputed previously. It is important to note that on February 28, 2021, a meeting of the Board of Directors of Bajaj Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. was held, during which it was resolved to accept the informant's resignation from the Directorship of the company. Ajay Kumar Bajaj was authorized to file DIR-12 and any other required documents with the Registrar of Companies, as per the provisions of the Companies Act. Another Board meeting of Balaji Electrosteels Limited took place, and through a resolution, dated August 31, 2021, the informant's resignation from the company was formally accepted. On April 3, 2021, another meeting of the Board of Directors of Bajaj Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. was held. The informant claims that he was not notified, informed, or made aware of the meeting.

The informant had already initiated proceedings before the National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata Bench, in 2022, seeking a declaration that the instruments of transfer, dated February 27, 2021 were forged and illegal, along with other related reliefs. Notably, certain terms of the Memorandum of Family Partition were not complied with or honoured by the informant. In response, Ajay Kumar Bajaj had filed a suit for partition in the Court of Sub-Judge-1, Patna, which has been registered as a Title Suit of 2023. Among other allegations, the informant alleged that Kanika Buildcon Private Limited took a loan of Rs. 9,13,00,000.00 (Nine Crore Thirteen Lakh) only from Mandyati Dealcom Private Limited for the period between 2010 and 2017. The informant also claimed that according to their understanding, the loan does not incur any interest. 

Under the terms of the family partition, Kanika Buildcon was transferred to the informant, while Mandyati Dealcom was transferred to Ajay Kumar Bajaj. As a result, the rights and liabilities associated with the respective companies were also transferred to the respective parties. Ajay Kumar Bajaj sent a letter under the provisions of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Code, demanding that Kanika Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. pay an amount of Rs. 18,37,51,400/- (Eighteen Crore Thirty Seven Lakh Fifty One Thousand Four Hundred) only. 

Besides this, an application was filed by Mandyati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. against Kanika Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. before the National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata Bench in 2022, seeking recovery of Rs. 18,37,51,400/- (Eighteen Crore Thirty Seven Lakh Fifty One Thousand Four Hundred) only, which includes both the principal amount of Rs. 1,22,50,000/- and interest of Rs. 17,15,01,400. 

During the proceedings before the National Company Law Tribunal, it was admitted that Kanika Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. owes Rs. 1,22,50,000. On November 8, 2023, the Tribunal admitted the application and initiated the insolvency resolution process for Kanika Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Kanika Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. filed an appeal before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, registered as Company Appeal (AT) No. 1540 of 2020. In connection with this, a demand draft for Rs. 1,22,50,000/- was handed over to Mandyati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd., as evident from the order, dated December 4, 2023.

Notably, in the counter affidavit, filed by Sushil Kumar Bajaj, the Respondent No. 5, dated February 4, 2025, the High Court found that the accused individually and unlawfully transferred the share of Respondent No. 5 (the informant) amounting to Rs. 1,98,50,000/- to Awi Bajaj (Petitioner No. 3), and Rs. 69,10,000/- to Sarita Bajaj (Petitioner No. 1). These transfers were made using forged share transfer deeds. The transfer was not authorized by the Board of Directors, nor were the transferees’ signatures obtained.

Although the transfer of shares was recorded with a Board Resolution, dated April 3, 2021, Respondent No. 5 (the informant) was not notified of the meeting, nor were the transferees informed. In collusion with C.A., Asit Baron Paul, the accused parties falsified the share transfer, and forged documents were submitted, which are now part of the records at the Register of Companies.. In regard to the loan amount, being levied on the Kanika Buildcon (which is operated by Respondent No. 5) the Respondent submits that before the partition, both the petitioners and Respondent No. 5 (the informant) jointly handled the company and financially supported each other. As part of this arrangement, Kanika Buildcon managed by Respondent No. 5, took a loan/advance of Rs. 9,13,00,000/- from Mandyati Dealcom, owned by the accused (petitioners), between September, 2010 and April, 2017, which was mostly repaid.

However, after the family partition, Mandyati Dealcom unexpectedly demanded Rs. 18,06,20,352/- (eighteen crores, six lakhs, twenty thousand, three hundred and fifty-two), while only Rs. 1,22,50,000/- remained outstanding against the original loan of Rs. 9,13,00,000/-. Later, Respondent No. 5 discovered that Ajay Kumar Bajaj had filed a false case in the Company Court, claiming that, as a Director of Kanika Buildcon, he had written a letter to Sushil Bajaj (Respondent No. 5/informant), the then Director of Mandyati Dealcom, accepting a loan of Rs. 10,00,00,000/- with interest. For the same, an application was filed under Section 7 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) by the Petitioners in December, 2022, claiming an amount of Rs. 18,37,51,400/- which include principal amount of Rs. 1,22,50,000/- and the interest of 17,15,01,400/- till 31.07.2022. Date of default for the same was mentioned as August 2, 2021. In the application under Section 7 of IBC, the Appellant claimed that conditions of loans were set out in writing in letter, dated September 20, 2010, written by Director of the Corporate Debtor Company to the Financial Creditor. The matter was first adjudicated by NCLT, Kolkata Bench and later went in appeal to NCLAT New Delhi.

 

Suit for negative declaration that defendant is not legally married to plaintiff is maintainable: Bombay High Court

In Haridas Mahadev Sasne vs. Tejasvini Krushna Bhosale (2025), Bombay High Court's Justice N.  J. Jamadar held that "a suit for a negative declaration that the defendant is not legally married to the plaintiff is maintainable Consequently, the civil Judge can not be said to have committed any error in rejecting the application for rejection of the plaint" and rejected the civil revision application in its order dated March 6, 2025. The case was filed on February, 6, 2024. 

It is a case wherein the plaintiff, the complainant sought a declaration that no marriage occurred between her and the defendant, who falsely claimed marital status. 

The Court observed: the submission that a suit for mere declaration without any consequential relief, is not maintainable also does not carry much conviction. In a case of the present nature, the declaration about the marital status itself assumes the character of a substantive relief. The plaintiff in such a case is not required to seek any further relief. The declaration of marital status bears upon the rights and obligations of the parties and also serves the purpose of vindication of legal character."

A pivotal question of law which arose for consideration, in the revision application, was “whether a suit for declaration simpliciter that there is no marital relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant, is maintainable” ? 

The plaintiff and the defendant were residents of the same village. They were acquainted with each other. The defendant took undue advantage of the proximity, and falsely claimed that defendant’s marriage was solemnized with the plaintiff on September 21, 2018 at Janjagruti Matrimonial Alliance Center, Chiplun. Asserting that no valid marriage was ever solemnized between the plaintiff and the defendant and the latter was falsely claiming that the plaintiff is the wife of the defendant, the plaintiff instituted a suit for a declaration that no marriage was solemnized between the plaintiff and the defendant on September 21, 2018 or on any other day, at Janjagruit Matrimonail Alliace Center, Chiplun or at any other place. The defendant appeared and resisted the suit. The defendant also filed an application for rejection of the Plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code asserting that the plaintiff was seeking a negative declaration that no marriage was solemnized between the plaintiff and the defendant. Such a negative declaration cannot be granted under the provisions of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act 1963. Thus, there was a bar to the Suit seeking negative declaration. Resultantly, the Plaint was liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code.

The plaintiff resisted the application for rejection of the Plaint contending that if the averments in the plaint are read as a whole, it cannot be said that the plaintiff is seeking a negative declaration. Moreover, the Suit cannot be said to have been instituted under the provisions of Section 34 of the Act of 1963 only. The plaintiff was entitled to seek declaratory relief under Section 9 and Order VII Rule 7 of the Code de hors the provisions contained in Section 34 of the Act of 1963. At any rate, the plaintiff was seeking a declaration as to her status, and, therefore, the purported bar under Section 34 of the Act of 1963 was inapplicable. 

The civil judge was persuaded to reject the application observing that a suit of the present nature for negative declaration was maintainable. The relief sought by the plaintiff was of a substantive nature. Thus, there was no substance in the application. Being aggrieved, the defendant has invoked the revisional jurisdiction.

The counsel for the respondent took the Court through the Plaint, averments in the application for rejection of the Plaint and the reply. He urged

that a person is not entitled to seek a negative declaration under Section 34 of the Act of 1963. It was submitted that the text of Section 34 of the Act of 1963 warrants that the person seeking a declaration must claim to be entitled to any legal character, status or right. A declaration that the plaintiff is not married to the defendant does not

fall within the ambit of the main part of Section 

In the case at hand, the plaintiff is seeking a mere declaration without any consequential relief. Therefore, the proviso to Section 34 of the Act, 1963 precludes the Court from granting a mere declaration. In these circumstances, according to counsel for the respondent a declaratory suit of the present nature is clearly barred. He urged that though there is a conflict of views of the different High Courts on the aspect of maintainability of such a suit, a Division Bench Judgment of Karnataka High Court in the case of Bhuvaneshwari vs . Revappa Alias Rani Siddaramappa Kolli (Since Deceased) by L.Rs 2009 SCC OnLine Kar 738 has categorically ruled that a relief seeking negative declaration as to marriage is beyond the scope of the provisions contained in Section 34 of the Act of 1963. The decision to the contrary by Calcutta High Court in the case of Joyita Saha vs. Rajesh Kumar Pande, AIR 2000 Calcutta 109 does not adequately deal with this aspect. Therefore, the decision in the case of Bhuvaneshwari case commands more persuasive value.

The counsel for the respondent, submitted that the declaration sought in the instant case cannot be said to be negative in character. Section 34 of the Act of 1963 is not the sole source of a declaratory relief. Section 9 of the Code is expansive enough to include a Suit for declaration that the defendant, who falsely claims to be married to the plaintiff, is not the husband of the plaintiff. Therefore, the very premise of the application for the rejection of the Plaint on the count that Section 34 of the Act of 1963 bars a Suit of the present nature, is flawed. He also submitted that the judgment of the Karnataka High Court can not be construed to lay down the ratio that a Suit for a declaration that the plaintiff is not married to the defendant cannot be instituted. The controversy in the case before the Karnataka High Court was regarding the maintainability of a Suit seeking a declaration that the defendant was not the wife of the plaintiff, before the Family Court. Adverting to the provisions contained in Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 the Karnataka High Court ruled that a relief in the nature of a negative declaration in respect of a marriage does not fall within the ambit of the provisions contained in the Explanation to Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984. 

He further submitted that the Division Bench of Karnataka High Court has made a passing observation that the relief of the instant nature is beyond the scope of section 34 of the Act, 1963. The Court has not considered the issue elaborately. The provisions and precedents which govern the field have not been considered. Thus, the said decision can be said to be a precedent sub silentio. To this end, reliance was placed on a Supreme Court judgment in the case of A-One Granites vs. State of U.P. and Ors. (2001) 3 SCC 537.

According to him, as a matter of principle, it cannot be said that a suit for negative declaration is not at all maintainable. The Court essentially deals with the legal character, right or status. The form of declaration is not material. He placed reliance on a judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Narhar Raj (died) by L.Rs and Ors. vs. Tirupathybibi and Anr. 2002 SCC OnLine AP 1032. wherein the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that a suit for a relief of negative declaration is maintainable.

The Court took note of the nature and contours of a declaratory decree. A declaratory decree, in effect, cements and strengthens the legal character, right or status a person asserts, and denied by another. A declaration as to legal character or status protects from adverse attacks on title to such right, character or status and obviates further litigation by putting a judicial imprimatur over such right, character or status. Ordinarily a declaratory relief is accompanied by the consequential relief. However, it is not inconceivable that, in a given case, declaration itself assumes the character of a substantive relief. Undoubtedly, in a vast majority of cases, declaratory relief is sought under section 34 of the Act, 1963. However, that is not the sole repository of the power to grant a declaration. A civil Court in exercise of its ordinary civil jurisdiction, referable to section 9 of the Code, may grant a declaration dehors the provisions contained in section 34 of the Act, 1963.

In order to appreciate the submissions of the  counsel for the applicant, the provisions of section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 was cited. It reads: "Discretion of court as to declaration of status or right.—Any person entitled to any legal character, or to any right as to any property, may institute a suit against any person denying, or interested to deny, his title to such character or right, and the court may in its

discretion make therein a declaration that he is so entitled, and the plaintiff need not in such suit ask for any further relief. Provided that no court shall make any such declaration where the plaintiff, being able to seek further relief than a mere declaration of title, omits to do so.

A bare perusal of the provision indicates that any person entitled to any legal character or any right in relation to any property, may sue for declaration. The words “character” and “property” are of expansive nature. To illustrate,

“character” may include the status and relation qua another person. The character may encompass within its scope an office, privilege and position with regard to a given entity. All attributes which the law vests in a person on account of an office, position, status or relation may fall within the ambit of the term “legal character”.

Secondly, the declaration can be sought against any person denying the first person’s title to such character or right, and also against any person interested to deny first person’s title to such legal

character or right.

Thirdly, the proviso to section 34, precludes the Court from granting a declaration simpliciter where the plaintiff though able to seek further consequential relief, than a mere declaration omits to do so. The proviso thus warrants a further inquiry whether in the facts of the case, the plaintiff is able to seek further consequential relief and yet omitted to do so. Obliviously the necessity and adequacy of consequential relief, in addition to declaration, would hinge upon the facts and circumstances of each case.

The declaration under section 34 of the Act, 1963 is, however, not exhaustive of the power of the civil Court to grant declaratory reliefs. A profitable reference, in this context, can be made to a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Vemareddi Ramaraghava Reddy and Ors. vs. Konduru Seshu Reddy and Ors. AIR 1967 Supreme Court 436 wherein the Supreme Court traced the development of the law with regard to declaratory action and enunciated that section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 (Old), was not exhaustive of cases in which a declaratory decree may be made and the civil Courts have the power to grant such declaration independent

thereof. The observation in the paragraph 11 reads: "In our opinion, s. 42 of the Specific Relief Act is not exhaustive of the cases in which a declaratory decree may be made and the courts have power to grant such a decree independently of the requirements of the section. It follows, therefore, in the present case that the suit of the

plaintiff for a declaration that the compromise decree is not binding on the deity is maintainable as falling outside the purview of S. 42 of the Specific Relief Act."

The Supreme Court further expounded the law in the case of M/s. Supreme General Films Exchange Ltd. vs. His Highness Maharaja Sir Brijnath Singhji Deo of Maihar and Ors. AIR 1975 Supreme Court 1810.  The Court enunciated that section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 merely gives statutory recognition to well recognized type of declaratory relief and subjects it to a limitation, but it cannot be deemed to exhaust every kind of declaratory relief or to circumscribe the jurisdiction of Courts to give declarations of right in appropriate cases falling outside Section 42.

The edifice of the submission of counsel for the applicant is that section 34 of the Act, 1963, bars the declaration, as sought in the instant case, and, therefore, the plaint deserves to be rejected stands dismantled. A civil Court is competent to grant a declaration regarding the marital status dehors the provisions contained in section 34 of the Act, 1963.

The Court examined as to whether a negative declaration as to marital status can be granted. First and foremost, from the phraseology of section 34 of the Act, 1963, an inexorable inference can not be drawn that such a negative declaration, cannot be made. The term legal character is of wide amplitude. The ‘marital status’ as a personal attribute and qua a particular person, squarely falls within the ambit of legal character. If a person can seek a declaration that he is legally weeded to the defendant, a fortiori , there does not seem any impediment in seeking a declaration that he is not married to the defendant. The negative form

of declaration is nothing but assertion of a particular positive marital status. If the defendant denies or is interested in denying such marital status asserted by the plaintiff, a declaration can be legitimately sought under the provisions of section 34 of the Act, 1963 itself.

The Court observed: "there seems to be a cleavage in the judicial opinion of the High Courts on the tenability of such a suit for negative declaration as to marital status." In the case of Bhuvaneshwari which constituted the sheet anchor of submission of counsel of the applicant, a Division Bench of Karnataka High Court while deciding the question as to whether a suit seeking declaration that the defendant is not the wife of the plaintiff is maintainable before the Family Court, after considering the provisions contained in section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 which confers the jurisdiction upon a Family Court, held that the relief in the nature of negative declaration in respect of a marriage, is not tenable before the Family Court. After recording this view, the Division Bench ventured to add that the relief of such nature was even beyond the scope of section 34 of the Act, 1963. The observations in paragraph 22 of the judgment are relevant and hence extracted. It reads:-"In fact, we find a relief of this nature is even beyond the scope of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act as a negative declaratory relief to declare that the marriage had never taken place, is not one that can come within scope of Section 34 of the Specific' Relief Act. Accordingly, when it is a relief that cannot be granted in law, there is no way the civil court can grant a declaratory relief."

A Division Bench of Calcutta High Court, in the case of Joyita Saha case ruled that since the marriage itself was denied and the prayer was made in the suit for a declaration that there was no marriage between the parties, the suit as framed was quite maintainable in law. The controversy, however, seems to have been settled by a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Balram Yadav vs. Fulmaniya Yadav (2016) 13 SCC 308. In this case, the High Court of Chattisgarh had allowed an appeal against a decree passed by the Family Court to the effect that the respondent was not the legally married wife, on the ground that a negative declaration was outside the jurisdiction of the Family Court. Referring to the provisions contained in sections 7 and 8 of the Family Court Act, 1984 the Supreme Court held that in case there is a dispute on the matrimonial status of any person, a declaration in that regard has to be sought only before the Family Court. It makes no difference as to whether it is an affirmative or negative relief. What is important is a declaration regarding marital status. 

The observations in paragraph 7 are material and hence it is extracted. It reads: "Under Section 7(1) Explanation (b), a Suit or a proceeding for a declaration as to the validity of both marriage and matrimonial status of a person is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Family Court, since under Section 8, all those jurisdictions covered under Section 7 are excluded from the purview of the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts. In case, there is a dispute on the matrimonial status of any person, a declaration in that regard has to be sought only before the Family Court. It makes no difference as to whether it is an affirmative relief or a negative relief. What is important is the declaration regarding the matrimonial status. Section 20 also endorses the view which we have taken, since the Family Courts Act, 1984, has an overriding effect on other laws."

The counsel of the applicant attempted to distinguish this judgment by canvassing a submission that the ratio in this decision is restricted to the Family Court, and that a civil Court would not be empowered to grant negative declaration as to marital status. 

Bombay High Court observed: "The submission simply does not merit countenance." The High Court underlined that "the civil Court has power to grant declaratory relief even independently of section 34 of the Act, 1963. The principle that the form of declaration does not matter and it is the status or legal character with regard to which the Court makes the declaration that is of substance, applies with even greater force to the proceedings before the civil Court which has inherent jurisdiction to decide all suits of civil nature unless their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred."

 

Supreme Court reverses Trial Court's 1992 verdict, High Court's 2015 verdict in a abduction and murder case of 1985

Neelam breathed her last in Simaltalla, Sikandra, Munger, Bihar on August 30, 1985 after her reported abduction by seven persons from the house which occurred on that day. The dead body of Neelam was not even discovered until the following morning. According to the post mortem report the death happened at 5 PM. But according to the informant the incident of abduction took place around 10:00 PM. Although, the post mortem report indicated that the death of the deceased was unnatural and the commission of murder can-not be ruled out. But no direct evidence on record proved the commission of murder by the accused persons. The link of causation between the accused persons and the alleged offence was found conspicuously missing.

An FIR was lodged against seven accused persons, namely –Krishna Nandan Singh, Ram Nandan Singh, Raj Nandan Singh, Shyam Nandan Singh, Bhagwan Singh, Vijoy Singh/Sharma and Tanik Singh. After investigation a chargesheet was filed. The Trial Court delivered the judgement in June 1992. The High Court delivered the judgement in March 2015 and the Supreme Court in September 2024. 

Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma set aside the judgement of the Patna High Court's Division Bench comprising Justices Dharnidhar Jha and Amaresh Kumar Lal in a case arising out of 1985 case from Munger's Sikandra Thana on September 25, 2024. The High Court's 38 page long judgement was delivered on March 26, 2015.  It was authored by Justice Jha. 

In its 26 page long judgement, the Court concluded: "the findings of conviction arrived at by the Trial Court and the High Court are not sustainable. Moreover, the High Court erred in reversing the acquittal of A-6 and A-7. Accordingly, the impugned judgment as well as the judgment rendered by the Trial Court (to the extent of conviction of A-1 to A-5) are set aside, and all seven accused persons (appellants) are hereby acquitted of all the charges levelled upon them. The appellants are directed to be released forthwith, if lying in custody."

The Supreme Court has recorded that the prosecution did not examine the three natural witnesses of the incident namely, Doman Tenti, Daso Mistry and Kumud Ranjan Singh. "There is no explanation for non-examination of the natural eye witnesses." It has raised doubt about the conduct of Ramanand Singh (P.W.18) the informant who was the brother-in-law of Neelam, the deceased. Neelam was married to Ashok Kumar Singh who happened to be the brother of Ramanand Singh. He did not try to prevent the accused persons from entering the premises or from abducting the deceased or from taking away the deceased on their shoulders in front of his eyes. The Court has detected inconsistency in the testimonies of three Prosecution Witnesses who has submitted that while coming from Lakhisarai to Sikandra Chowk, Ghogsha came first, followed by Lohanda and Simaltalla. In such circumstances, their presence at Sikandra Chowk at 10:00 PM must be explained to the satisfaction of the Court. For, if they were going to their village, there was no occasion for them to come to Simaltalla as it did not fall on their way. But no such explanation is forthcoming from the material on record. It found it strange that the High Court too had detected it with regard to the testimony one of the Prosecution Witnesses but it failed to extend its finding to the other two Prosecution Witnesses who were similarly placed. It has inferred that "the so-called eye witnesses of the incident were actually accessories after the fact and not accessories to the fact." It renders the entire version of the prosecution as improbable and unreliable.

The Trial Court and High Court did not doubt the fact that Neelam was residing in her father’s house at Simaltalla but Supreme Court has reservations regarding its veracity. It noted that the investigating officer had inspected the house and no direct material, except some make-up articles, could be gathered so as to indicate that Neelam was actually residing there. The Court has recorded that Chando Devi, the sister of Ram Chabila Singh one of the tenants in the house was also residing in the same portion of the house but the High Court did take note of this fact but explained it away by observing that since Chando Devi was a widow, the make-up articles could not have belonged to her as there was no need for her to put on make-up being a widow. The judgement reads: "Mere presence of certain make-up articles cannot be a conclusive proof of the fact that the deceased was residing in the said house, especially when another woman was admittedly residing there. Furthermore, if Neelam was indeed residing there, her other belongings such as clothes etc. ought to have been found in the house and even if not so, the other residents of the same house could have come forward to depose in support of the said fact." Notably, the prosecution has not spotted any room in the entire house wherein the informant was residing. His own presence at the place of occurrence is doubtful.

The Court observed: "In our opinion, the observation of the High Court is not only legally untenable but also highly objectionable. A sweeping observation of this nature is not commensurate with the sensitivity and neutrality expected from a court of law, specifically when the same is not made out from any evidence on record."

The Court disapproved of the approach of the High Court in reversing the acquittal of Vijay Singh @ Vijay Kumar Sharma (Accused No. 6) and Tanik Singh @ Awadh Kishore Prasad (Accused No.7) "was not in line with the settled law pertaining to reversal of acquittals." It observed: "The Trial Court had acquitted the said two accused persons on the basis of a thorough appreciation of evidence and the High Court merely observed that their acquittal was based on the improbable statement of PW5 and since the evidence of PW5 stood excluded from the record, there was no reason left for the acquittal of A-6 and A-7. Pertinently, the High Court did not arrive at any finding of illegality or perversity in the opinion of the Trial Court on that count. Furthermore, it did not arrive at any positive finding of involvement of the said two accused persons within the sphere of common intention with the remaining accused persons. Equally, the exclusion of the evidence of PW5, without explaining as to how the evidence of PW2 and PW4 was not liable to be excluded in the same manner, was in-correct and erroneous." This is with reference to the three eye witnesses whose testimony appear unreliable. 

The Court noted that the High Court was well within its powers to appreciate the evidence on record in its exercise of appellate powers but "in order to reverse a finding of acquittal, a higher threshold is required." It underles that "For, the presumption of innocence operating in favour of an accused through-out the trial gets concretized with a finding of acquittal by the Trial Court. Thus, such a finding could not be reversed merely because the possibility of an alternate view was alive. Rather, the view taken by the Trial Court must be held to be completely unsustainable and not a probable view. The High Court, in the impugned judgment, took a cursory view of the matter and reversed the acquittal of A-6 and A-7 without arriving at any finding of illegality or perversity or impossibility of the Trial Court’s view or non-appreciation of evidence by the Trial Court."

The Court relied on the exposition of law in Sanjeev v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2022)., wherein the Supreme Court has summarized the position in this regard. It is well settled that while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, the reasons which had weighed with the trial court in acquitting the accused must be dealt with, in case the appellate court is of the view that the acquittal rendered by the trial court deserves to be upturned. With an order of acquittal by the trial court, the normal presumption of innocence in a criminal matter gets reinforced. If two views are possible from the evidence on record, the appellate court must be extremely slow in interfering with the appeal against acquittal. 

Justice Bela Trivedi led bench noted that "the case of the prosecution is full of glaring doubts as regards the offence of abduction", and "the offence of murder is entirely dependent on circumstantial evidence....The circumstantial evidence emanating from the facts sur-rounding the offence of abduction, such as the testimonies of eye witnesses, has failed to meet the test of proof and cannot be termed as proved in the eyes of law. Therefore, the foundation of circumstantial evidence having fallen down, no inference could be drawn from it to infer the commission of the offence under Section 302 IPC by the accused persons. It is trite law that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, the chain of evidence must be complete and must give out an inescapable conclusion of guilt. In the pre-sent case, the prosecution case is far from meeting that standard."

With regard to motive, the Court observed: "motive has a bearing only when the evidence on record is sufficient to prove the ingredients of the offences under consideration."

The Court observed: "Without the proof of foundational facts, the case of the prosecution cannot succeed on the presence of motive alone....The accused persons and the eyewitnesses belong to the same family and the presence of a property related dispute is evident. In a hypothetical sense, both the sides could benefit from implicating the other. In such circumstances, placing reliance upon motive alone could be a double-edged sword."

These seven accused persons were put on trial by the Sessions Judge who were charged under Sections 323, 302, 364, 449, 450, 380/34 and 120B of the IPC. The accused Vijoy Singh @ Vijoy Kumar Sharma and Tanik Singh @ Awadh Kishore Prasad Singh were charged under Sections 342/34 of the IPC. The judgment of the Sessions Judge had acquitted the two accused, namely, Vijoy Singh Sharma and Tanik Singh of all the charges. The five other accused persons were convicted of committing offences under Sections 364/34 and 302/34 of the IPC. They were also acquitted of charges under Sections 449, 450, 380, 323 and 120B of the IPC. The five appellants, who had been convicted under Sections 364/34 and 302/34 of the IPC were heard on sentence and each of them was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life under each of the two counts, the sentences being directed to run concurrently.

The High Court set aside the judgment of acquittal delivered by 12th Additional Sessions Judge, Munger on June 5, 1992 in respect of respondents Vijay Singh @ Vijay Kumar Sharma and Tanik Singh @ Awadh Kishore Prasad Singh by allowing the Government Appeal. It held the two guilty of committing offences under Sections 364/34 and 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and had directed each of them to suffer rigorous imprisonment on each of the two counts each for life. 

In his judgement, the High Court noted that the respondents had submitted that they had not committed the offences under Sections 364 and 302 of the IPC. He observed: the charges had been framed under Sections 364/34 and 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code does not define any substantive sentence rather it lays down a rule of evidence that if from material evidence, it is shown that the accused persons had acted in furtherance of their common intention, then even if the main act had been committed by any of them all of them was equally liable for the offence as if the same had been committed by him. In order to bringing the case of an accused into the purview of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the Court has to find out as to whether there was any pre-meeting of mind or in other words had there been any consultations between the accused persons which could fall in the class of conspiracy hatched up by them to commit some unlawful act or an act which may not be unlawful if the means of committing it was unlawful. There could not be direct evidence in such matters and in most of the cases, the Court has to depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case so as to find out as to whether there had been pre-concert between the accused persons before they had embarked upon achieving their goal.

The High Court's judgement records that the respondents Vijay Singh @ Vijay Kumar Sharma and Tanik Singh @ Awadh Kishore Prasad Singh had been shown from the evidence, to have put the informant under wrongful confinement when they had taken him into the corner of the house near a well. The purpose of this act of the two respondents was only to eliminate any chances of resistance coming into the further acts of the other accused persons of capturing Neelam from inside the house and taking her away. The other accused persons entered inside the house and dragged Neelam out and lifted her to take her away and subsequently her dead body was found in a paddy field. Thus, the sharing of the common intention by contributing into the commission of the offence in their own way by the two respondents of the Governmental Appeal is clearly established. 

The High Court's judgement had "set aside the judgment of acquittal in respect of respondents Vijay Singh @ Vijay Kumar Sharma and Tanik Singh @ Awadh Kishore Prasad Singh by allowing the Government Appeal." The Court held "the two guilty of committing offences under Sections 364/34 and 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and direct each of them to suffer rigorous imprisonment on each of the two counts each for life. In the result, the Government Appeal is allowed. The connected two criminal appeals appear of no merit and they are dismissed."

These five appellants had preferred the two criminal appeals against their conviction and sentence imposed upon them. The State of Bihar had preferred a separate appeal for challenging the acquittal of Vijoy Singh @ Vijoy Kumar Sharma and Tanik Singh @ Awadh Kishore Prasad Singh. These appeals arose out of the same judgment. The High Court had heard them together and had disposed of by a common judgment.