Criminal Law – Double Jeopardy – Section 300(1) CrPC – Article 20(2) of the Constitution – Petitioner previously tried and convicted by JMFC Vadodara for offences under Sections 419/420 IPC in relation to forged bank drafts – Subsequently charge-sheeted before Trial Court at Dhar for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 120-B IPC in relation to the same bank drafts – Trial Court and Revisional Court rejected the application under Section 300(1) CrPC – Held: Two of the three bank drafts forming the subject matter of the Dhar case were identical to those in the Vadodara case; addition of one more draft at Vadodara does not change the nature of the offence – Subject matter and nature of offence being the same, Section 300(1) CrPC and Article 20(2) of the Constitution are squarely applicable – Proceedings at Dhar quashed [Paras 10–13].

Double Jeopardy – Application under Section 300(1) CrPC – Delay – Limitation – Revisional Court erred in dismissing the application under Section 300(1) CrPC solely on the ground of delay – Held: The protection against being tried for the same offence twice is not merely a statutory right but a constitutional and fundamental right under Article 20(2) – An application invoking the doctrine of double jeopardy cannot be rejected on the ground of delay or on the ground that evidence would be required to be led; such protection can be exercised at any point in the life of a trial [Para 12].

Decision: Petition allowed – Impugned order dated 02.09.2011 passed by the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Dhar, in Criminal Revision No. 128/2011 set aside – Further proceedings in Criminal Case No. 2626 of 2007 pending before the Trial Court at Dhar quashed.

Criminal Law – Bail – BNSS – Non-Compliance of Section 47 – Grounds of Arrest in Writing – Cyber Crime Case – Five petitioners arrested in connection with a cyber crime case involving operation of mule bank accounts for transfer of illegal funds – Arrests made after registration of FIR dated 09.01.2026 – Petitioners Rudra Madhab Mohapatra, Pananga Narayan Dash @ Pinu and Smruti Ranjan Moharana @ Chandan set up plea of non-compliance of Section 47 of BNSS – Case Diary revealed no mention of date and time of arrest of petitioner Rudra Madhab Mohapatra; no written grounds of arrest furnished to any of the petitioners either immediately after arrest or two hours prior to production before Magistrate for remand – Held: Non-compliance of Sections 47/48 of BNSS read with Article 22(1) of the Constitution entitles all petitioners to be released on bail – Bail allowed in all five cases on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.50,000/- each with one surety [Paras 11-15].

Criminal Law – Arrest – Grounds of Arrest – Writing Mandatory – Mode and Manner – Section 47 BNSS – Article 22(1) of Constitution – Section 47 of BNSS is a statutory mandate as well as a constitutional safeguard against arbitrary arrest and detention – Grounds of arrest must be communicated in writing to the arrestee in the language he/she understands – In cases where arresting officer is unable to communicate grounds in writing at the time of arrest, it may be done orally, followed by written communication within a reasonable time and at least two hours prior to production for remand – In cases where police are already in possession of documentary material furnishing a cogent basis for arrest, written grounds must be furnished at the time of arrest itself – Non-compliance renders arrest and subsequent remand illegal – Law prospectively applicable from date of judgment in Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra [Paras 5-11].

Criminal Law – Section 48 BNSS – Obligation to Inform Relatives/Friends of Arrest – Section 48 of BNSS casts a statutory obligation on the arresting officer to forthwith inform relatives, friends or persons nominated by the arrestee of the arrest and the place of detention – Additionally, duty is cast on the Magistrate before whom the arrested person is produced to satisfy himself that requirements of Section 48(2) and (3) have been complied with – These provisions are not empty formality; liberty of a person is priceless and cannot be compensated in terms of money [Paras 5-7, 12].

Criminal Law – Bail – Parity – Co-accused Released – Charge Sheet Filed – Principal accused Bablu Nayak already granted bail by Additional Sessions Judge for non-compliance of Section 47 of BNSS – Other co-accused also enlarged on bail – Charge sheet submitted – Offences triable by Magistrate notwithstanding maximum punishment of life imprisonment under Sections 338/340 of BNS – Parity extended to petitioners [Paras 13-14].

Decision: All five bail applications allowed – Each petitioner directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.50,000/- with one solvent surety to the satisfaction of the Court seized of the case on such terms and conditions as deemed fit – Soft copy of judgment to be communicated to concerned Court and thereafter to the concerned Jail through e-mail.

Specific Performance – Readiness and Willingness – Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Agreement to Sell – Plaintiff sought specific performance of Agreement to Sell dated 27.01.2003 for a residential property for total consideration of ₹2,35,00,000/-, having paid ₹40,00,000/- upfront – Balance sale consideration of ₹1,95,00,000/- was payable within 45 days of conversion of suit property from leasehold to freehold – Plaintiff admitted knowledge of conversion by 07.10.2003 at the latest, yet failed to tender the entire balance consideration within 45 days thereof – Evidence of PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 revealed that Plaintiff began arranging funds only from January 2004 onwards in partial and piecemeal amounts through Pay Orders made from third-party accounts, each subsequently cancelled – Held: Plaintiff failed to establish continuous readiness and willingness at all material times as required under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Specific performance refused [Paras 9–27, 42–46].

Agreement to Sell – Rescission – Time and Performance – Validity – Seller's replies dated 07.10.2003 and 01.01.2004 called upon the Plaintiff to pay the balance sale consideration along with interest at 12% per annum within 7 days – Plaintiff failed to comply with either demand – Held: ATS stood validly rescinded upon breach of its terms by the Plaintiff – Issue No. 3 decided in favour of Defendant [Paras 32–36].

Forfeiture – Earnest Money – Part Sale Consideration – No Forfeiture Clause – ATS contained no express provision authorising forfeiture of the amount paid – Defendant's own witness (DW-1) acknowledged in cross-examination that the ATS had no forfeiture clause – Held: In the absence of a contractual provision permitting forfeiture and without proof of loss, the Defendant is not entitled to forfeit ₹40,00,000/- paid as part sale consideration – Defendant directed to refund ₹40,00,000/- with simple interest at 9% per annum from 22.11.2003 [Paras 37–41, 47].

Time – Essence of Contract – Immovable Property – Urban Property Prices – In light of steep and continuous rise in urban property values, a purchaser cannot take indefinite shelter under the principle that time is not the essence of a contract for immovable property to cover delays, laches and non-readiness – Even in the absence of an express time-essence clause, performance must occur within a reasonable time – Merely providing for interest on delayed payment cannot be construed as authorising indefinite postponement of performance [Paras 28–30, 44–45].

Decision: Suit partly decreed – Relief of specific performance refused – Defendant directed to refund ₹40,00,000/- with simple interest at 9% per annum from 22.11.2003 until date of actual payment – Pending applications disposed of.

Matrimonial Law – Video Conferencing – Reconciliation Stage – Impermissibility – Andhra Pradesh High Court Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts, 2023 – Scope and Effect – Petitioner/husband residing in Texas, USA sought permission to participate in reconciliation proceedings through video conferencing in matrimonial proceedings pending before Civil Judge – Application dismissed by Trial Court – Held: Video conferencing in matrimonial proceedings is impermissible at the stage of reconciliation until reconciliation fails – Law settled by Supreme Court in Santhini v. Vijaya Venkatesh applies with full force in Andhra Pradesh and is not rendered inapplicable by the AP High Court Rules for Video Conferencing, 2023 – Civil Revision Petition dismissed [Paras 66, 69-72].

Constitutional Law – High Court's Rule-Making Power – Article 227 – Limits – Rules framed by High Court under Article 227(2)(b) of the Constitution cannot take away the basis of a judgment of the Supreme Court – Rules under Article 227(2)(b) shall not be inconsistent with any law for the time being in force – Expression "law" includes not only statutory enactments but also law declared through judicial pronouncements of the Supreme Court binding under Article 141 – Family Courts Act and Hindu Marriage Act fall within the domain of Parliament and State Legislatures; removing the basis of Santhini (supra) would require legislative amendment to those enactments, which lies outside the High Court's rule-making power under Article 227(2) – AP Video Conferencing Rules, 2023, being procedural in nature, apply only where video conferencing is otherwise permissible [Paras 46-57, 64, 68].

Video Conferencing – Matrimonial Disputes – Santhini Judgment – Majority View – Applicability – Minority view expressed in Santhini v. Vijaya Venkatesh permitting video conferencing for reconciliation incorrectly cited in petition – Majority view in Santhini holds that video conferencing may be permitted only after settlement fails, on joint application or consent memoranda by both parties, subject to Family Court's discretion – Nerella Chiranjeevi Arun Kumar (supra), which permitted video conferencing for reconciliation, did not consider Santhini (supra) and cannot be followed as it is contrary to Supreme Court law – No need to declare Nerella Chiranjeevi Arun Kumar per incuriam; when a Co-ordinate Bench judgment conflicts with the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court judgment prevails – Distinction between Civil Court and Family Court forum not relevant for applicability of Santhini (supra) [Paras 11-16, 66-67].

Video Conferencing – Mohammad Razik Shaik – Applicability – Not Per Incuriam – Contention that Mohammad Razik Shaik v. Sufia Sultana Bano Mohammad (2025 SCC OnLine AP 314) is per incuriam for not considering AP Video Conferencing Rules, 2023 rejected – Mohammad Razik Shaik correctly followed the majority view in Santhini (supra) – AP Rules for Video Conferencing, 2023 cannot alter legal position under Santhini (supra) – Impugned order dismissing the application for video conferencing during reconciliation stage is perfectly justified [Paras 22-28, 70-71].

Decision: Civil Revision Petition dismissed – Impugned order dated 24.10.2025 dismissing application for video conferencing during reconciliation stage upheld as consonant with law settled in Santhini v. Vijaya Venkatesh – No order as to costs – Miscellaneous petitions, if any, closed.

Prevention of Corruption Act – Jurisdiction – Special Judge – Magistrate's Jurisdiction Ceases on Addition of PC Act Sections – FIR registered for offences under IPC sections – During investigation, Sections 13(1)(d)/13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act added by order dated 18.09.2006 – Thereafter, matter became a Special Case triable exclusively by Special Judge under Section 4(1) of Prevention of Corruption Act – Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, instead of transmitting the record to the Special Judge, continued to pass orders including extension of time for investigation and taking cognizance of the chargesheet – Held: On addition of sections under Prevention of Corruption Act, Magistrate lost jurisdiction to deal with the matter any further – All orders passed by Magistrate after 18.09.2006 including extension of time for investigation and taking cognizance are without jurisdiction and are set aside and quashed – Record directed to be sent to Special Judge forthwith [Paras 27-28].

Criminal Procedure – West Bengal Amendment – Section 167(5) – Limitation on Investigation – Right to Discharge – Right Lapses on Filing of Chargesheet – Petitioner appeared before Magistrate on 11.06.2006 – Two-year period under Section 167(5)(iii) expired on 11.06.2008 – Petitioner did not file application for stopping investigation or discharge during the pendency of investigation – Application filed only on 12.08.2009, after chargesheet filed on 11.08.2009 and cognizance taken on 12.08.2009 – Held: Section 167(5) of CrPC as amended in West Bengal is intended only to ensure speedy completion of investigation within specified time – Once chargesheet is filed, accused cannot take advantage of the provision – Right to pray for stopping further investigation lapses upon filing of chargesheet – Following Durgesh Chandra Saha v. Bimal Chandra Saha [Paras 21-22].

Criminal Procedure – Prevention of Corruption Act – Nature of Case – Classification under Section 167(5) – Once Sections 13(1)(d)/13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act added, case becomes a Special Case under the PC Act – Such case is not exclusively Sessions-triable under Chapter XVIII of IPC and does not fall under Section 167(5)(ii) but under Section 167(5)(iii) — two-year limitation clause – Date of petitioner's appearance to be reckoned from 11.06.2006 being the date he voluntarily surrendered, not 08.06.2006 [Paras 18-22].

Quashing – Scope – Merits Not Decided – Transfer Ordered – High Court quashed orders passed by Magistrate after 18.09.2006 on jurisdictional grounds alone without going into merits – Revisional order of Additional Sessions Judge also set aside as it upheld void orders of Magistrate – Petitioner at liberty to raise all issues including discharge before Special Judge after transfer of records – Special Judge directed to take appropriate steps including steps for arrest of prime accused [Paras 29-32].

Decision: CRR No.1697 of 2012 disposed of – CRAN No.1 of 2012 disposed of – All orders passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darjeeling after 18.09.2006 set aside and quashed – Order of Additional District and Sessions Judge dated 27.06.2011 set aside – Chief Judicial Magistrate directed to immediately send records of G.R. Case No.59 of 2006 to the concerned Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act – Special Judge directed to take appropriate steps including steps for arrest of prime accused and conclude trial at the earliest – Interim order vacated.

Civil Law – Title – Declaration – Chain of Title – Encroachment – Respondent/plaintiff established title through registered sale deed dated 14.06.2011 (Ex.A4) supported by antecedent documents including Power of Attorney (Ex.A1) and prior sale deeds (Ex.A3 and Ex.A8), forming a consistent chain of title – Appellant/defendant relied upon sale deed dated 11.11.2010 (Ex.B4) and release deed (Ex.B5) but documents exhibited inconsistencies in boundary descriptions and lacked clarity as to precise extent of property – Contention that appellant's title traced back to 1975 not substantiated with cogent evidence relating to disputed portion – Held: Trial Court's finding accepting respondent's title as superior and granting declaration and recovery of possession to the extent of encroachment does not warrant interference [Paras 28-29].

Civil Law – Encroachment – Advocate Commissioner's Report – Corroborative Value – Mandatory Injunction – Advocate Commissioner's report and sketch (Ex.C1 and Ex.C2) clearly identified the suit property and established that defendant's construction extended into plaintiff's land – Commissioner's report duly supported by oral evidence of PW2 and discrepancies in appellant's boundary recitals – Held: Commissioner's report, though corroborative in nature, when supported by other evidence on record, constitutes sufficient basis for finding of encroachment – Trial Court rightly granted mandatory injunction for removal of encroachment [Paras 30-31].

Civil Law – Acquiescence – Encroachment – Plea that respondent had knowledge of construction since 2011 and lodged complaint but did not pursue the same – Held: Plea of acquiescence cannot defeat a lawful claim where encroachment is established – Failure to pursue complaint on account of ill health is neither a legally sustainable ground to infer acquiescence nor sufficient to non-suit the plaintiff [Para 31].

Civil Law – Permanent Injunction – Damages – Consequential Reliefs – Finding on title and encroachment having been affirmed, grant of permanent injunction restraining interference with plaintiff's possession is a natural and consequential relief – Damages granted by trial court are appropriate and commensurate with the nature of encroachment – No material placed before appellate court to show that exercise of discretion is arbitrary or excessive [Para 32].

Decision: Appeal suit dismissed – Judgment and decree of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vellore, dated 12.01.2017 in O.S.No.13 of 2015, granting declaration of title, recovery of possession, mandatory injunction, permanent injunction and damages confirmed – No order as to costs.

Income Tax – Prosecution – Section 276CC – Quashing of Proceedings – Lack of Jurisdiction – Petitioner assessed under jurisdiction of ITO, Non Corporate Ward 17(1), Chennai – Show Cause Notice issued by ITO – Petitioner replied, paid tax with interest – Complaint under Section 276CC lodged by Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (respondent) after obtaining sanction from Principal Commissioner – Petitioner contended respondent had no jurisdiction over his case as no transfer order under Section 127 was issued – Held: Only the officer vested with jurisdiction by virtue of directions or orders under Section 120 is the Assessing Officer – No order transferring petitioner's case from ITO to respondent under Section 127 – Respondent did not intimate petitioner that it was continuing proceedings so as to enable petitioner to avail rehearing under Section 129 – Principal Commissioner accorded sanction without application of mind on the question of jurisdiction – Respondent had no jurisdiction to initiate prosecution – Proceedings quashed [Paras 10-13].

Income Tax – Prosecution – Section 276CC – Non-Initiation of Penalty Proceedings – No Regular Assessment – Petitioner contended that respondent failed to initiate penalty proceedings under Section 271(f) before launching prosecution and did not conduct regular assessment to determine tax liability – Held: In absence of any proceedings to make regular assessment, initiation of prosecution is void – Proviso to Section 276CC(ii)(b) provides that prosecution lies only where tax payable after reduction of TDS and advance tax exceeds Rs. 10,000/- – Without regular assessment, such liability cannot be determined – Allowing trial without initiation of penalty proceedings would be an idle and empty formality and amounts to abuse of process of law – Relied upon: K.C. Builders v. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2004) 135 Taxman 461 (SC) [Paras 14-16].

Bonafide Belief – Non-Filing of Return – Petitioner and wife sold property for Rs. 75 lakhs; purchaser deducted TDS; employer also deducted tax at source on salary – Petitioner held bonafide belief that no tax liability arose as sale proceeds were re-invested and TDS covered salary income – Held: Question of intention and bonafide belief is a matter of defence to be examined during trial; however, jurisdiction and penalty proceedings going to the root of the matter are quashable at Section 482 Cr.P.C. stage [Paras 7-8].

Decision: Criminal Original Petition allowed – EOCC No. 42 of 2019 on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Economic Offences) I, Egmore, Chennai quashed – Connected miscellaneous petition closed.

NDPS Act – Bail – Disclosure Statement of Co-Accused – Inadmissibility – Petitioner not present at the spot of recovery and not named in the FIR – 520 grams of heroin recovered from co-accused Lovepreet Singh alias Love – Petitioner implicated solely on the basis of disclosure statements of co-accused made during police custody – No independent recovery of contraband or discovery of fact from the petitioner consequent upon such disclosure – Held: Disclosure statement of a co-accused is inadmissible as substantive evidence against another accused; such statement recorded in police custody is prima facie hit by Section 23 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam – Rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act not attracted as nothing was recovered from the petitioner's possession – Bail granted [Paras 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 12].

Bail – General Rule – Presumption of Innocence – Undertrial Custody – Right to Speedy Trial – Petitioner in custody for four months and five days – Trial not likely to be concluded in the near future – No material on record to indicate likelihood of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses – Held: Grant of bail is the general rule and incarceration is the exception; prolonged undertrial detention without prospect of early trial infringes the right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution – Bail allowed subject to conditions [Paras 13, 14, 15, 16, 17].

Decision: Petition allowed – Petitioner ordered to be released on bail on furnishing personal bond and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court – Subject to conditions of non-interference with witnesses, furnishing of address, and not leaving India without prior permission of the trial Court.

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Section 528 - Inherent Powers of High Court - Maintainability vs. Alternative Remedy - Preliminary objection by State that petitioner has alternative remedy of seeking discharge before Trial Court. Held, existence of alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS if continuation of proceedings amounts to an abuse of process or results in a miscarriage of justice. [Para 10].

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Section 61(2) - Criminal Conspiracy - Evidence - Call Detail Records (CDRs) - Implication of petitioner based solely on telephonic contact with informer and co-accused. Held, CDRs merely establish that calls were exchanged but do not disclose the contents of communication. In the absence of transcripts, recordings, or messages demonstrating a prior meeting of minds or agreement to commit an illegal act, mere telephonic contact cannot constitute criminal conspiracy. Official communication between police officials cannot be elevated to incriminating evidence without material indicating unlawful intent. [Paras 12-15, 21].

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Sections 126(2), 140(3) and 310(2) - Wrongful Restraint, Kidnapping and Dacoity - Absence of overt acts - Petitioner not a member of the raiding party and not present at the spot. Held, where no witness attributes any overt act to the petitioner and his role is remote/disconnected from the actual commission of the offence, the essential ingredients of the offences are not made out. [Paras 11, 16].

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Section 238(b) - Causing disappearance of evidence or giving false information - Sharing of YouTube link - Allegation that petitioner shared a video on concealing items in vehicles and subsequently deleted it. Held, sharing an informational video intended for operational awareness regarding techniques used in hawala transactions, without criminal intent, does not attract the provision. No adverse inference can be drawn in the absence of corroborative material linking the video to the commission of the offence. [Para 17].

Criminal Jurisprudence - Suspicion vs. Proof - Quashing of proceedings. Held, suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof. While suspicion may justify investigation, it cannot form the basis of a charge-sheet in the absence of cogent, credible, and legally admissible evidence. Following the principles in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, where allegations and material collected do not prima facie constitute any offence, the High Court is justified in quashing proceedings to prevent abuse of the process of law. [Paras 19-20, 23-26].

Decision: Petition allowed – FIR bearing Crime No. 473/2025 (P.S. Lakhanwara) and all consequential criminal proceedings, including the charge-sheet, are quashed insofar as they relate to the petitioner.