Civil Law - Next Friend – Representation of Deity – Application under Section 151 CPC by Plaintiff Nos. 2 to 5 seeking removal of next friend of Plaintiff No. 1, a deity (Shri Krishna Lala Virajman) – Allegations of misconduct, conflicting interests, parallel suits and misuse of position by current next friend – Held: Under Order 32 Rule 9 CPC, removal of next friend can be permitted only if adverse interest or failure of duty is established – Filing of separate suits or impleadment applications, even if undesirable, does not by itself prove adverse interest or misconduct – Application for deletion rejected as no sufficient cause made out [Paras 17–18].

Civil Procedure – Next Friend – Legal Framework – Order 32 of CPC governs representation of minors and deities through next friends – Deity being perpetual minor must be represented consistently – Substitution of next friend is a drastic action and permissible only on limited grounds – Plaintiffs failed to prove that existing next friend’s acts were against the deity’s interest or connected to adverse party [Paras 15–17].

Religious Endowments – Multiple Suits – Filing of parallel suits concerning same religious property – Not per se illegal, but judicial discipline discourages multiplicity – Existence of parallel proceedings not adequate ground to disturb validly instituted representation of a deity – Continuity of representation necessary to protect proprietary and spiritual interests of juristic deity [Paras 17–18].

Misconduct – False Statements – Allegations against next friend of misrepresentation, false affidavits, and manipulation of proceedings – Court finds such allegations insufficient and unsupported by conclusive evidence – Judicial caution exercised in interfering with existing representation of deity [Paras 6–7, 18].

Decision:

Application under Section 151 CPC dismissed – No sufficient cause made out for removal of current next friend – Suit to proceed with current array of parties.

Criminal Law – Bail – Abetment of Suicide – Charge-sheet filed under Section 306 IPC after initial FIR for murder – Allegations based on last-seen theory and post-mortem injuries – Doctor’s opinion ruled out strangulation – Court held that cause of death was drowning and injuries were simple and ante-mortem – Bail granted considering petitioner’s custodial conduct and lack of evidence indicating direct involvement in suicide or murder [Paras 1, 2, 7, 8].

Medical Evidence – Post-Mortem Report – Injury on neck not indicative of strangulation – Opinion of Professor, FMT, Burla, clarified that injury no.5 was not consistent with ligature mark – Court declined to enter into detailed evaluation at bail stage and reserved such consideration for trial after expert testimony [Paras 7, 8].

Criminal Procedure – Interim Bail – Conduct – Petitioner had availed interim bail and surrendered voluntarily – No misuse of liberty or breach of conditions noted – Held: This weighs in favour of grant of regular bail [Paras 4, 8].

Influence & Witness Tampering – Allegation of petitioner’s father being in influential position rejected for lack of evidence – Petitioner residing in Bhubaneswar and no material shown to indicate threat to witnesses in Sambalpur – Tripod test of bail (flight risk, influencing witnesses, tampering evidence) satisfied – Safeguards imposed [Paras 8, 10].

Pending De-novo Investigation – Informant’s prayer for re-investigation in CRLMC No. 2665 of 2024 and CRLMP No. 777 of 2023 – Held: Mere pendency of plea for fresh investigation cannot justify denial of bail – Bail not inconsistent with further probe or constitutional guarantee under Article 21 [Paras 4.2, 9].

Bail Principles – Personal Liberty – Court reiterated that bail should not be withheld as a form of pre-trial punishment – Presumption of innocence until proven guilty is foundational – Petitioner in custody since 31.03.2025 and facing maximum punishment of 10 years under Section 306 IPC – Held: No compelling reason to deny bail [Paras 10–12].

Decision: Bail granted – Petitioner directed to furnish bond of ₹50,000 with two solvent sureties – Conditions imposed regarding passport, cooperation with any future investigation, and attendance before trial court [Para 12].

SC/ST Act – Cognizance – Caste-based Abuse – Public View – Appellants challenged cognizance order under Sections 3(1)(r)(s)(w)/3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act – Alleged that caste-based remarks were made inside house and not in public view – Trial court relied on FIR, injury report, restatement of informant and witness statements indicating villagers assembled after hearing alarm – Held: When villagers gathered on hearing alarm and were present at the time of utterance, the abuse qualifies as being made within "public view" – Ingredients of offence under SC/ST Act prima facie made out – No interference warranted [Paras 3, 8, 10-14]

Criminal Procedure – Cognizance – Application of Judicial Mind – Appellants contended that trial court did not apply judicial mind while taking cognizance – Held: Trial court examined FIR, case diary paras 5, 6, 7, and 31, and found prima facie case – Re-statement of informant corroborated allegations – Application of judicial mind evident – Cognizance order upheld [Paras 6, 13]

Judicial Review – Scope at Cognizance Stage – Defence arguments based on case law (Hitesh Verma, Swaran Singh, Karuppudayar) rejected as distinguishable – Held: At cognizance stage, court only needs to assess prima facie case based on prosecution material – Not required to evaluate defence evidence or potential for conviction – FIR and case diary provide sufficient basis for prima facie case under SC/ST Act [Paras 5, 9, 12]

Marriage – Caste-Based Discrimination – Scheduled Caste Woman Harassed by In-laws – Informant, a Scheduled Caste woman, married into upper-caste family – Allegedly subjected to caste-based abuse and physical assault by in-laws – Trial court found allegations supported by injury report and witness statements – Held: Prima facie case made out for caste-based harassment, physical assault, criminal intimidation and trespass [Paras 3-4, 6-8]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Order dated 27.03.2023 taking cognizance upheld – No interference warranted – Appeal rejected at admission stage.

Civil Law - Stamp Duty – Lease Deed – Article 36(ii) vs. 36(iii) – Lease period held nine years only – Indenture of Lease dated 19.12.2014 provided for initial three-year term with two automatic renewals aggregating to nine years – Clause 3C merely contemplated option for further renewal on fresh mutually agreed terms or right to match third-party offers – No automatic renewal or agreed rent for post-nine-year period – Held: Lease is for nine years, not eighteen – Stamp duty payable under Article 36(ii) only – Demand under Article 36(iii) quashed [Paras 25-31, 35-41, 61].

Renewal Clause – Construction – “With a renewal clause contingent or otherwise” under Article 36(ii)/(iii) applies only where subsequent rent and terms are fixed within same instrument – Where future renewal is left to mutual agreement or contingent on third-party offers, it is merely an agreement to enter into lease, not a present demise – Such renewal cannot be reckoned for stamp duty [Paras 24-29, 45].

Explanation II to Article 36 – Scope – Renewal period is part of present lease only when expressly provided and terms agreed in same deed – Not attracted where post-term renewal is dependent on fresh agreement – Respondents’ reliance on Explanation II rejected [Para 43].

Subsequent Conduct – Fresh Lease Executed – Parties executed fresh lease on 11.12.2023 for five years and paid duty under Article 36(i), duly accepted by authorities – Confirms intent that 2014 lease was for nine years only – Supports petitioner’s case [Para 44].

Precedents – Distinction between Renewal and Extension – Cited authorities, including Union Bank of India v. State of Maharashtra, Lalji Tandon, and Allahabad High Court rulings, reaffirmed that renewal requires a fresh deed, whereas extension continues existing lease – Since 2014 lease envisaged renewal on fresh terms, Article 36(iii) inapplicable [Paras 47-52, 57-58].

Decision – Writ Petitions Allowed – Orders dated 10.01.2017 and 20.01.2020 demanding deficit duty of ₹64,75,500/- set aside – Lease covered by Article 36(ii) – Rule made absolute in both petitions – No liability under Article 36(iii) [Paras 62-65].

Writ Jurisdiction – Maintainability – Civil Suit Pending – Petitioner challenged the review order passed by Collector under Section 15 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, concerning mutation of lease deed – Review application was filed after 25 years – Petitioner had already filed a civil suit questioning the legality of the same order dated 26.02.2008 – Held: Since the civil suit is pending and challenges the same order, writ petition not maintainable – Non-disclosure of pending civil suit in writ petition amounts to suppression of material fact – Dismissal of writ petition will not affect pending civil suit [Paras 2-4, 6-7].

Res Judicata – Constructive Res Judicata – Applicability to Writ Petitions – Court relied upon State of Orissa v. Laxmi Narayan Das, (2023) 15 SCC 273 and M.J. Exporters (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, (2021) 13 SCC 543 – Held: Principles of constructive res judicata under Order 23 Rule 1 CPC apply to writ petitions – If same relief is sought through civil suit or earlier writ petition, fresh writ is barred unless permission to refile is taken or justified with full disclosure [Para 5].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed as not maintainable – Pending civil suit shall continue on its own merits.

Criminal Law – Quashing of Summoning Order – Cognizance under Sections 427, 448, 294, and 506-B IPC – Petitioner sought quashing of cognizance order passed by JMFC, Panna, which was affirmed in revision – Held: Trial Court rightly took cognizance under Sections 427 and 506-B IPC based on prima facie evidence from complaint and statements under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC – However, ingredients of offences under Sections 448 and 294 IPC not made out – Cognizance for these sections set aside – Petition partly allowed [Paras 1, 2, 25 to 29].

Criminal Procedure – Section 482 CrPC – Inherent Powers – Exercise of power to quash cognizance – Petitioner contended that dispute was purely civil regarding property and false complaint was filed to pressurize her – High Court held that ingredients for Sections 427 and 506-B IPC made out from complaint and supporting statements – At cognizance stage, sufficiency for conviction not required to be tested – Prima facie allegations sufficient to proceed – No abuse of process shown – Invocation of Section 482 CrPC for quashing cognizance refused for Sections 427 and 506-B IPC [Paras 3 to 5, 23 to 25].

Criminal Procedure – Issuance of Process – Section 204 CrPC – Principles reiterated – Magistrate is only required to see if sufficient ground exists to proceed – Not necessary to record detailed reasons – Detailed scrutiny of evidence or defence not required at this stage – Relying on Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta (2019) 20 SCC 539 and Deepak Gaba (2023) 3 SCC 423 – Held: Magistrate rightly exercised jurisdiction under Section 204 for offences prima facie made out [Paras 8 to 10, 22].

Police Investigation – Enquiry Report under Section 202 CrPC – Delay and Gaps – Police enquiry report submitted nearly two years after incident claimed no cognizable offence committed – However, no spot panchnama, inspection report, or supporting documentation produced – No notice given to complainant to produce witnesses – Report based solely on accused’s version without reasoning for discarding complainant’s version – Held: Enquiry report lacks evidentiary value to negate occurrence of incident [Paras 13 to 19].

Penal Code – Section 427 IPC – Mischief – Breaking of wall causing ₹50,000 loss alleged – Petitioner allegedly demolished complainant’s wall with help of laborers – Incident witnessed by others – Prima facie ingredients of mischief made out – Cognizance justified [Paras 12, 20, 21, 25].

Penal Code – Section 506-B IPC – Criminal Intimidation – Threat to kill with firearm alleged – Specific allegation in complaint and supporting statements – Consistent testimony from complainant and witnesses – Held: Prima facie offence made out under Section 506-B – Cognizance upheld [Paras 12, 20, 21, 25].

Penal Code – Sections 448 and 294 IPC – No Prima Facie Case – Mere trespass or entry not made out in context of wall breaking – No specific abusive words mentioned in complaint – Alleged obscenities not detailed or supported sufficiently – Held: Ingredients of Sections 448 and 294 IPC not made out – Cognizance for these sections set aside [Paras 20, 21, 26, 27].

Civil vs Criminal Dispute – Allegation of property dispute being given colour of criminal case – Court held that complaint disclosed criminal intent beyond civil dispute – Prima facie case of criminal trespass and intimidation made out independently – Mere pendency of civil suit not ground to quash criminal proceedings – Held: No misuse of criminal process proved [Paras 3, 4, 5, 23].

Decision: Petition partly allowed – Cognizance under Sections 448 and 294 IPC set aside – Cognizance under Sections 427 and 506-B IPC upheld – Proceedings to continue for these offences [Paras 27 to 29].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 148 – Conditional Deposit for Appeal – Conviction under Section 138 NI Act challenged in appeal – Appellate Court directed deposit of 30% compensation amount as condition for hearing – Petitioners alleged they were not granted opportunity to oppose application under Section 148 and cited exceptional circumstances including lack of legal debt – Held: No procedural irregularity shown – Petitioners were heard – No exceptional circumstance proved to justify waiver of statutory deposit – Conditional direction under Section 148 valid – Norm is to require deposit, waiver is exception requiring recorded reasons [Paras 1, 6–12]

Criminal Procedure – Section 91 CrPC – Rejection of Defence Application – Petitioners’ application under Section 91 CrPC for production of Del Credere agency agreement was rejected by Trial Court as not necessary – Held: Trial Court's discretion valid – Petitioners had opportunity to raise all defences at trial – No miscarriage of justice shown [Paras 2, 5]

Judicial Precedents – Section 148 NI Act – Harmonisation of Supreme Court Rulings – Appellate Court rightly relied on Surinder Singh Deswal v. Virender Gandhi – Petitioners failed to establish any exceptional ground under later rulings in Jamboo Bhandari and Muskan Enterprises to warrant waiver of deposit – Held: No conflict in authorities – Later judgments reiterate principle that reasons must be recorded for waiver – Not automatic [Paras 10–12]

Relief – Modification of Impugned Order – Court upheld requirement of deposit but granted extended time of 60 days for compliance – Directed Appellate Court to proceed with appeal on merits if deposit made – No interference otherwise warranted [Paras 15–17]

Decision:

Revisional application dismissed – Order requiring 30% deposit upheld – Time to deposit extended by 60 days – Appeal to proceed on merits if condition met.

UAPA – Bail – Prima Facie Accusation Not Made Out – Section 43-D(5) – Appellant arrested for alleged links with banned terrorist organizations and accused of maintaining accounts for drug and arms smuggling operations – Prosecution relied only on co-accused’s disclosure and vague secret information – No recovery made from appellant – No material corroborating disclosure – Held: Accusation not prima facie true – Bail cannot be denied solely based on vague, uncorroborated claims [Paras 14-15].

Right to Speedy Trial – Long Incarceration – Delay in Trial – Appellant in custody for nearly 3 years – Only 3 out of 39 witnesses examined – Trial unlikely to conclude soon – Held: Long pre-trial custody and delay in proceedings violate Article 21 – Bail granted to prevent continued deprivation of liberty [Paras 16-17].

Constitutional Courts – Power to Grant Bail Despite Statutory Bar – UAPA – Supreme Court jurisprudence in K.A. Najeeb, Vernon, Shoma Kanti Sen and others reiterated – Held: Constitutional Courts can override statutory restrictions under Section 43-D(5) if trial is unduly delayed or rights under Article 21 are violated – Seriousness of allegations alone not sufficient to deny bail [Paras 15, 17-21].

Parity – Bail to Similarly Placed Co-Accused – Appellant’s co-accused Lovepreet Singh and Sukhjinder Singh granted regular bail in similar circumstances – Held: Parity a relevant factor in bail decisions – No justification to deny bail to appellant when similarly situated co-accused are on bail [Para 22].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned bail rejection order set aside – Appellant ordered to be released on regular bail with stringent conditions – Clarification that observations are limited to bail and not on merits [Paras 23-27].

Negotiable Instruments – Dishonour of Cheque – Notice – Service Not Proved – Two post-dated cheques of Rs.4 lakhs and Rs.8 lakhs issued by respondent towards repayment of alleged loan – Cheques dishonoured for insufficient funds – Complaints filed under Section 138 NI Act – Magistrate convicted accused – Appellate court reversed conviction, holding that service of demand notice was not duly proved – High Court upholds appellate court’s view – Acknowledgement card in one case signed by unidentified minor girl not shown to be family member – In another case, notice sent to incomplete address – Held: Presumption under Section 27 of General Clauses Act and Section 114 of Evidence Act not available where service is not proved – Conviction unsustainable in absence of valid notice [Paras 18–21].

Presumption – Burden on Drawer – Rebuttal – Accused did not enter witness box – However, burden on complainant to prove essential ingredients of Section 138 not discharged – Statutory presumption under Section 27 GC Act arises only if notice is sent to correct address and delivery is probable – Court distinguishes C.C. Alavi Haji and Uttam Ram on facts – Held: Rebuttable presumption of notice receipt not established on flawed evidence [Paras 17–20].

Criminal Procedure – Ingredients of Offence – Section 138 NI Act – Legal requirement of notice and failure to pay within 15 days of receipt are mandatory – Failure to prove receipt of notice fatal to prosecution – Offence under Section 138 not made out [Paras 16, 21].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Conviction order passed by Magistrate set aside by Sessions Court affirmed – Acquittal of Respondent in both cases under Section 138 NI Act upheld.