Criminal Law – Robbery – Doubtful Identification – Nighttime Crime – Conviction Set Aside – Petitioners (A1 & A3) convicted for stabbing and robbing two employees carrying ₹16 lakhs – Conviction confirmed by appellate court – However, eye-witnesses (PW1 & PW2) admitted to contradictions regarding identity, absence of lighting, prior exposure to accused photographs, and conflicting testimonies on sequence of events – Test Identification Parade conducted 45 days post-arrest after exposure to accused undermined its probative value – Held: Identification highly doubtful – Conviction unsustainable [Paras 13-18, 22].

Evidence – Eye-Witness Testimony – Contradictions – Lack of Corroboration – Acquittal Justified – Evidence of PW1 and PW2 contradictory and unsupported by independent witnesses – Medical records silent on crucial aspects such as chilli powder allegedly used – Doctor did not confirm stated injuries or circumstances – PW3 and PW5 claimed to have transported victims to hospital but hospital registers mention different names – Place of occurrence itself in dispute – Held: Trial and appellate courts failed to appreciate contradictions – Evidence insufficient for conviction [Paras 12, 15-16, 18].

Criminal Trial – Parity Principle – Similar Role, Disparate Outcome – Conviction Discriminatory – Co-accused A2 and A4–A8 acquitted despite similar evidence – No weapon recovery traced to petitioners – No specific overt act attributed to them – Conviction based solely on disputed identification – Held: Principle of parity mandates that petitioners be given same benefit of doubt as others – Conviction unsustainable [Paras 23-26].

Investigation – Recovery and Confession – Procedural Irregularities – Witness Credibility Doubtful – Confession and recovery allegedly made in presence of PW7 (VAO) and PW8 (Village Assistant) who admitted to being stock witnesses – No independent witness or house owner (Rajendran) examined – Typed confessions using laptop and mobile printer at scene not supported by evidence – Held: Recovery procedure artificial and unsupported – Evidence unreliable [Paras 19-21].

Decision: Revision allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Petitioners acquitted – Fine, if paid, to be refunded – Petitioners to be released forthwith unless required in any other proceedings.

Criminal Law – Road Accident – Identification of Vehicle – Conviction under MV Act Partly Restored – Trial Court acquitted the accused for want of clarity on vehicle identification and ownership – Appellate Court reversed the acquittal under Sections 134(a) & (b) r/w 187 of MV Act based on corroborative circumstantial evidence including repair records, expert opinion, and evasive conduct of car owner and accused – High Court affirmed the conviction and fine – Held: Non-seizure of motorcycle or minor lapses in investigation do not override consistent evidence of hit-and-run and subsequent concealment by the accused [Paras 2–6, 14–17]

Motor Vehicles Act – Section 134(a) and (b) r/w Section 187 – Duty of Driver in Accident – Violation Established – Driver failed to provide medical aid or report the accident to police – Forensic and circumstantial evidence, including service centre documentation and expert opinion, confirmed vehicle's involvement – Vehicle was hurriedly left for service post-incident to evade detection – Conviction under MV Act upheld with lenient sentence of ₹5000 fine in lieu of imprisonment [Paras 15–17]

Criminal Procedure – Appeal against Acquittal – Locus and Scope – Appeal filed not by the State but by victim’s brother—court held that even a private party has standing in such matters—conviction under MV Act justified by evidence overlooked by trial court—High Court refused to interfere in revisional jurisdiction [Paras 6, 12–13, 17–18]

Judgment Correction – Counsel’s Name Rectified – Post-judgment correction made to record correct name of appearing counsel from “Mr. R. Parthaban” to “Mr. R. Prathaban” – Fresh copy directed to be issued accordingly [Order dated 11.12.2025]

Decision: Revision petitions dismissed – Conviction under Section 134(a) and (b) read with Section 187 of Motor Vehicles Act upheld – ₹5000 fine imposed stands – No relief granted to petitioners – Connected miscellaneous petition closed.

Administrative Law – Termination of License – Writ Against APTDC – Maintainability – Petitioner challenged termination of license granted under agreement dated 03.10.2020 for operation of shop at Rushikonda Beach – Held: Though APTDC is ‘State’ under Article 12, disputes arising from license agreements are contractual and remedy lies in civil suit for damages – Writ not maintainable to challenge termination of license [Paras 9, 16]

Contract Law – License Agreement – Nature of Rights – Licensee Cannot Seek Interim Relief Against Termination – Petitioner admitted arrears of rent and operational default – Clause 7 of license agreement permits termination for non-compliance – Law well settled that licensee has no vested right to prevent termination – Once terminated, continued occupation is unlawful – Licensee may claim compensation but cannot seek injunction or continuation [Paras 4, 9-14, 16]

Distinction Between Lease and License – License Does Not Confer Interest or Possession – Agreement was clearly a license and not a lease – Reference to “lease” in correspondence was casual – Legal possession remains with licensor – Licensee has only a personal right which ceases upon termination – Petitioner cannot assert tenancy-like rights after expiration or cancellation [Paras 7, 12-14]

Writ Jurisdiction – Commercial Contract Disputes – No Public Law Element – Alternative Remedy Available – Court held that licensee’s grievance is private in nature – Remedy lies in filing a civil suit for compensation – No violation of constitutional or public duty shown – Writ jurisdiction not to be invoked for enforcing purely contractual rights [Paras 16-17]

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Termination of license upheld – Interim order dated 06.10.2025 vacated – Petitioner may seek compensation by filing civil suit – No costs [Paras 17-18]

Criminal Law – Bail – POCSO and JJ Act Offences – Parity with Co-Accused – Petitioner charged under multiple IPC, JJ Act and POCSO provisions for alleged torture and abuse of a 3-year-old foster child – Other co-accused including petitioner’s husband (prime accused) granted bail – Held: On ground of parity and similar footing in charges, petitioner entitled to bail [Paras 5, 35]

Criminal Procedure – Illegal Arrest – Violation of Sections 50, 50A, 41B(b)(i), 46(4) CrPC – Arrest made without furnishing grounds, informing relatives, attesting arrest memo or obtaining prior judicial permission for arrest of woman at night – Held: Cumulative procedural lapses render arrest illegal – Fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 22(1) violated – Arrest unsustainable [Paras 26–32]

Constitutional Law – Article 21 – Prolonged Incarceration – Right to Speedy Trial – Petitioner in custody for over 2½ years, with only 15 of 74 witnesses examined and trial expected to take further considerable time – Held: Long incarceration violates right to liberty under Article 21 – Bail granted to prevent injustice and safeguard constitutional rights [Paras 22–24]

Interpretation of Precedent – Pankaj Bansal and Mihir Rajesh Shah Cases – Mandate to inform arrestee of grounds in writing applicable irrespective of arrest date – Argument that Pankaj Bansal applies only prospectively rejected – Section 50 of CrPC pre-existed and must be followed – Non-compliance affects validity of arrest [Paras 33–34]

Bail Conditions – Stringent Safeguards Imposed – Accused directed to furnish ₹1 lakh bond with two sureties (one government servant), surrender of official documents, non-contact with victim or witnesses, restriction on travel without court permission and cooperation in trial mandatory [Para 36]

Decision: Bail granted – Petitioner Dr. Sangeeta Dutta directed to be released in connection with Sessions (Special) Case No. 112/2023 on furnishing bond and fulfilling strict conditions – Court noted gross procedural violations during arrest and prolonged custody with pending trial – Petition allowed with liberty to State to seek cancellation in case of violation of conditions [Paras 35–37]

SARFAESI Act – Redemption of Mortgage – Right extinguished – Appeal against dismissal of writ petition challenging sale of mortgaged property by bank under SARFAESI Act – Appellants contended undervaluation and fraudulent sale of property worth ₹15 crore at ₹5.78 crore – Bank had attempted sale on four occasions and reduced reserve price due to lack of bidders – High Court held: Once sale certificate is registered, mortgagor's right of redemption extinguished – No procedural lapse or fraud established – Writ petition rightly dismissed – Appeal rejected [Paras 1–19]

SARFAESI Act – Compliance with Statutory Procedure – Bank had issued notices under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) – Symbolic possession taken – Physical possession obtained under Section 14(1) – Repeated attempts made to auction the property – Proper valuation, publication and notice of auction conducted – Sale held on 29.09.2021 after 4 failed attempts – Sale certificate issued and registered in favour of respondent No.4 – No procedural violation found – Borrowers' contention of fraud and undervaluation rejected [Paras 7–8, 18–19]

SARFAESI Act – Section 13(8) – Right of Redemption – Appellants sought to redeem property after sale certificate was issued – Held: Right of redemption under Section 60 of the Transfer of Property Act is overridden by amended Section 13(8) of SARFAESI Act – Right to redemption ceases upon publication of auction notice – Writ petition filed after sale certificate was registered – No right of redemption remained [Paras 9, 12, 13, 14, 16–17]

Writ Jurisdiction – Availability of Alternate Remedy – High Court reiterated settled law that writ petition under Article 226 should not be entertained when effective alternate remedy under SARFAESI Act exists – Appellants had already approached DRT twice (S.A. No.174/2018 and S.A. No.212/2019), both dismissed – No exceptional ground shown for invoking writ jurisdiction – Reliance placed on Satyawati Tondon and Mathew K.C. – Writ rightly dismissed by Single Judge [Paras 9–11]

One-Time Settlement (OTS) – Borrower’s Entitlement – Appellants sought mandamus to consider OTS proposal – Held: No legal right to claim OTS – Grant of OTS lies within commercial wisdom of the bank – Writ of mandamus cannot be issued to enforce OTS – Borrower must satisfy eligibility criteria under scheme – Reliance placed on Bijnor Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Meenal Agarwal – Request for OTS rightly rejected [Paras 5, 7, 15]

Undervaluation Allegation – Reduction of Reserve Price – Appellants alleged fraudulent undervaluation – Bank demonstrated that reserve price was reduced proportionally after repeated failed auctions – Final sale fetched higher than reserve price – Court found no mala fides or irregularity in sale process – Allegation of collusion between bank and purchaser not substantiated [Paras 8, 19]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – No procedural violation or fraud by bank – Right of redemption extinguished after registered sale – No entitlement to OTS – No error found in Single Judge’s order – Writ petition and intra-court appeal devoid of merit [Paras 17–19]

Service Law – Reinstatement – Notional Increment – Tribunal directed refixation of pay with notional increment for period when employee was out of service – Respondent reinstated without back wages pursuant to Labour Court order upheld by High Court – Held: In absence of specific direction for consequential benefits or notional increments, such benefits cannot be claimed for the period of absence – Reinstatement without back wages does not automatically confer right to notional increment [Paras 1, 7, 10] –

Continuity of Service – Scope and Limitation – Respondent claimed full pay fixation from date of initial ad hoc appointment in 1985 – Terminated in 1997, reinstated in 2012 without back wages – CAT granted benefit of one notional increment for intervening period – Held: Continuity of service in such reinstatement is only for limited purpose (e.g., pension/seniority), not for monetary or incremental benefits unless specifically directed – [Paras 2, 6, 10] –

Binding Precedents – Applicability of Supreme Court Rulings – Court relied on Andhra Pradesh SRTC v. Abdul Kareem, (2005) 6 SCC 36 and V.V.G. Reddy v. A.P. SRTC, (2009) 2 SCC 668 – Held: Supreme Court has consistently ruled that increments are not earned during periods of absence from duty unless explicitly granted as consequential benefit – Deepali Gundu’s case does not overrule Abdul Kareem and is distinguishable [Paras 5-7] –

Increment – Not Earned in Absence – Increment can only be earned when employee is actually in service with good conduct – It is not automatic upon reinstatement unless backed by specific order or rule – Held: CAT erred in granting notional increment retrospectively for period of non-service – [Paras 9-10] –

Decision: Petition allowed – CAT’s order set aside – Original Application filed by respondent before CAT dismissed [Final Para].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Dishonour of Cheque – Acquittal – Accused admitted signature on cheque but denied liability – Complainant presented sufficient documents including return memo, legal notice, postal proof, and reply – Trial Court acquitted the accused citing discrepancies and held complainant acted without reasonable cause – Held: Acquittal alone insufficient to invoke Section 250 CrPC – No finding of malicious prosecution – Direction to pay compensation unsustainable [Paras 10–15]

Criminal Law – Compensation to Accused under Section 250 CrPC – Setting Aside – Appellant filed complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 alleging that the respondent issued a cheque for ₹3,00,000/- towards repayment of a hand loan, which was dishonoured for “Insufficient Funds” – Trial Court acquitted the accused but awarded compensation of ₹25,000/- under Section 250 CrPC to the accused, holding that the complaint was filed without reasonable cause – High Court held that although the complainant failed to prove his case, the essential requirements to invoke Section 250 CrPC were not satisfied – No material to show malafide, malicious prosecution, or that the complaint was frivolous – Acquittal alone is insufficient ground for awarding compensation under Section 250 CrPC [Paras 3, 6, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15]

Compensation – Malicious Prosecution – Scope of Section 250 CrPC – High Court analyzed precedents including State of Rajasthan v. Jainudeen Shekh (2016) 1 SCC 514 and Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd. (2006) 6 SCC 736 – Reiterated that compensation under Section 250 CrPC can only be awarded if prosecution was without reasonable cause, was malicious or actuated by ulterior motives – Findings of the Trial Court based on presumption, not on cogent evidence of malice – Held: Procedural lapses or acquittal do not justify invoking Section 250 CrPC unless malicious prosecution is established [Paras 9, 13, 14, 15]

Cheque Dishonour – Existence of Reasonable Grounds – Cheque admitted by accused to bear his signature – Dishonour proven by return memo from SBI – Legal notice issued and duly served – Evidence such as postal acknowledgment, receipts, and reply to notice placed on record – High Court found that these materials constituted reasonable grounds to file complaint under Section 138 NI Act – Absence of memo from payee’s bank or discrepancies in endorsement do not amount to frivolous or malicious prosecution [Paras 10, 11, 12, 13]

Trial Court Findings – Held Perverse – Trial Court placed undue emphasis on evidentiary gaps like lack of bank memo from Nishant Society and endorsement by third-party bank – Found complainant had misused cheque without concrete evidence – High Court noted such findings were based on surmises – Witness from credit society admitted blank cheques are not permitted, contradicting respondent’s defence – No finding of malice or ill-intent against complainant – Invoking Section 250 CrPC unjustified [Paras 11, 13, 14, 15]

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Trial Court’s order dated 16/03/2017 awarding compensation of ₹25,000/- under Section 250 CrPC quashed and set aside – Acquittal of respondent under Section 138 NI Act remains undisturbed – No compensation payable to respondent – Appeal disposed accordingly [Para 15, Final Order]

Child Custody – Interim Custody – Appeal – Appellant-father challenged Family Court order granting interim custody of two minor children to respondent-mother – Alleged failure of Family Court to apply welfare principle and omission to record children’s wishes – Held: Family Court rightly prioritised emotional and psychological well-being of children over material considerations – Welfare of child is paramount – No ground for interference in appeal [Paras 1, 7, 26-27]

Welfare of Child – Paramount Consideration – Family Court applied Section 17 of Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 and relevant case law – Assessed stability, caregiving capacity, emotional needs of children – Held: Welfare principle was correctly applied – Physical custody alone not determinative – Emotional nurturing and continuity of care weighed over financial stability [Paras 17-20.1, 23]

Custody – Unilateral Removal by Father – Appellant took both children to Gurugram without mother’s consent – Claimed to be primary caregiver since 2023 – Held: Temporary unilateral custody cannot override long-standing caregiving role of mother – Family Court merely restored prior custody status – No vested right created by father’s self-assumed custody [Paras 5, 20.2, 20.3]

Child’s Preference – Daughter’s Choice to Reside with Mother – Court found elder child to be mature, articulate, and clear in expressing desire to live with respondent-mother – Held: Preference is genuine and not result of coercion or inducement – Supported by confidential in-camera interactions and continued voluntary residence with mother [Paras 13, 20.6, 21, 24]

Allegations Against Mother – Claims of Extra-marital Affairs – Appellant alleged respondent was unfit due to alleged extra-marital relations and erratic behaviour – Held: Allegations were unsubstantiated and speculative – No adverse impact on children’s welfare established – Custody decisions cannot be based on conjecture or moral assumptions [Paras 15.4, 20.4, 20.5]

Parental Alienation – No Proof of Manipulation – Appellant claimed daughter was alienated by respondent – Held: No credible evidence of such alienation – Court interactions showed daughter’s discomfort in father’s exclusive custody – Continued residence with mother based on her own volition [Paras 20.6, 21]

Violation of Visitation Orders – Appellant Took Children Abroad – Appellant took children to Dubai in March 2024 despite court’s visitation orders – Held: Conduct frustrated court’s directions and reflects disregard for legal process – Undermines claim of being responsible custodial parent [Paras 6, 22]

Sibling Bond – Split Custody Arrangement – Daughter residing with mother, son with father – Court observed such split is not ideal – Directed Family Court to explore ways to preserve sibling bond and ensure gradual transition if appropriate [Paras 25, 29]

Judicial Role – Parens Patriae Jurisdiction – Court emphasised its duty to protect minors’ welfare over adversarial rights of parties – Approach must be child-centric, not parent-centric – Reaffirmed from Rosy Jacob v. Jacob A. Chakramakkal [Paras 18-19]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Impugned Family Court order upheld – Interim custody arrangements to continue for 8 weeks – Parties permitted to seek modification from Family Court – All pending applications closed [Paras 27-30]

Criminal Law – Section 498A IPC – Applicability to Void Marriages and Live-In Relationships – Petitioner contended that Respondent No. 2 could not claim protection under Section 498A as the marriage was void owing to his subsisting marriage with another woman – Held: Section 498A covers not only legally valid marriages but also void or voidable marriages and relationships in the nature of marriage – A man who induces a woman into cohabitation under the false pretense of marriage cannot escape liability under Section 498A – Relationship with trappings of marriage falls within scope of the section [Paras 13.1–13.16].

Criminal Procedure – Section 498A – Parallel Proceedings – Two separate criminal cases pending against petitioner for offence under Section 498A in Shivamogga and Bengaluru arising out of related facts – Held: Permitting parallel trials under Section 498A in different fora would lead to conflicting judgments – Directed: Case pending in Shivamogga transferred to Bengaluru court for joint trial with pending proceedings [Paras 14.1–14.3].

Evidence – Dying Declaration – Admissibility of Statement by Surviving Complainant – Petitioner challenged statement recorded by Head Constable as not fulfilling requirements of dying declaration under Section 32 of Indian Evidence Act – Held: Respondent No. 2 survived – Statement is not a dying declaration but a regular witness statement – Evidentiary value to be tested at trial – Procedural irregularities in MLC registration not grounds for quashing proceedings at pre-trial stage [Paras 15.1–15.13].

Criminal Procedure – Quashing of Proceedings – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Petitions filed to quash proceedings in two FIRs alleging dowry harassment and attempt to murder – Allegations include setting complainant on fire and suppression of prior marriage – Held: Allegations are serious and require full trial – No grounds made out for interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Petitions dismissed [Paras 16.1].

Decision: Petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed – Proceedings in CC No. 630/2019 pending before III Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Divn) and JMFC, Shivamogga transferred to 24th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru to be tried along with CC No. 28129/2023 – Criminal proceedings to proceed in accordance with law.