Bail – Sexual Assault, Extortion, and Cheating – Sections 318(4), 351(3) BNS, read with Sections 480 & 483 BNSS – Bail Granted – Petitioner accused of fraudulently collecting money, drugging, sexually assaulting complainant, extorting funds, and threatening with photographs – Delay of 14 months in lodging FIR, existence of live-in relationship, and counter-complaint lodged earlier by accused’s family considered – Court noted 68 days of custody and substantial progress of investigation – Bail granted with stringent conditions [Paras 2, 5, 7-10].

Judicial Custody – Bail Considerations – Continued detention not necessary – Custodial interrogation substantially complete – Risk of absconding mitigated by conditions – Bail ordered subject to strict compliance [Paras 8-9].

Conditions of Bail – Accused to execute ₹20,000 bond with sureties – Weekly appearance before police – Not to leave district without permission – No intimidation of witnesses – Passport to be surrendered/affidavit to be filed – Breach of conditions to invite consequences [Para 9].

Decision – Criminal Petition allowed – Petitioner enlarged on bail with conditions [Para 10].

Negotiable Instruments – Section 138 Conviction – Compounding of Offence Permitted – Revision petitioner convicted for dishonour of cheque – Conviction upheld in appeal – During pendency of revision, parties entered into joint compromise – Entire amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- paid and acknowledged by complainant – Held: In view of settlement, offence compounded under Section 147 of NI Act – Conviction and sentence annulled – Petitioner acquitted [Paras 1–5, 7–10, 45–46]

Criminal Law – Compounding of Offences – Scope under NI Act vis-à-vis BNSS – Court held that Section 147 of NI Act, being a special law with non obstante clause, prevails over Section 359 of BNSS – Compounding permissible even post-conviction and at revisional stage – Inherent power of High Court under Section 442 BNSS invoked to secure ends of justice [Paras 20–24, 31–36, 41–43]

Judicial Discretion – Late Compounding of Offence – Despite conviction being affirmed in appeal, High Court permitted compounding owing to full settlement – Held: Purpose of NI Act is compensatory, not punitive – Delay in compromise not a bar when no prejudice caused and justice demands it – Cited Damodar S. Prabhu and Meters and Instruments Pvt. Ltd. cases [Paras 12–14, 29–38, 44–46]

Special Law vs General Law – Interpretational Priority – Court reiterated principle that special law (NI Act) overrides general procedural provisions (BNSS) in event of conflict – Section 147 of NI Act allows compounding at any stage, including revision – Harmonious construction supports access to justice and early dispute resolution [Paras 32–36]

Compounding in Criminal Revision – Power of High Court – Even after dismissal of appeal, High Court retains power to permit compounding of offences under NI Act if parties have settled dispute – Inherent jurisdiction exercised under Section 442 BNSS to prevent miscarriage of justice and bring quietus to litigation [Paras 23–30, 40–42]

Decision: Criminal Revision allowed – Offence under Section 138 of the NI Act compounded based on Joint Memorandum of Compromise – Conviction and sentence passed by Trial Court and affirmed in appeal annulled – Petitioner acquitted – Revision disposed of accordingly [Paras 45–46]

Sections 498-A, 306, 107 of IPC - Dowry Harassment & Abetment of Suicide – Acquittal of accused upheld – Revisional jurisdiction limited; no perversity found.

Dowry Harassment & Abetment of Suicide – Sections 498A & 306 IPC – Acquittal Upheld – Petitioner/father of deceased challenged trial court’s acquittal of accused husband – Alleged cruelty, pressure to sell dowry land, and harassment leading to suicide – Trial Court found suppression of first FIR, unexplained delay of 33–36 hours in lodging complaint, non-examination of neighbours, and lack of proximate evidence of instigation – High Court held revisional interference unwarranted – Conviction under Section 306 IPC unsustainable without proof of direct or proximate acts of instigation [Paras 15-20, 23, 31-36, 39-40].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Scope under Sections 397 & 401 CrPC – Limited Interference – Revisional court cannot convert acquittal into conviction except in cases of manifest illegality or miscarriage of justice – High Court reiterated that acquittal cannot be overturned unless perverse or grossly illegal – No such infirmity found [Paras 12, 37-38].

Decision – Criminal Revision Case dismissed – Acquittal of accused under Sections 498-A & 306 IPC confirmed [Paras 40-41].

Application 156(3) CrPC against singer – Registration of FIR - Lack of jurisdiction and absence of material details – Revisional application dismissed.

Hate Speech – Application under Section 156(3) CrPC – Registration of FIR - Offences under Sections 153, 153A, 295A, 298 IPC – Petition Dismissed – Petitioner sought FIR against singer for allegedly outraging religious sentiments through live concert speech – Magistrate rejected for want of jurisdiction – High Court upheld rejection noting absence of proof of date, time, or place of concert and that accused had no nexus with jurisdiction of Shyampukur PS [Paras 5-7, 16-17, 27].

Jurisdiction – Powers under Section 156(3) CrPC – Territorial Limits – Magistrate can only direct investigation within territorial jurisdiction – No material linking alleged incident to Shyampukur PS – Order rejecting application held correct [Paras 17, 19-20].

Zero FIR – Section 173 BNSS – Scope Explained – Zero FIR enables prompt registration irrespective of territorial jurisdiction, to be transferred to appropriate PS – However, even Zero FIR requires basic details (date, place) of incident – Mere social media clips without authentication insufficient [Paras 21-24].

Supreme Court Directions – Hate Speech – Shaheen Abdullah v. Union of India (2023) – State authorities must suo motu register FIRs in hate speech cases – In instant case, no suo motu action taken as no concrete incident shown [Para 25].

Decision – Revisional application dismissed – Magistrate’s refusal to direct FIR registration upheld – No illegality, infirmity, or perversity found [Paras 27-28].

Civil Writ - Registration of Deed – Oral Refusal by Sub-Registrar – Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1908 – Illegal – Sub-Registrar cannot orally refuse to receive document for registration – Must receive and either register or pass a reasoned refusal order – Oral refusal set aside [Paras 3-4].

Co-owner’s Right to Alienate – Section 44 of the TP Act, 1882 – Consent of Co-owners Not Required – A co-owner has inherent right to transfer his undivided share in joint property – Sale deed of undivided interest valid even without consent of other co-owners – Executive instructions contrary to statutory law held non-est [Paras 3-4].

Precedents – North East Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2025 (2) Civ. C.C. 220 (AP) – Applied – Sub-Registrar must receive document and cannot reject orally – Damodar Mishra v. State of Odisha, W.P.(C) No.4340/2025 – Applied – Co-owner can transfer undivided share even without consent of others [Para 3].

Decision – Sub-Registrar, Khaira directed to receive and register petitioner’s sale deed concerning undivided interest/share without insisting on co-owners’ consent – If registered, deed to be returned to petitioner within 3 days after compliance with Orissa Registration Rules, 1988 and Notification of IGR, Odisha – Writ petition disposed of with directions [Paras 5-7].

Local Body Elections – Ward Formation/Delimitation – Const. Arts. 243-O & 243-ZG – High Court cannot interfere once objections heard and final notification issued – Petitions dismissed; elections to proceed per SC mandate.

Local Body Elections – Ward Formation – Constitutional Bar – Arts. 243-C, 243-K, 243-O, 243-ZG, 329(a) – Delimitation and allotment of seats, once finalized after objections and hearing, immune from writ interference – Only narrow exception: no objections invited/hearing denied – Entertaining challenges would stall elections – Bar strictly applied [Paras 3-12, 18-21].

Elections – Timely Conduct – Supreme Court Order dated 06.05.2025 (Rahul Ramesh Wagh v. State of Maharashtra) – Directed SEC to notify Zilla Parishad elections within 4 months – High Court held bound not to derail process – Petitions seeking to challenge ward notifications rejected [Paras 12-14, 19-21].

Ward Delimitation – Govt. Order dated 12.06.2025 prescribing procedure – Based on 2011 Census, contiguity, natural boundaries, Gram Panchayat integrity, voter convenience – Hearing granted and reasons recorded by Divisional Commissioners – Notifications upheld; no arbitrariness found [Paras 15-18, 23-27].

Jurisdiction under Article 226 – High Court not appellate authority – Cannot decide factual disputes of inclusion/exclusion of villages – Proper forum: election petitions – Precedents followed: State of U.P. v. Pradhan Sangh Kshetra Samiti, Anugrah Narain Singh v. State of U.P., Meghraj Kothari v. Delimitation Commission, Jadhav Shankar Dnyandeo v. Collector, Satara [Paras 4-11, 20].

Delay/Acquiescence – Petitioners who failed to object to draft notification cannot later challenge final ward notification – Belated challenges held impermissible, especially when elections imminent [Paras 11, 21].

Decision – All writ petitions dismissed – Final ward formation notifications upheld – No interference under Article 226; petitioners relegated to remedies under election law [Paras 21-22].

Income Tax Act, 1961 – Ss.148 & 282 – reassessment notice sent by speed post (not registered post) without affixation – presumption of service u/s 27 GCA inapplicable – strict compliance mandatory – ITAT order set aside, reassessment quashed.

Income Tax – Reassessment – Service of Notice – Speed Post Not Equivalent to Registered Post – Appeal Allowed – Tribunal presumed valid service u/s 148 merely because envelope not traceable – Held: Strict compliance mandatory; presumption u/s 27 GCA applies only to registered post, not speed post – Notice through speed post without acknowledgment is insufficient for deemed service [Paras 13-21, 32, 35].

Procedure – Affixation of Notice – Requirement under Section 282 IT Act & Order V Rule 17 CPC – Inspector’s report showed assessee untraceable but no affixation was done – Held: Mandatory requirement not followed; service invalid [Para 36].

Statutory Interpretation – Taxing Statutes – Strict Construction – Service of notice u/s 148 is jurisdictional precondition – cannot be presumed or liberally construed – Jharkhand HC view in Milan Poddar (speed post = registered post) not accepted – Allahabad HC requires strict registered post service [Paras 19-21, 32].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – ITAT order dated 16.11.2011 set aside – Service of notice u/s 148 held invalid – Reassessment for AY 2002-03 unsustainable [Paras 35-37].

Partition – family settlement (13.12.2003) upheld as binding despite missing “original” – adverse inference for non-examined defendant – preliminary decree for partition and injunction granted; appeals allowed

Partition – Family Settlement – Exhibit A1 Treated as Original – Preliminary Decree Passed – Plaintiffs relied on Exh.A1 family settlement dated 13.12.2003 – Though “original” missing, mediator (PW3) testified to handing it over to defendant – all signatures present on last page – Defendants failed to enter witness box; adverse inference drawn – Exh.A1 accepted as genuine; partition preliminary decree granted in tune with A1–A5 sketches/drafts [Paras 12-23, 26-28].

Civil Procedure – Res Judicata & Partial Partition – Suit Maintainable – Earlier partition suit dismissed on basis of alleged will – Present suit based on subsequent family settlement; hence not barred by res judicata – Exclusion of certain properties justified as widow/daughters had no share therein; not bad for partial partition [Paras 11, 19-21].

Evidence – Non-examination of Party – Adverse Inference – 3rd defendant (widow of predeceased son) failed to depose – Held: adverse inference against her plea of fabrication of Exh.A1 – Plea of tampering rejected [Paras 14-15, 23-25].

Injunction – Rights of Co-owners – Permanent Injunction Granted – Plaintiff in O.S.193/2008 sought to restrain interference with quarry operations – In light of binding family settlement and possession of demarcated shares, injunction decree granted; prayer for damages rejected [Paras 27, 29-30].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – Common judgment set aside – O.S.232/2006 decreed; preliminary decree for partition passed in terms of Exh.A1–A5; O.S.193/2008 decreed for permanent injunction (damages denied); parties to bear own costs [Paras 28-30].

Criminal Law – SC/ST Act – Anticipatory Bail – Maintainability – Where the allegations in FIR do not disclose a prima facie offence under the SC/ST Act, bar under Sections 18 and 18A of the Act does not apply – In such cases, anticipatory bail is maintainable under Section 438 CrPC [now Section 482 BNSS] before the High Court – Held: High Court retains concurrent original jurisdiction in such cases [Paras 22-24, 27].

Criminal Procedure – Jurisdiction of High Court – Despite creation of Special Courts under the SC/ST Act, the High Court retains both original jurisdiction under Section 438 CrPC and appellate jurisdiction under Section 14A of the Act – Special Court gets jurisdiction only when prima facie case under the Act is made out – Where such case is absent, Special Court cannot entertain anticipatory bail applications [Paras 24, 27].

Binding Precedent – Dismissal of SLP without reason – Order dated 31.01.2025 by Supreme Court dismissing SLPs on the forum issue not binding as precedent – Dismissal without reasons is not ratio decidendi and does not override express holdings of constitutionally binding judgments [Paras 24-26].

Supreme Court Precedents – Reaffirmation of legal position in Prathvi Raj Chauhan and Shajan Skaria – No bar on anticipatory bail where no prima facie case under SC/ST Act – Accused in such situations may approach the High Court under Section 438 CrPC [Paras 22-23, 27].

Decision: Reference answered – Held:

(1) When no prima facie case under SC/ST Act is made out, application for anticipatory bail is maintainable before High Court under Section 438 CrPC (now Section 482 BNSS, 2023)

(2) Special/Exclusive Special Courts have no jurisdiction to entertain anticipatory bail in such cases

(3) High Court retains concurrent original jurisdiction under Section 438 CrPC and appellate jurisdiction under Section 14A of the Act [Para 27].