Criminal Proceedings – Quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C – Allegation of Voyeurism – Section 354C IPC – Ingredients of Offence Not Made Out – Private complaint alleging taking of photograph of complainant while laying clothes for drying – Sworn statement did not disclose that complainant was engaged in a “private act” or that her privacy was violated – No allegation of exposure of private parts or expectation of privacy as contemplated under Section 354C – Held: Continuation of proceedings amounts to abuse of process of court – Proceedings quashed [Paras 7–10, 11].

Voyeurism – Meaning of “Private Act” – Explanation to Section 354C IPC – Scope – Act of laying clothes for drying in front of house – No material to show complainant was not properly dressed or engaged in any act reasonably expected to provide privacy – Mere presence of accused or flashing of light insufficient to attract offence – Cognizance taken without foundational facts – Proceedings unsustainable [Paras 8–10].

Information Technology Act – Section 66E – Violation of Privacy – Capture of Image of Private Area – Essential Requirement – Sworn statement of complainant did not allege photographing of naked or undergarment-clad genitals, pubic area, buttocks or female breasts – No prima facie case under Section 66E made out [Para 10].

Protest Complaint – Credibility – Contradictory Versions – Initial complaint, investigation reports and protest complaint disclose material inconsistencies – Two police refer reports finding complaint false – Radical change in version at protest stage – Statements of witnesses inconsistent with complainant’s own version – Magistrate erred in taking cognizance in absence of sufficient materials [Paras 3–5, 7, 11].

Inherent Powers of High Court – Abuse of Process – Accused compelled to face prosecution without sufficient grounds – Held: Ends of justice require interference – Proceedings in C.C No.555/2018 quashed against Accused Nos.1 to 3 [Paras 11–12].

Decision: Criminal Miscellaneous Case allowed – Proceedings against petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 in C.C No.555/2018 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Neyyattinkara quashed.

Land Acquisition – National Highways – Multiplier Factor – Conflict between Central and State Notifications – Acquisition initiated under Section 3-A(1) of the National Highways Act for National Highway project – Central Government notification dated 09.02.2016 under Section 30(2) read with First Schedule of the Act of 2013 prescribing multiplier factor of 2.00 – State Government notification dated 05.10.2021 and GRs dated 06.10.2021 and 14.01.2022 prescribing multiplier factor of 1.00 even for national highways – Held: For acquisition of land for national highways, Central Government alone is the “appropriate Government” under Section 3(e)(v) of the Act of 2013 and Entry 23 of List I – State Government lacks jurisdiction to prescribe multiplier factor for such acquisitions – State notifications and GRs quashed to that extent [Paras 15–24].

Constitution of India – Legislative Competence – National Highways – Entry 23, List I – Exclusive domain of Union – State Government cannot trench upon powers of Central Government in matters relating to acquisition for national highways – Notifications and GRs issued by State Government insofar as they apply to national highways held unconstitutional and unsustainable [Paras 18, 22–23].

Compensation – Multiplier Factor – Award under National Highways Act – Award dated 13.01.2023 applying multiplier factor of 1.00 based on State Government GRs – Held: Award vitiated as it ignores binding Central Government notification prescribing multiplier factor of 2.00 – Award quashed – Direction issued to pass fresh award applying multiplier factor of 2.00 within six weeks [Paras 25, 29(iii)–(iv)].

Alternative Remedy – Section 3-G(5), National Highways Act – Applicability – Objection relating to determination of multiplier factor involves jurisdictional conflict between Central and State Governments – Statutory arbitrator under Section 3-G(5), being a State functionary, lacks authority to decide such issue – Availability of alternative remedy not a bar to writ jurisdiction in present case [Paras 28–29].

Relief – Writ Petition Allowed – State Government notifications and GRs quashed insofar as applicable to national highway acquisitions – Impugned award quashed – Liberty reserved to petitioners to challenge fresh award on grounds relating to quantum of compensation under Section 3-G(5) of the National Highways Act [Paras 29–30].

Trade Union Recognition – Statutory Mechanism – West Bengal Amendment Act, 1983 – Writ Petition Not Maintainable – Petitioner union sought recognition as constituent of joint bargaining council and derecognition of rival union – Held: Recognition of trade unions and disputes regarding legality of registration are exclusively governed by Sections 28A/28B and Section 7 of the Trade Unions Act – Proper authority is Registrar of Trade Unions – Writ petition dismissed for non-availment of statutory remedy [Paras 20–27].

Writ of Mandamus – Absence of Enforceable Legal Right – Recognition of Trade Union Not a Fundamental or Legal Right Enforceable in Writ Jurisdiction – Employer is a private entity not discharging public duty – Relief seeking direction for recognition by private employer impermissible under Article 226 [Paras 11, 18–19, 22].

Alternate Remedy – Doctrine of Exhaustion – Petitioner failed to approach Registrar of Trade Unions (Respondent No.5) for recognition or challenge to alleged illegal registration of rival union – Held: When statute provides complete machinery, writ court should not be invoked in the first instance [Paras 21–26].

Trade Unions Act – Section 7 – Identical or Deceptively Similar Names – Jurisdiction of Registrar – Allegation that two unions registered with identical names – Held: Issue squarely falls within powers of Registrar of Trade Unions – High Court declined to adjudicate in writ jurisdiction [Paras 24–25].

Industrial Relations – Inter-union Rivalry – Not Amenable to Writ Jurisdiction – Disputes relating to membership strength, recognition and bargaining rights between rival unions are matters for statutory authorities and industrial adjudication – Not for determination under Article 226 [Paras 15, 18–19].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed as not maintainable – Liberty implied to petitioner to approach Registrar of Trade Unions for appropriate relief under the Trade Unions Act and the West Bengal Amendment Act – Interim orders vacated – Connected applications disposed of.

Bail – Foreign National – Forged Passport and Aadhaar – Sections 319, 336(3), 340 BNS – Passport Act and Foreigners Act – Petitioner, a Bangladeshi national, alleged to have illegally entered India, created Aadhaar card with false parentage details and obtained Indian passport – Arrested at airport while attempting to travel to Dubai – Investigation completed and charge sheet filed – Held: Continued detention not warranted when custodial interrogation is no longer required [Paras 3, 8, 9].

Arrest – Non-furnishing of Grounds of Arrest – Violation of Statutory Safeguards – Petitioner contended that grounds of arrest were not furnished and notice under Section 35(1) BNSS was not complied with – Court found substance in the contention that grounds of arrest were not furnished – Such procedural lapse weighed in favour of grant of bail [Paras 3, 7].

Bail Considerations – Nature of Offence and Punishment – Maximum sentence extendable up to eight years – Offences not punishable with death or life imprisonment – No criminal antecedents – Long period of judicial custody since 11.10.2024 – Held: Factors favour grant of bail with stringent conditions [Paras 3, 8, 9].

Flight Risk – Seizure of Passport – Mitigating Circumstance – Though prosecution apprehended that petitioner may abscond being a foreigner – Passport already seized – Court held that seizure of passport sufficiently mitigates flight risk – Bail cannot be denied solely on the ground of nationality [Paras 4, 8].

Parity – Co-accused on Bail – Accused Nos.2 and 3 granted bail – Proceedings against Accused No.3 stayed by High Court – Principle of parity considered while granting bail to petitioner [Para 3].

Decision: Criminal Petition allowed – Petitioner granted regular bail in S.C. No.42/2025 (Crime No.199/2024, Bajpe Police Station), subject to execution of bond, non-tampering of witnesses, regular appearance before Trial Court and Police Station, and other conditions as imposed.

Criminal Law – Murder – Conviction under Section 302/149 IPC – Unlawful Assembly – Appellant Sanwarey convicted for murder along with other co-accused – Role attributed to appellant was assault with lathi – Knife blows attributed to co-accused – Held: Once common object to commit murder is established, individual role or nature of weapon used by each accused is immaterial – Vicarious liability under Section 149 IPC squarely attracted [Paras 49–55].

Evidence – Eyewitness Testimony – Minor Contradictions – PW-2 (wife of deceased) and PW-3, PW-4 eyewitnesses consistently named accused – Minor discrepancies regarding exact role or manner of assault held natural and inconsequential – Held: Trivial contradictions do not corrode the core of prosecution case – Evidence inspires confidence and has ring of truth [Paras 35–40].

Evidence – Related / Interested Witness – Wife of Deceased – PW-2 being wife of deceased cannot be treated as “interested witness” merely due to relationship – She was natural and most probable eyewitness – No reason to falsely implicate accused while shielding real offenders – Testimony reliable [Paras 37–40].

Criminal Trial – Defective Investigation – Effect – Non-preparation of memo of torch and discrepancies in FSL report regarding bloodstains – Held: Lapses or defects in investigation by themselves do not entitle accused to acquittal – Court required to evaluate evidence dehors such lapses – Prosecution case otherwise proved beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 42–48].

Evidence – Identification of Accused – Night Occurrence – Moonlit Night – Witnesses acquainted with accused who were relatives and co-villagers – Identification possible even in low light from features, voice and familiarity – Held: Plea of insufficient light rejected [Paras 57–60].

Medical Evidence – Corroboration – Post-mortem revealed multiple lacerated, punctured and blunt-force injuries – Doctor opined majority of injuries caused by blunt weapon like lathi – Medical evidence corroborated ocular testimony assigning lathi role to appellant – Strengthened prosecution case [Paras 50–51].

Criminal Law – Section 149 IPC – Scope – Presence in unlawful assembly with common object sufficient to fasten liability – Actual participation or infliction of fatal injury not mandatory – Constructive liability of every member affirmed [Paras 52–56].

Decision: Criminal Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence of life imprisonment under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and sentence under Sections 147/148 IPC affirmed – Appellant Sanwarey directed to surrender to serve sentence – Bail bond cancelled – Trial Court judgment upheld.

Bail – Corruption Case – Advocate Accused of Influencing Judiciary – Rejection of Bail – Petitioner, an Advocate practicing before the High Court, sought regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in FIR registered by CBI for demanding ₹30 lakhs as illegal gratification for securing a favourable judicial order in a matrimonial dispute – Allegation that petitioner claimed personal influence over a judicial officer and accepted part bribe through co-accused – Held: Bail declined in view of gravity of allegations and prima facie material [Paras 1–2, 8–9].

Prevention of Corruption Act – Section 7A – Applicability to Non-Public Servant – Contention that petitioner is not a public servant rejected – Section 7A covers any person who accepts or obtains undue advantage to influence a public servant by corrupt or illegal means – Prima facie applicability of provision established at bail stage [Para 8].

Bail Jurisprudence – Parameters Reiterated – While deciding bail, Court must consider prima facie involvement, nature and gravity of offence, severity of punishment, likelihood of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, antecedents and impact on administration of justice – Corruption offences, particularly those affecting institutional integrity, require a cautious and stringent approach [Paras 7–8].

Corruption Affecting Judicial Process – Seriousness Emphasised – Allegations of bribery by an advocate to influence judicial outcome strike at the core of public confidence in justice delivery system – Such acts treated as grave threat to sanctity of judiciary – Professional standing or age cannot dilute seriousness of offence [Paras 6, 8, 8.1].

Investigation Completed – Custody Period – Not Sole Ground for Bail – Filing of challan and custody of about 5½ months for offence punishable up to seven years considered but held not decisive – These factors cannot outweigh gravity and societal impact of allegations [Para 8.1].

Medical Grounds – Not Established – Medical assessment did not reveal any condition warranting bail on health grounds – Rejection of bail by Special Judge, CBI, found justified in absence of change in circumstances [Para 8].

Antecedents – Relevant Consideration – Pendency of another FIR under NDPS Act and IPC against petitioner taken into account while declining bail [Para 9].

Decision: Bail application dismissed – Liberty granted to petitioner to apply afresh for regular bail after examination of complainant and victim witnesses – Observations confined to bail adjudication and not to affect merits of trial.

Criminal Law – Kidnapping and Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault – Conviction under Section 366 IPC and Section 6(1) POCSO Act – Victim allegedly aged 17 years and 10 months – Trial Court convicted A1 while acquitting A2 – On appeal, High Court found serious infirmities in prosecution case – Held: Conviction unsustainable [Paras 1–2, 13–14].

Evidence – Proof of Age of Victim – Essential Requirement under POCSO Act – Prosecution relied on school certificate issued by Headmaster (PW8) – PW8 admitted that birth certificate and admission register were not verified before issuing certificate – Victim admittedly studying in college at relevant time – No matriculation certificate, birth certificate or college records produced – Held: Prosecution failed to establish age of victim in manner known to law – Benefit of doubt must go to accused [Paras 8–9, 13].

Delay in Lodging FIR – FIR lodged nearly two months after alleged occurrence – Victim claimed she informed her mother on same day – Mother (PW11) gave contradictory version regarding disclosure and complaint – No satisfactory explanation for delay – Delay coupled with contradictions created serious doubt about prosecution story [Paras 10–11].

Consent – Consensual Relationship – Evidence of victim revealed long-standing love affair of about two years – Victim admitted accompanying appellant voluntarily and refusing to return with grandmother – Conduct inconsistent with allegation of forcible kidnapping and sexual assault – Held: Evidence indicates consensual relationship which later turned sour – Prosecution version unreliable [Paras 7, 12].

Benefit of Doubt – Failure to Prove Date of Birth and Date of Occurrence – Serious inconsistencies between testimony of victim and her mother – Possibility of false projection of age and occurrence to attract POCSO provisions – Prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Accused entitled to acquittal [Paras 11–13].

Decision: Criminal Appeal allowed – Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 22.02.2023 in Spl.SC.No.37 of 2020 set aside – Appellant acquitted of all charges under IPC and POCSO Act – Fine amount, if paid, to be refunded – Bail bond discharged.

Plaint – Rejection of Plaint – Under-valuation – Advanced Stage of Trial – Application filed after examination of defence witness (DW.4) – Defendant sought rejection of plaint alleging that suit property was undervalued based on evidence of Sub-Registrar official regarding sale value of nearby properties – Trial Court dismissed the application holding that under-valuation was not substantiated and application was belated – Held: Evidence of DW.4 only indicated approximate value including land and building and did not conclusively establish market value of land alone – Valuation of construction varies depending on quality and age of building – No definite conclusion of under-valuation possible on such evidence – Disputed question of fact involved, requiring detailed enquiry – Rejection of plaint at such stage not warranted – No illegality or irregularity in impugned order [Paras 2–7].

Civil Procedure – Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Scope – Though application for rejection of plaint can be filed at any stage before disposal of suit – When plea involves disputed facts relating to valuation and requires evidence, plaint cannot be rejected summarily – Proper course is framing of issue and trial on valuation, if sought – Liberty granted to defendant to seek framing of issue on valuation before Trial Court [Paras 7–8].

Decision: Civil Revision Petition dismissed – Impugned order dated 11.11.2025 upheld – Liberty granted to petitioner to apply before Trial Court for framing an issue on valuation of plaint – No costs – Connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition closed.

Land Acquisition – Determination of Market Value – Uniformity and Parity – Lands acquired for establishment of Government Cement Factory under TANCEM – Reference Court enhanced compensation from Rs.200/- per cent to Rs.1,200/- per cent – Acquiring authority challenged enhancement as excessive – Held: Subsequent common judgment of High Court in appeals arising from same acquisition fixed market value at Rs.1,500/- per cent – Principle of parity requires uniform compensation to all landowners – Lower rate cannot be sustained [Paras 3, 6–9].

Land Acquisition – Effect of Subsequent Judgments – Binding Nature – Common judgment dated 29.01.2024 in A.S. No.916 of 2019 and connected cases enhanced compensation to Rs.1,500/- per cent – Followed by later orders recording TANCEM’s resolution to uniformly pay compensation at said rate – Held: Issues relating to comparability of sales, belt system and valuation stand concluded and cannot be reopened [Paras 6–9].

Land Acquisition – Development Deduction – Industrial / Mining Purpose – Acquisition not for housing layout but for industrial and mining activity – Subsequent batch decisions fixed flat rate without development deduction – Held: No deduction towards development charges warranted – Any deduction would disturb settled uniformity [Para 10].

Land Acquisition – Statutory Benefits – Entitlement on Enhanced Compensation – Claimant entitled to additional amount, solatium and interest under Sections 23(1-A), 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act on enhanced market value – Direction to deposit balance compensation within stipulated time [Paras 11–12].

Decision: Appeal dismissed on merits – Award of Reference Court modified by enhancing market value from Rs.1,200/- per cent to Rs.1,500/- per cent – No deduction towards development charges – Claimant entitled to statutory benefits under Sections 23(1-A), 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act – Acquiring authority directed to deposit balance compensation within eight weeks – No costs – Connected miscellaneous petition closed.