Electricity – Crop Damage – Strict Liability – Respondent’s wheat crop destroyed by fire due to electrical short-circuit from a Three Phase LT Line passing over his field – Writ Court directed compensation of ₹50,400 with 6% interest – Defence of natural calamity (wind storm) raised by State rejected – No proof of windstorm placed on record – High Court upheld finding that Electricity Department failed in its duty to maintain the electric line safely – Held: Transmission of high-voltage electricity is inherently hazardous – Even without negligence, supplier is strictly liable under law of torts for damage caused by uncontrolled discharge of electric energy – Referenced Supreme Court’s judgment in M.P. Electricity Board v. Shail Kumar and J&K High Court’s ruling in Gittan Ram v. State – Appeal dismissed [Paras 7–16].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Writ Court’s award of ₹50,400 compensation with interest upheld – Doctrine of strict liability applied – State liable irrespective of proven negligence.

Criminal Law – Speaking to Minutes – Finality of Judgment – Section 362 CrPC bar – No power to modify or alter sentence after appellate and Supreme Court affirmations – Concurrent running of sentences cannot be inserted subsequently – Application for speaking to minutes cannot substitute review or modification – Application rejected [Paras 16–23, 25].

Criminal Procedure – Speaking to Minutes – Scope and Limits – Application seeking insertion of direction that sentences run concurrently – Held: Speaking to minutes is confined to correction of clerical or typographical mistakes and cannot be used to modify, review or alter substantive findings or directions in a judgment – Any such attempt amounts to impermissible review under Section 362 CrPC / Section 528 BNSS – Application not maintainable [Paras 4, 19–23].

Sentence – Concurrent vs. Consecutive – Section 31 CrPC – Trial court did not direct concurrent running of sentences and appellate court also confirmed conviction without such direction – In absence of explicit direction, sentences run consecutively – Principle that sentences in a single transaction must run concurrently is not absolute; depends on nature and gravity of offence – Heinous offence of gang rape, threats, children kept hostage – Trial court rightly refrained from granting concurrency – No ground to alter sentencing mode post-finality [Paras 7, 10–12].

Inherent Powers – Section 482 CrPC / Section 528 BNSS – Limits – High Court cannot invoke inherent powers to modify a concluded judgment when CrPC expressly bars review and alteration – Inherent powers cannot override statutory prohibitions – Only clerical/arithmetical errors may be corrected – Present request is for substantive modification and hence barred [Paras 14–16, 22].

Finality of Criminal Judgments – Section 362 CrPC – Once appellate and Supreme Court have affirmed conviction and sentence, the High Court becomes functus officio – No power to revisit or modify operative portion – Any change to sentencing mode (concurrent vs. consecutive) constitutes substantive alteration and is prohibited – No exception applicable (fraud, lack of jurisdiction, denial of hearing etc.) [Paras 17–21].

Delay and Conduct – Applicant never raised plea of concurrency before Trial Court, Appellate Court, or Supreme Court – Raised for first time after many years – No explanation for delay – Plea barred both on law and conduct [Paras 2.6, 3, 17–18, 24].

Held – Sentences imposed under Sections 376(g) and 506 r/w 34 IPC to run consecutively by default – No jurisdiction to insert concurrency after judgment reached finality – Application for speaking to minutes rejected – No direction for release – No costs [Paras 25].

Cyber Fraud – Quashing on Basis of Compromise – Inherent Powers under S.528 BNSS – Held, offences involving cyber fraud cause systemic public detriment and cannot ordinarily be quashed on private settlements – Compromise driven by restitution cannot dilute gravity of digital-financial crimes – Case found to be cyber fraud simpliciter, not mere private pecuniary dispute – Petition for quashing dismissed [Paras 12–15].

Inherent Powers – Section 528 BNSS – Scope identical to Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Preserves plenary jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process or secure ends of justice – Power is of wide amplitude but must be exercised with circumspection and in conformity with judicial propriety [Paras 10–10.3].

Quashing on Compromise – Distinction from Compounding – High Court may quash even non-compoundable offences if overwhelmingly civil or personal in nature – Guided by Gian Singh, Narinder Singh, Parbatbhai Aahir, and Laxmi Narayan principles – Heinous offences or those affecting public interest ordinarily not quashable [Paras 9–11].

Cyber Fraud – Nature of Offence – Held sui generis and inherently carrying systemic repercussions – Offence undermines digital-financial ecosystem, public trust in electronic banking, and involves trans-border anonymity – Private compromise cannot redress broader institutional injury – Quashing on settlement rejected as contrary to public interest [Paras 12, 12.1].

Compromise Driven by Restitution – Court notes that complainants often agree to settlement solely for recovery of defrauded amounts – Such restitution cannot mitigate gravity of digital-financial crimes – Allowing quashing on such basis creates dangerous precedent enabling offenders to treat fraud as “risk-profit calculus” [Paras 12, 12.1].

Exceptional Category – Inflated Allegations – Court recognises that sometimes stringent cyber-fraud provisions are invoked merely to pressurize in private monetary disputes – In such cases, High Court may quash if allegations do not reveal public detriment nor constitute true cyber fraud – Requires granular scrutiny of factual matrix; no rigid formula possible [Paras 12.2–13].

Present Case – Cyber Fraud Simpliciter – FIR alleges unauthorized digital transactions of ₹14,83,696/- through fraudulently created accounts and fake website – No prior relationship between parties – Nature of allegations clearly cyber-financial fraud, not private dispute – Case falls under Postulate I (public-detriment category) – Compromise cannot justify quashing [Paras 14–15].

Decision – Petition dismissed – FIR and all consequential proceedings to continue – Observations not to affect trial on merits – No costs [Para 15].

Service Law – Recovery from Salary – Theft of Stock – Absence of Notice & Enquiry – No Responsibility Fixed – Executive Engineer’s Recommendations Ignored – Principles of Natural Justice – Held: Petitioner cannot be held liable for thefts; unilateral recovery illegal; order quashed; Corporation directed to refund recovered amount with interest [Paras 15–18].

Service Law – Recovery from Employee – Theft of Departmental Materials – Absence of Fixation of Responsibility – Procedural Fairness Mandatory – Petitioner, Junior Engineer in-charge of Central Store, had repeatedly reported thefts, lodged FIRs and pursued investigation – Executive Engineer consistently recommended dropping the outstanding amount and treating stolen items as loss to Corporation – Held, responsibility cannot be fixed merely because thefts occurred during petitioner’s tenure [Paras 9–11, 15].

Natural Justice – Recovery Order Without Notice or Enquiry – Illegality – Opposite Party No.2 issued common order of recovery dated 26.09.2018 without issuing show-cause notice, conducting enquiry, or providing opportunity of hearing – such decision imposes civil consequences and hence is violative of fair play and natural justice [Paras 5, 7.2, 14, 16].

Administrative Law – Internal Recommendations – Selective Acceptance by Authority – Arbitrary Exercise of Power – Corporation rejected earlier recommendations of Executive Engineer treating loss as non-recoverable but relied selectively on subsequent communication dated 18.09.2018 without reasons or notice to petitioner – Court held such selective adoption arbitrary and unsustainable [Paras 12–13].

Employee Not Responsible for Theft – Evidence on Record – Letters dated 03.10.2007, 21.10.2017 and 30.01.2018 demonstrate: (i) severe staff shortage due to VRS, (ii) store guarded by Home Guard, (iii) thefts despite reasonable precautions, (iv) FIRs lodged promptly – held, petitioner fulfilled all duties; Corporation failed to justify liability [Paras 9–11].

Public Money Argument – Cannot Override Due Process – Corporation’s plea that loss being public money justified recovery rejected; recovery must follow established procedure, enquiry, and opportunity to be heard [Paras 6, 16].

Refund of Amount Unlawfully Recovered – Interest Awarded – As entire amount of Rs.1,24,774.20 had been deducted during pendency of writ petition, Court directed refund with 7% simple interest from date of last deduction; failure to refund within four weeks will attract 12% penal interest [Para 18].

Decision:Writ petition allowed – Order dated 26.09.2018 quashed vis-à-vis petitioner – Corporation directed to refund recovered amount with interest – No costs [Paras 17–19].

Evacuee Property – Repeal of Statute – Pending Claims – Competent Officer's jurisdiction survives repeal under 2005 Act by virtue of Section 6, General Clauses Act – 25-year inaction held arbitrary and mala fide – Appeal dismissed with costs [Paras 12–23].

Evacuee Property – Competent Officer – Effect of Repeal – Jurisdiction Continued – Appellant contended that repeal under the 2005 Act divested him of authority and delegated jurisdiction to Delhi officers – Court held notifications of 1980, 2008, 2010 and 2016 clearly preserved jurisdiction of State-appointed Competent Officers for pending matters – Delegation in 2010 Notification applied only to evacuee properties in Delhi – By Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, pending claims survived repeal [Paras 12–15, 17–18].

Administrative Law – Inaction for 25 Years – Abdication of Statutory Duty – Application No.1/2000 for inclusion of four survey numbers remained unattended since 07.11.2009 – Court strongly deprecated the Competent Officer’s conduct as “shocking”, “misleading” and “self-serving” – Inaction defeated object of the 1951 Act and caused generational hardship [Paras 16–20].

Interpretation of Notifications – Selective Reliance Deprecated – Appellant selectively cited portion of 19.08.2010 Notification to claim loss of jurisdiction – Suppressed explanatory parts and earlier 1980 communication transferring residuary work to State Government – Held: reliance selective, misleading, and contrary to full text of notifications [Paras 14–15, 17–18].

Writ Jurisdiction – Justified Intervention – Costs Sustained – Single Judge’s direction to dispose of the pending application within three months upheld – Costs of ₹50,000 justified due to prolonged dereliction – Amount to be paid to Sainik Welfare/Armed Forces Flag Day Fund [Paras 21–22].

Writ Appeal – Mala Fide Challenge – No Interference Warranted – Appeal held misconceived, frivolous, and tainted with mala fides – Court emphasised inability of appellant to escape statutory duty under guise of repeal – Impugned order affirmed in full [Paras 20–23].

Decision: Writ Appeal dismissed – Appellant to pay ₹50,000 to Sainik Welfare/Armed Forces Flag Day Fund within two weeks – Competent Officer to dispose of Application No.1/2000 within four weeks.

Tenancy Law - Lease Rent Demand – One-time Lease Rent – Delay in Payment – Petitioner deposited one-time lease rent equivalent to 11 annual instalments on 08.01.2007 in accordance with prevailing GNIDA policy – Lease rent was payable by 16.01.2007, and payment made on 08.01.2007 was within the stipulated period – Held: There was no default attracting penal consequences – Authority’s subsequent demand in 2025 for lease rent dues is legally untenable and arbitrary [Paras 14–17, 24–25]

Natural Justice – No Prior Notice or Explanation – Impugned demand letter dated 10.07.2025 issued without any show-cause notice or opportunity to respond – Held: Violative of principles of natural justice – Arbitrary quantification without calculation details renders the demand unsustainable [Paras 19–20]

Promissory Estoppel – Issuance of No Dues Certificates – GNIDA had issued No Objection Certificates in 2010 and 2020 and also granted mortgage permission in 2024 – Held: Authority is estopped from raising lease rent dues in 2025 after a long period of inaction – Such reversal of stand violates principles of promissory estoppel and fairness [Paras 21–23]

Legitimate Expectation – Consistency in Administrative Conduct – Repeated certifications by GNIDA confirming no dues and subsequent permission to mortgage created legitimate expectation that no lease rent remained unpaid – Held: Sudden reversal of position violates doctrine of legitimate expectation and Article 14 of the Constitution [Paras 21–22]

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Demand letter dated 10.07.2025 quashed – Direction issued to GNIDA to process petitioner’s pending applications for permission to mortgage dated 08.10.2024 and 02.01.2025 within six weeks from receipt of certified copy of this order [Paras 26–27]

Constitutional Law – Right to Travel Abroad – Article 21 – Denial of No Objection Certificate to government employee on ground of pending disciplinary proceedings – Held: Right to travel abroad is a facet of personal liberty protected under Article 21 – Executive instruction dated 28.01.2014 cannot override fundamental rights – Rejection of NOC amounts to unconstitutional restriction on liberty – Impugned orders quashed [Paras 10–14, 18–19]

Service Law – Government Employee – Pending Departmental Proceedings – Presumption of Innocence – Mere pendency of disciplinary proceedings or vigilance cases cannot be treated as conclusive of guilt – Held: Presumption of innocence must prevail until proven guilty – Executive circular cannot justify refusal of NOC without due process of law [Paras 10, 15, 17]

Administrative Law – Executive Instructions vs. Enacted Law – Letter dated 28.01.2014 by State Government is not statutory law – Cannot be treated as lawful basis to restrict passport issuance – Any restriction on fundamental rights must be supported by enacted law – Held: Administrative circular lacks legal authority to infringe personal liberty [Paras 10, 14]

Passport Law – Passport Manual and NOC Requirement – Clauses 4.23 to 4.25 of Passport Manual, 2020 make NOC mandatory for government employees – However, such requirement must align with constitutional rights – Held: NOC cannot be denied arbitrarily, and the Manual must be read in conformity with fundamental rights under Article 21 [Paras 11–12]

Judicial Precedents – Maneka Gandhi Case – Right to go abroad is part of personal liberty – Denial must follow fair procedure established by law – Applied in present case to quash refusal of NOC based on non-statutory executive communication [Para 13]

Decision:

Writ Petition allowed – Impugned rejection orders dated 12.07.2022 and 21.03.2025 quashed – State directed to issue No Objection Certificate to petitioner within six weeks from date of judgment [Para 19]

Anticipatory Bail – Sexual Relationship on False Promise of Marriage – Refusal – Petitioner sought anticipatory bail in crime alleging cheating, criminal intimidation and promise to marry – Allegations disclosed sustained sexual relationship induced by promise of marriage – Mediation failed and petitioner refused to file affidavit agreeing to marry – Held: Considering gravity of allegations and necessity of custodial interrogation, anticipatory bail declined [Paras 7–8, 22–23].

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Section 69 – Sexual Intercourse by Deceitful Means – Scope – Section 69 criminalises sexual intercourse induced by deceitful means or false promise of marriage without intention to fulfil – Distinguished from offence of rape under IPC – Held: Provision squarely attracted where promise to marry is made fraudulently to obtain sexual consent [Paras 10–11, 21].

Direction to Add Penal Provision – Duty of Investigating Agency – FIR registered under IPC and BNS provisions excluding Section 69 BNS – Court directed inclusion of Section 69 BNS in light of factual allegations disclosing offence of sexual intercourse by deceitful promise of marriage [Para 12].

Live-in Relationships – Vulnerability of Adult Women – Judicial Concern – Court observed absence of adequate legal protection for women in live-in relationships compared to minors under POCSO or married women under matrimonial laws – Highlighted socio-cultural stigma and mental trauma faced by women abandoned after sexual exploitation [Paras 14–17].

Concept of Gandharva Marriage – Judicial Observation – Court noted that consensual love relationships akin to live-in arrangements may resemble Gandharva marriage recognised in ancient Indian law – Observed need to accord protective legal status to women in such relationships to prevent exploitation [Paras 18–19].

False Promise to Marry – Legal Consequences – Held: Where accused refuses marriage after sexual relationship induced by promise, prosecution under Section 69 BNS is warranted – Men must face statutory consequences if marriage is refused after exploiting promise to marry [Paras 20–21].

Decision: Criminal Original Petition dismissed – Anticipatory bail refused – Investigating agency directed to invoke Section 69, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Custodial interrogation held necessary.

Criminal Law – Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Acquittal – Appellant filed complaint against accused for dishonour of cheque for Rs. 20 lakhs – Cheque returned with endorsement "Drawer’s Signature Differs" – Legal notice claimed to be sent, but original acknowledgment card not produced – Trial Court refused to mark photocopy and acquitted accused holding statutory notice not proved – High Court held non-service was not disputed by accused in cross-examination and disagreed with Trial Court's reasoning on notice –However, loan transaction of Rs. 40 lakhs alleged to be given without any written document – Complainant admitted in cross-examination that cheque was filled by her husband and that husband used to collect blank cheques from chit subscribers including accused – No mention in complaint or notice about authority to fill cheque – These admissions supported defence version that cheque was issued blank during chit dealings – Held: Accused’s version found probable – No perversity in acquittal – Appeal against acquittal dismissed [Paras 9–11].

Decision: Criminal appeal dismissed – Acquittal by Trial Court upheld – Findings held reasonable and not perverse.