Murder Trial – Circumstantial Evidence – Conviction Upheld – Appellant charged with murder of deceased on pretext of repaying loan of ₹10,000 – Prosecution proved circumstances: last seen together, appellant returning alone in blood-stained clothes, extrajudicial confession, recovery of weapon at his instance, seizure of deceased’s articles, medical and forensic corroboration – Chain of evidence complete and consistent with guilt of accused – Conviction under Sections 302 and 201 IPC sustained [Paras 9-19].

Homicidal Death – Medical Evidence – Post-mortem established cut-throat injury by sharp weapon sufficient in ordinary course to cause death – Burns were post-offence attempt to destroy identity – Finding of homicidal death affirmed [Para 10].

Motive – Loan of ₹10,000 – Evidence of deceased’s sister and father proved loan taken by appellant for his sister’s marriage – Though absence of documentary proof, oral testimony found credible – Motive sufficiently established [Para 11].

Last Seen Theory – Section 106 Evidence Act – Deceased last seen with appellant around noon, appellant returned alone shortly after with blood-stained clothes – Burden on accused to explain circumstances – No explanation offered – Last seen theory accepted as strong incriminating circumstance [Paras 12-14].

Extrajudicial Confession – Admissibility – Appellant voluntarily confessed before neutral witnesses when confronted – Not made under inducement, threat, or coercion – Corroborated by recovery and medical evidence – Reliance justified [Para 15].

Recovery under Section 27 Evidence Act – Knife recovered from ashes at instance of appellant – Chemical examination confirmed presence of human blood – Seizure of deceased’s mobile, voter ID, and purse from appellant further corroborated – Admissible discovery evidence strengthens prosecution case [Para 16-17].

Injuries on Accused – Medical report proved incised injuries on appellant’s hands consistent with struggle by deceased – Accused failed to explain injuries – Circumstance adds to chain of guilt [Para 18].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 302 and 201 IPC affirmed – Life imprisonment and fine upheld – Chain of circumstances formed complete and unbroken proof of guilt [Para 19].

Criminal Law – Dismissal for Non-Prosecution – Section 256 CrPC – Complaint under Section 138 NI Act – Acquittal Set Aside – The Magistrate had dismissed the complaint and acquitted the accused for absence of complainant and counsel on two dates – The High Court held that such dismissal was harsh and in violation of principles of natural justice – Explained that complainant had been diligent for most hearings and absences were due to mistaken dates and Court officer's error – Held: Order of dismissal and acquittal is quashed – Complaint restored for decision on merits [Paras 4-11].

Natural Justice – Opportunity to be Heard – Compliance Mandated – The High Court reiterated that an opportunity must be given to both complainant and accused to contest the case on merits – Emphasized procedural fairness and the complainant’s right to present evidence – Held: Court below failed to ensure adherence to principles of natural justice by dismissing the complaint without considering bona fide reasons for absence [Paras 6, 9, 10, 11].

Restoration of Complaint – Costs Imposed – Appellant Directed to Proceed Without Adjournments – The Court restored the Summary Criminal Case No.1989/2019 to its original stage and remanded the matter back to the Trial Court – The appellant directed to deposit Rs.2,000/- as cost payable to the respondent and cooperate in speedy trial – Next hearing scheduled on 22/09/2025 [Para 12].

Employment Dispute – Maintainability of Civil Suit – Order 7 Rule 11 CPC – Specific Relief Act – Single Judge rejected plaint holding specific performance of employment contract barred under Section 14 SRA – Division Bench held rejection unsustainable since plaint also sought damages of ₹2 crores for arbitrary and mala fide termination and reputational harm – Cause of action disclosed, and rejection of part of plaint not permissible – Suit restored [Paras 2, 5-10].

Civil Procedure – Partial Rejection of Plaint – Not Permissible – Court reiterated that plaint must be read as a whole; partial rejection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC impermissible – Relief for damages independent and maintainable even if reinstatement barred – Hence, plaint could not be rejected in entirety [Paras 6, 10].

Employment Law – Termination – Allegations of Mala Fides and Procedural Impropriety – Plaintiff pleaded arbitrary suspension, sham enquiry, collusion of senior officials, and reputational harm by public removal from workstation – Such allegations constituted triable issues requiring adjudication – Rejection of plaint at threshold erroneous [Paras 8-9].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Impugned judgment of Single Judge set aside – Suit restored to file for trial – Parties directed to appear before Single Judge (Roster Bench) on 16.09.2025 [Paras 15-16].

Criminal Law - Human Trafficking – Sections 366, 366B, 370, 370A(2) IPC – Conviction Upheld – Victim alleged that she was brought from Bangladesh by Sumi, handed over to Subir Jana, and later to Surya Pradhan in Bhubaneswar where she was forced into prostitution – Victim identified both appellants in Test Identification Parade and in court – Medical report corroborated repeated sexual assault – Held: Victim’s testimony consistent, reliable, and trustworthy – Conviction sustained [Paras 14, 17, 19, 27-28].

Victim’s Sole Testimony – Corroboration Not Mandatory – Courts observed that the testimony of a prosecutrix in sexual offences can be the sole basis of conviction if it inspires confidence – Minor discrepancies in statements under Section 164 CrPC do not undermine substantive evidence – Reliance placed on Gurmeet Singh (1996), Rajinder @ Raju (2009), Manga Singh (2019), Vinod Kumar Garg (2020) – Held: Victim’s account trustworthy; corroboration not required [Paras 20, 22, 24-26].

Test Identification Parade – Validity – Defence argued that presence of police vitiated TIP and identification doubtful – Held: TIP conducted by Magistrate following due procedure; 30 under-trials of similar height, build and complexion included – No evidence that police influenced victim – Report reliable; identification corroborates victim’s testimony – Delay in holding TIP not fatal [Paras 15, 26-27].

Contradictions and Omissions – Not Material – Defence highlighted inconsistencies between FIR, Section 164 statement, and trial testimony – Court held that contradictions not material and did not affect core allegations – Statement before Magistrate corroborated gist of victim’s testimony – Cross-examination failed to discredit victim – Held: Minor contradictions natural due to lapse of time, do not weaken prosecution case [Paras 14, 17-18, 22].

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 366, 366B, 370, 370A(2), and 120B IPC affirmed – Both appellants to continue serving sentence [Paras 27-28].

Legality And Propriety Of Two Suo Motu Orders - Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act – Externment Order – Lack of Jurisdiction and Procedural Safeguards – Externment order passed suo motu by Sessions Judge under Section 10 of the SC/ST Act against the PSO and others without police report or material indicating the area as a Scheduled/Tribal Area – Held: The externment order is illegal, based on a closed CSR, and passed without satisfying statutory preconditions – Order quashed [Paras 6–9, 11].

Criminal Procedure – Judicial Overreach – Suo Motu Remand of DSP – Judge remanded a Deputy Superintendent of Police for alleged inaction under Section 4 of SC/ST Act – Held: Arrest is within the discretion of the investigating officer – No administrative enquiry or recommendation as required under Section 4(2) SC/ST Act – Action found arbitrary and unwarranted – Remand order quashed [Paras 10–12].

Misuse of Judicial Authority – Allegations of Bias and Vengeance – Allegations supported by WhatsApp messages suggest misuse of judicial position by Principal District Judge against former PSO – Court observed serious irregularities in initiating criminal process, motivated by personal bias – Directed Vigilance Enquiry against the Judicial Officer to probe allegations of misconduct and abuse of power [Paras 3–5, 14–15].

Due Process – Requirement of Safeguards Before Prosecuting Public Servants – Supreme Court precedent in State of GNCTD v. Praveen Kumar (2024) cited – Held: Cognizance under Section 4 of SC/ST Act requires prior administrative recommendation – Absence of this renders proceedings illegal [Paras 11–12].

Decision – Both Suo Motu Orders Set Aside – Externment and Remand Orders Quashed – Deputy Superintendent of Police Ordered to be Released Forthwith – Registrar (Vigilance), High Court directed to submit report after independent enquiry into conduct of District Judge [Paras 13–16].

Criminal Law - Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Civil Dispute Cloaked as Criminal Offence – Sections 406, 420 IPC – Quashment Allowed – Petitioners (OYO and its Directors) challenged proceedings initiated by the complainant alleging cheating, breach of trust and conspiracy regarding hotel management agreements – The dispute pertained to contractual breaches, revenue sharing, and claims already referred to arbitration and IBC proceedings – Held: No entrustment of property or dishonest inducement at inception – Essential ingredients of Sections 406 and 420 IPC absent – Criminal law cannot be invoked to settle civil scores – Continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process – Proceedings quashed [Paras 7-11, 13-19].

Abuse of Process – Invocation of Criminal Law in Contractual Disputes – Section 482 CrPC – Petitioners contended that multiple similar complaints had already been quashed by coordinate benches; complainant cleverly drafted complaint to give colour of criminality – Court held that criminal process cannot be used as a cudgel for recovery of money or arm-twisting in commercial disputes – Reliance placed on Paramjeet Batra, Sarabjit Kaur, Naresh Kumar, Manish, Rikhab Birani, and S.N. Vijayalakshmi – Complaint held to be mala fide and vexatious [Paras 12-16].

Civil and Criminal Proceedings – Simultaneous Remedies – While in law civil and criminal proceedings may coexist, such coexistence requires a demonstrable element of criminality – In the present case, substratum of dispute was purely civil – Invocation of criminal law deprecated – Reliance on Punit Beriwala distinguished as facts revealed fraudulent intent at inception in that case, unlike present matter [Paras 17-18]

Decision – Criminal Petition Allowed – Proceedings in C.C.No.10486/2023 before IV ACMM, Bengaluru quashed – Clarified that observations confined to exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC and shall not influence other proceedings [Para 20].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Cheque Dishonour – Material Alteration – Sections 87, 138, 118(a), 139, NI Act – Cheque issued for ₹7 lakhs returned unpaid for “insufficient funds” – Accused admitted issuing cheque but alleged alteration in account number and limited liability of ₹1.92 lakhs – Evidence (CW1 testimony) confirmed alteration from CD-5956 to CD-6033 without drawer’s authentication – Held: Alteration in name/account of payee constitutes material alteration under Section 87; cheque rendered void; no liability arises on its dishonour. Acquittal [Paras 18-27].

Presumption under NI Act – Rebuttal – Sections 118(a), 139, NI Act – Presumption of consideration and liability arises on issuance of cheque – Presumption is rebuttable; once evidence of alteration and lesser liability is shown, presumption stands displaced – Complainant failed to prove subsisting legally enforceable debt of ₹7 lakhs – Cheque unenforceable [Paras 28-29].

Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction – Sections 397 & 401 CrPC – High Court ordinarily does not reappreciate evidence in revision – However, where concurrent findings of courts below ignore material alteration rendering cheque void, interference is justified – Conviction and sentence set aside; complaint dismissed; accused acquitted [Paras 13-17, 30-32].

Decision – Criminal Revision Allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 138 NI Act set aside – Complaint dismissed – Accused acquitted – Petitioner to furnish bail bonds under Section 437-A CrPC (Section 481 BNSS, 2023) for ₹25,000/- with one surety, effective for six months [Paras 32-33].

Service Law – Absorption on Takeover – Special Officer (CAPE) vs. Senior Superintendent (DME) – Tribunal’s Order Set Aside – Petitioner appointed as Special Officer under CAPE, probation declared post-takeover; later downgraded to UDC by Govt. order – Tribunal dismissed challenge citing lack of proof of equivalence – High Court noted crucial documents (Exts.P9 & P10) recommending creation of Senior Superintendent post to accommodate petitioner were withheld – Held: Tribunal erred in ignoring these – Matter remanded for reconsideration [Paras 10–18].

Qualification Dispute – MBA as Postgraduate Degree – To Be Examined by Tribunal – Notification required Post Graduation + MBA – Govt. disputed MBA as PG – Court held issue of qualification and equivalence must be considered afresh along with absorption claim [Paras 7–13].

Parity Claim – Vanishing Category Posts – Engineers Retained, Officer Downgraded – Petitioner argued Engineers allowed to continue as vanishing category; same principle should apply – Court held Tribunal must examine parity argument in light of policy documents and Govt. practice [Paras 8–13].

Final Order – Tribunal’s judgment dated 04.03.2025 in O.A. No.79/2020 set aside – Case remanded to Tribunal for fresh consideration with Exts.P9 & P10 and observations of Court – OP allowed [Para 18].

Specific Relief Act  - Agreement to Sell – Claim of Earnest Money by Stranger – Concurrent Findings Against Plaintiff – Dismissal Upheld – Appellant claimed to have paid ₹46,85,625/- as earnest money and to have inserted respondent no.1’s name in agreement dated 14.10.2011 in good faith – Both Trial and First Appellate Courts held that agreement (Ex.P1) showed respondent no.1 as buyer and no evidence supported appellant’s plea – Bank records proved earnest money was paid by respondent no.1 from funds withdrawn from his and his wife’s accounts – Held: No cogent evidence by appellant; concurrent findings sustained [Paras 2–9].

Scope of Second Appeal – Section 100 CPC – No Substantial Question of Law – Appeal Dismissed – Findings of fact by both courts below that appellant was never part of transaction and consideration flowed from respondent no.1 – High Court found no substantial question of law arising – Appeal dismissed as devoid of merit [Paras 9–10].

Final Decision – Writ for Declaration/Recovery – Relief Denied – In absence of proof of involvement or payment by appellant, suit rightly dismissed; second appeal also dismissed – Pending applications disposed of [Para 10].