Criminal Law – Quashing of Proceedings – Petitioners sought to quash the order of the Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur, directing police investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and the subsequent criminal proceedings – Dispute arising from termination of a contract and allegations of non-payment and withholding of machinery – Held: Dispute is civil in nature, arising from a contract, with no prima facie case of criminal intent – Reliance on the law requiring judicial mind in orders under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. emphasized – Entire criminal proceedings quashed [Paras 2-24].

Application of Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. – Judicial Application of Mind – Court noted failure to apply judicial mind in the Magistrate’s order under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. – Reference made to precedents underscoring the necessity of clear judicial reasoning in such orders [Paras 6, 16-18].

Nature of Dispute – Civil vs. Criminal – Court stressed that disputes purely civil in nature, especially those involving contractual obligations, should not be pursued through criminal proceedings – Previous legal actions under the MSME Act noted, reinforcing the civil nature of the dispute [Paras 9, 19-23].

Decision: Petition allowed – Entire criminal proceeding, including the order for investigation and FIR, quashed – Court emphasized the inappropriate use of criminal law for resolving a civil dispute – Pending civil proceedings under the MSME Act to continue independently [Paras 24-26].

Civil Procedure – Additional Documents in Commercial Suits – Plaintiffs filed an application under Order XI Rule 1(5) CPC for leave to file additional documents – Defendants opposed the application, arguing that documents should have been filed earlier – Court allowed certain additional documents, noting the necessity of their production for a just decision and emphasizing procedural flexibility in commercial suits [Paras 1-39].

Commercial Dispute – Duty of Disclosure – High Court emphasized the plaintiff’s obligation to disclose all relevant documents at the initial stage – Recognized the reasonable cause for late filing of documents due to their relevance in response to defendants’ case or for witness cross-examination [Paras 21-33].

Reasonable Cause for Non-Disclosure – Explained the distinction between “reasonable cause” and “sufficient cause” under Order XI Rule 1(5) CPC – Applied a liberal interpretation to ensure justice and fairness in commercial disputes [Paras 24-30].

Decision: Application allowed in part – Certain additional documents taken on record – Liberty granted to plaintiffs to confront defendants’ witnesses with specific documents during trial – Application of strict procedural rules moderated to serve the ends of justice in commercial litigation [Paras 37-39].
 

Mutation Proceedings – Summary Nature – Petitioners' Father’s Property Mutation Dispute – Petitioners challenged the mutation orders favoring the respondent, based on an earlier Will – Petitioners claimed subsequent Will in their favor – Court observed the mutation proceedings are summary and fiscal, not determining title – Petitioners required to pursue civil court for title dispute – Writ petition dismissed [Paras 1-46].

Writ Jurisdiction – Mutation Orders – The writ petition under Article 227 challenged mutation orders – Court emphasized writ jurisdiction limitations in summary proceedings of mutation – Affirmed previous rulings that mutation entries do not confer title, only fiscal effects [Paras 1-22, 29-45].

Delay in Filing Restoration Application – Petitioners' delay in seeking restoration and challenging the mutation orders – Court noted procedural deficiencies and failure to timely assert claim under subsequent Will – Restoration application deemed time-barred [Paras 7-10, 35-37].

Decision: Writ Petition Dismissed – Held – Petitioners directed to seek redressal through appropriate civil court to establish their title based on the subsequent Will – Mutation proceedings not interfered with under writ jurisdiction** [Paras 45-46].
 

Land Acquisition – Review of Orders – Possession and Compensation – Review applicants, Union of India and Defence Estate Officer, sought review of orders dated November 21, 2016, and December 6, 2016, directing compensation to Terai Tea Company under the Act of 2013 – Review sought on grounds of not being parties to the original proceedings and adverse effect on their rights due to State Government’s concession – Held, Terai Tea had no right, title, or interest in the subject land as possession was taken by the Defence Estate in 1972 – Renewal of lease by State Government in 1976 was invalid as Terai Tea was not in possession – Orders under review recalled [Paras 1-50]. 

Review Jurisdiction – Error Apparent on the Face of Record – Non-party Review Applicants – Supreme Court precedents allow review by non-parties if adversely affected – Error in the original orders recognized, as State Government’s concession was beyond its delegation authority – Principles of Order 47, Rule 1, CPC applied, allowing review due to mistake of fact and law [Paras 35-51]. 

Decision: Review allowed – Orders dated November 21, 2016, and December 6, 2016, recalled – State Government’s direction to initiate proceedings under the Act of 2013 set aside – Review application and connected applications disposed of without costs [Paras 50-51]. 

Divorce by Mutual Consent – Right to Sue – Appellants’ Claim: Issue regarding whether the right to sue for divorce by mutual consent survives to the legal heirs of the deceased husband when he dies before the second motion is moved. The Family Court’s decision denying the legal heirs’ request to continue the proceedings and directing the return of money paid under the mutual consent agreement was challenged [Paras 1-13]. 

Section 13-B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act – Requirement of Second Motion – Legal Interpretation: Section 13-B(2) mandates a second motion by both parties within a specific timeframe for the court to grant a divorce. Absence of this second motion due to the husband’s death rendered the petition infructuous. The court held that the right to seek divorce is a personal right that does not survive to the heirs, thus abating the petition [Paras 14-16]. 

Legal Heirs and Right to Appeal – Scope of Right to Sue: The right to seek divorce being a personal right does not survive to the legal heirs of the deceased. The appeal against the Family Court’s decision was dismissed, and the divorce petition was declared infructuous. Additionally, the court directed the respondent to redeposit the sum received as part of the mutual consent terms [Paras 17-24]. 

Decision:  Appeal Dismissed – Petition Abated: The court upheld the Family Court’s decision that the divorce petition became infructuous upon the husband’s death before the second motion under Section 13-B(2) was moved. The right to sue did not survive to the legal heirs. The court also affirmed the Family Court’s order directing the respondent to redeposit the sum received as part of the mutual consent terms [Paras 1-24]. 

Criminal Law – Abetment to Suicide – Petition for quashing FIR for abetment to suicide under Section 306 IPC. Petitioner accused of harassing and blackmailing the deceased, leading to his suicide. Suicide note recovered implicating the petitioner. Held, mere demand for repayment of a loan does not amount to abetment, but combined with harassment, blackmail, and threats, it can compel a person to commit suicide [Paras 1-28].

Legal Principles – Quashing FIR – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – High Court emphasized the parameters for exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings. Held, FIR and accompanying material must disclose a cognizable offence. Truthfulness or sufficiency of evidence not to be assessed at this stage [Paras 10-29].

Decision – Petition Dismissed – The petitioner directed to appear before the Trial Court. Observations made confined to the disposal of the petition without bearing on the merits of the case [Paras 30-32].

Public Auction – Revision of Reserve Price – Petitioner challenged the rejection of their application for a plot in SEZ Phase-II Sitapura Industrial Area due to the subsequent revision of the reserve price. The court upheld the rejection, emphasizing that the highest bidder does not have a vested right to have the auction concluded in their favor if the conditions change before the auction is finalized. The Supreme Court’s precedents on the lack of vested rights in public auctions were reiterated [Paras 1-9].

Scope of Judicial Review in Tender Matters – Court’s interference in tender processes is limited; plausible decisions are not to be interfered with unless there is clear discrimination or irrationality. Petition was dismissed on grounds that rejecting all applications to re-advertise the plots at revised rates was neither discriminatory nor irrational [Paras 6-8].

No Vested Right from Application Submission – Submitting an application for a plot does not create a vested right in favor of the applicant. Petitioner was advised that they could reapply when plots are re-advertised [Para 8].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Rejection of the application for the plot allotment upheld. Petitioner retains the liberty to participate in future advertisements for plot allotments once rates are revised [Paras 1-9].

Criminal Law – Rape Conviction – Appellant convicted for rape and impregnating a minor girl – Trial court sentenced appellant to 12 years R.I. and fines – High Court notes discrepancies in prosecution’s case and victim’s contradictory statements – Victim and her mother retracted accusations, stating pressure from villagers – No substantial evidence proving victim’s age below 18 years – Doubts raised about the prosecution’s handling and veracity of charges [Paras 1-26].

Victim Testimony – Retracted Accusations – Victim initially accused appellant of rape resulting in pregnancy – During trial, she and her mother denied accusations, claiming pressure from co-villagers – High Court scrutinizes reliability of retracted testimony and lack of corroborative evidence [Paras 10-21].

Age Determination – Lack of Proof – Prosecution failed to conclusively prove victim’s age as under 18 – High Court emphasizes importance of verifying victim’s age to establish jurisdiction under POCSO Act [Para 21].

Benefit of Doubt – High Court acknowledges inconsistencies and lack of reliable evidence – Appellant given benefit of doubt – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellant ordered to be released if not required in any other case [Paras 25-28].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellant to be released forthwith if not required in connection with any other case [Paras 26-28].

Service Law – Termination – Acquittal in Criminal Case – Petitioner, an Anganwadi Worker, terminated without enquiry due to ACB case pendency – Court held termination illegal post-acquittal in criminal case, emphasizing principle of “innocent until proven guilty” – Mere pendency of criminal proceedings insufficient for termination without due enquiry [Paras 1-18]. 

Disciplinary Action – Principles of Natural Justice – Termination without issuing show cause notice or conducting enquiry violated natural justice – Court directed reinstatement with 50% back wages and service benefits – Highlighted need for fair disciplinary proceedings [Paras 13-18]. 

Decision: Writ Petition Allowed – Impugned termination proceedings set aside – Petitioner to be reinstated with 50% back wages and all service benefits to be computed and paid within four weeks [Paras 17-18].