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 – 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].

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.

Anticipatory Bail – Prevention of Money Laundering – Organized Cyber Frauds – Petitioners alleged to be key operatives in third and second layers of laundering network – Large-scale layering of proceeds of crime through hundreds of mule accounts, conversion to cryptocurrency, and uploading to UAE-based PYYPL platform – ED investigation revealed deep involvement of petitioners in managing over 30 entities and routing ₹65 crore through fraudulent transactions – Custodial interrogation sought by ED – Held: Petitioners played significant role in laundering – Bail denied [Paras 2–3, 5–9]

Twin Conditions under Section 45 PMLA – Applicability to Anticipatory Bail – Petitioners argued that mere dealing in cryptocurrency is not an offence and relied on parity with co-accused granted bail – Held: Bail cannot be granted unless both twin conditions under Section 45 are satisfied – Plea of parity misplaced as co-accused were granted regular bail post-custody – Section 45 applies fully to anticipatory bail as well – There are no reasonable grounds to believe accused are not guilty or unlikely to commit offences while on bail [Paras 3, 4, 14–15]

Continuing Investigation – Need for Custodial Interrogation – Investigation ongoing with new complaints emerging – Petitioners allegedly wiped digital evidence, assaulted ED officers, and paid bribes to local police – ED requires custody to trace further layering and involvement of banking officials – Held: Court cannot override investigative necessity for effective interrogation and evidence collection – Bail would risk destruction of crucial evidence [Paras 7, 10–13]

Economic Offences – Seriousness – Impact on Public Confidence and National Economy – Money laundering offences viewed as aggravated economic crimes with transnational dimensions – Held: Economic offences constitute a distinct class – Investigation must be allowed full play before grant of bail can be considered [Paras 4.4–4.5, 9.3–9.5]

Constitutional Rights vs. Investigative Interests – Petitioners relied on Article 21 for anticipatory bail – Held: Right to liberty under Article 21 must be balanced against public interest in effective investigation – Article 21 cannot be used to block necessary custodial interrogation [Paras 4.2, 10]

Decision: Both anticipatory bail applications dismissed – Petitioners failed to satisfy the twin conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA – Custodial interrogation found necessary due to serious nature of allegations and risk of evidence tampering – No protection from arrest granted.

Prevention of Corruption – Demand and Acceptance of Bribe – Conviction of Public Servant Affirmed – Appellant, Sub-Inspector of Delhi Police, demanded illegal gratification from complainant for not implicating him in criminal case under investigation – Initial demand made at police station followed by reiteration during trap proceedings at Tis Hazari Courts – Acceptance of tainted money through intermediary (Head Constable) pursuant to appellant’s directions – Held: Foundational facts of demand and acceptance proved beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) PC Act sustained [Paras 26–27, 39].

Evidence – Complainant Not an Accomplice – Reliance on Sole Testimony – Complainant’s evidence found cogent, consistent and trustworthy – Law reiterated that complainant in bribery case is not an accomplice and his testimony does not mandatorily require corroboration – Non-examination of some witnesses, including complainant’s son or alleged accomplices, not fatal to prosecution case [Paras 26–27].

Trap Proceedings – Shadow Witness and Independent Witnesses – Shadow witness and independent witnesses supported prosecution in material particulars – Partial hostility of witnesses does not efface prosecution case – Portion of testimony supporting prosecution can be relied upon – Evidence to be weighed, not counted [Paras 28–30].

Electronic Evidence – Tape Recorded Conversation – Custody and Transcript – Allegation of improper custody and missing portion of transcript examined – Tape recording opened pursuant to court order and transcript prepared in presence of witnesses – Minor omission in transcript not relating to demand held inconsequential – Even otherwise, prosecution case does not rest solely on tape-recorded evidence [Paras 28–29].

Presumption under Section 20 PC Act – Applicability – Once demand and acceptance of illegal gratification established, statutory presumption arises – Accused failed to rebut presumption by any probable defence – Conviction justified on evidence on record [Paras 13.4–13.6, 39].

Contradictions and Omissions – Appreciation of Evidence – Alleged contradictions regarding visiting card, dialing of phone, crowd, firing incident, handling of currency notes and trap formalities held to be minor and not affecting core prosecution story – Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements cannot be used except for contradiction following procedure under Section 145 Evidence Act – No legally proved contradictions established [Paras 31, 35–37].

Investigation Lapses – Effect – Non-examination of advocate to whom bribe was initially directed, non-sending of articles for forensic examination, and alleged violation of CBI Manual not fatal – CBI Manual is administrative and not statutory – Defective investigation by itself cannot result in acquittal when substantive evidence proves guilt [Paras 32, 38].

Hostile Witness – Evidentiary Value – Evidence of partially hostile witnesses can be relied upon to the extent it supports prosecution – PW3 and PW4 corroborated pre-trap, trap and post-trap proceedings in material aspects [Paras 28–30].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence of four years’ rigorous imprisonment with fine under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act upheld – No interference warranted [Paras 39–40].

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.

Indian Succession Act – Succession Certificate – Christian Intestate – Deceased leaving widow and lineal descendants – Trial Court refused certificate on ground that mother of deceased is also legal heir – Held, erroneous – Under Sections 32 and 33, where intestate is survived by widow and lineal descendants, mother does not inherit – Estate devolves upon widow and children – Refusal of succession certificate unsustainable in law [Paras 6-7].

Indian Succession Act – Distribution of Estate – Section 33 – Intestate leaving widow and lineal descendants – One-third of property to widow and remaining two-thirds to lineal descendants – Mother excluded when direct lineal descendants exist – Trial Court misconstrued statutory scheme – Impugned order liable to be set aside [Paras 6-7].

Succession Certificate – Shares in Company – No nomination – Requirement of certificate by company for transmission – Appellants, being widow and sons of deceased, entitled to seek certificate under Section 372 – Dismissal despite prima facie entitlement improper – Appellate Court directed issuance of certificate within specified time [Paras 3, 8].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Order dated 08.11.2019 in P & S.C. No.532/2018 set aside – Trial Court directed to grant succession certificate in favour of appellants forthwith in accordance with law.

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.

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.