Criminal Trespass – Section 447 IPC – Encroachment on Forest Land – Ingredients Not Proved – Accused alleged to have encroached upon approximately 30 bighas 13 biswas of Reserved Forest land by raising an apple orchard and a house – Complaint merely stated that encroachment had occurred without averring that the accused entered with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy the State – Held: Mere unauthorised entry or possession, even if illegal, does not constitute criminal trespass unless the specific intent enumerated under Section 441 IPC is proved – Prosecution failed to establish the requisite intent; ingredients of Section 447 IPC not satisfied [Paras 22–24].

Demarcation – Validity – Procedure Not Followed – Accused Absent – Demarcating officer (PW5) admitted that he could not recall whether three permanent points were taken, that he was not competent to carry out demarcation, and that no notice was issued to the accused – HC Sanjay Kumar (PW7) confirmed the accused was absent during demarcation – Patwari, through whom intimation was allegedly given, was not examined – Held: Demarcation not conducted as per law; report does not describe the procedure adopted and cannot be relied upon – Conviction cannot be based on a demarcation conducted in the absence of the accused and without following prescribed instructions [Paras 15–21].

Indian Forest Act – Section 26 – Reserved Forest – Proof of Notification Mandatory – Prosecution relied on a notification (Ex.PW6/B) which did not mention any Khasra number corresponding to the disputed land – No copy of notification declaring Khasra Nos. 644/1, 646/1 and 804/641/1 as Reserved Forest was placed on record – Held: Issuance and publication of notification under Sections 4 and 6 of the Indian Forest Act are mandatory prerequisites to attract Section 26 – In the absence of proof of notification, no offence under Section 26 is made out [Paras 25–29].

Appeal Against Acquittal – Scope of Interference – Held: Appellate court can interfere with a judgment of acquittal only if it is patently perverse, based on misreading or omission to consider material evidence, or where no two reasonable views are possible – Trial Court's findings on invalidity of demarcation and absence of proof of Reserved Forest notification constitute a reasonable view – Interference not warranted [Paras 12–14].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Acquittal of respondent confirmed – Respondent directed to furnish bail bonds of ₹25,000/- with one surety to the satisfaction of the Trial Court within four weeks, effective for six months

Specific Performance – Oral Agreement for Sale – Readiness and Willingness – Non-Deposit of Balance Amount Not Fatal – Original Plaintiff entered into an oral agreement in 1978 to purchase Flat No. 13 from the original Defendant for ₹50,000/-, paying ₹30,000/- in part performance – Defendant inducted his brother into the flat, subsequently repudiated the agreement by returning the amount by cheque, claiming personal necessity – Trial Court rejected specific performance holding the Plaintiff not ready and willing as he had not deposited the balance ₹20,000/- during pendency of the suit – Held: Non-deposit of balance consideration cannot be a ground for refusing specific performance; Explanation (i) to Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act makes it clear that actual tender or court deposit is not essential – Plaintiff's letter dated 01.09.1981 and unchallenged oral evidence of his son clearly demonstrated continuous readiness and willingness to perform – Trial Court's findings erroneous [Paras 38–46].

Specific Performance – Discretion of Court – Section 20 – Equitable Considerations – Balance of Equities – Defendant's letter dated 05.09.1981 did not contain any reference to the alleged non-payment in October 1978, rendering that defence an afterthought unsupported by contemporaneous documentary evidence – Held: The Defendant having enjoyed possession of the flat since 1978 despite receiving over 50% of the agreed consideration, specific performance is warranted – However, given the steep rise in property prices in Mumbai since 1978, interests of justice require the Plaintiffs to pay an additional sum of ₹25 lakhs over and above the balance consideration of ₹20,000/-, so as to balance equities between the parties – Plaintiffs had themselves agreed to pay a reasonable additional amount [Paras 51–54].

Specific Performance – Ingredients for Grant – The Court reiterated that five considerations govern the grant of specific performance: existence of a valid concluded contract; readiness and willingness of the Plaintiff; actual part performance by the Plaintiff; equitable considerations including hardship to the Defendant; and entitlement to alternative relief – All ingredients in the present case satisfied in favour of the Plaintiffs [Paras 47–53].

Decision: First Appeal allowed – Impugned judgment and decree dated 19.12.2007 set aside – Decree for specific performance of the oral agreement granted in favour of Appellants/Plaintiffs, subject to payment of ₹25,20,000/- (₹25 lakhs additional amount plus balance consideration of ₹20,000/-) to the Respondents/Defendants – No order as to costs.

Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 – Sections 8B and 8C – Rights of Persons Whose Conduct Is Inquired Into – Violation Renders Report Non-Est Against Such Persons – One-Man Commission appointed by State of Assam to inquire into anomalies and malpractices in APSC's Combined Competitive Examinations 2013 and 2014 submitted reports wherein findings, observations and recommendations touching the conduct and reputation of petitioners were made – Commission issued notices to petitioners calling for written responses only, without recognizing their status under Section 8B, without informing them of evidence being recorded, and without affording them the right to adduce defence evidence, to cross-examine witnesses, or to be represented by a legal practitioner – Held: Commission failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of Sections 8B and 8C of the Act; notices issued were at best in terms of Rule 5(2)(a) of the Rules of 1972 and not notices under Section 8B; all findings, observations and recommendations in Report 2013 and Report 2014 touching upon the conduct and reputation of the petitioners are rendered non-est and cannot be used against petitioners in any forum — Reports, however, not set aside in their entirety as they contain public-interest findings [Paras 78–101].

Commissions of Inquiry – Section 8B – Scope and Trigger – Section 8B is attracted when the Commission considers it necessary to inquire into the conduct of any person (Clause a) OR when it is of the opinion that the reputation of any person is likely to be prejudicially affected (Clause b) — Use of the word "or" makes it clear that fulfillment of either Clause is sufficient — Once so triggered, the Commission is under a statutory obligation to afford the person a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the inquiry including the right to adduce evidence in defence — The reasonable opportunity of being heard in the inquiry as per Section 8B is supplemented and exemplified by Section 8C, which confers the right of cross-examination, the right to address the Commission, and the right to be represented by a legal practitioner — These rights are inbuilt and cannot be made conditional upon the person asserting them [Paras 70, 76–80, 100].

Commission of Inquiry – Procedure – Order of Recording Evidence – Rights Under Section 8B Cannot Be Inverted – A person coming within the ambit of Section 8B cannot be called to produce defence evidence at the inception of the inquiry as that would reduce the right of cross-examination to a formality — The proper procedure requires that evidence against such person is adduced first, the person is given opportunity to cross-examine, and thereafter is permitted to adduce defence evidence — In absence of Rules framed by the State under Section 12 of the Act, the Commission must apply the procedure conceptualized in Rule 5(5)(a) of the Rules of 1972 as judicially sanctioned — It was also obligatory for the Commission to inform petitioners when evidence of other participants would be taken and when they would be permitted to adduce defence evidence [Paras 75, 80–81, 98–99].

Departmental Proceedings – Effect of Violation of Section 8B and 8C – Reports Cannot Form Basis of Disciplinary Action – Report 2013 and Report 2014 cannot be used against petitioners to initiate or sustain disciplinary proceedings — The entire basis of the show cause notices and statements of allegations being the impugned reports, the second paragraphs of the show cause notices and statements of allegations stand stricken off — Extracts of the reports furnished as list of documents also cannot be relied upon — However, disciplinary proceedings are not set aside in entirety; the State, as employer, retains inherent right to proceed on materials de hors the reports — If State wishes to include additional documents or list of witnesses, it must do so within 45 days, during which disciplinary proceedings stand stalled [Paras 115–127].

Doctrine of Severability – Disciplinary Proceedings – When one of several grounds for initiation of disciplinary proceedings is found to be invalid, the proceedings can be continued if the remaining grounds are sufficient and the competent authority would have initiated proceedings on those grounds alone — Since State has contended availability of other materials beyond the reports, it is not appropriate to quash disciplinary proceedings at the nascent stage — Observation of Court on materials is consciously avoided to avoid prejudicing parties [Paras 117–123].

Suspension – Rule 6(1), Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 – Suspension Valid but Protracted Suspension Impermissible – Suspension orders not interfered with as disciplinary and criminal proceedings are pending — However, prolonged suspensions violate Article 21 — Respondent authorities directed to conduct periodical reviews within 45 days to examine whether continuation of suspension is necessary in public interest — Failure to review within 45 days will render suspension notifications invalid and petitioners shall be reinstated to non-sensitive posts [Paras 128–138].

Decision: Batch of writ petitions disposed of — Report 2013 and Report 2014 declared non-est against petitioners to the extent they touch upon conduct and reputation of petitioners — Second paragraphs of show cause notices and statements of allegations stricken off — Disciplinary proceedings to continue de hors the reports, with State given liberty to include additional documents/witnesses within 45 days — Suspension orders upheld subject to mandatory periodic review within 45 days — Interim orders vacated — No order as to costs.

Environment – Tree Felling – Interim Prohibition – Zirakpur–Panchkula Bypass – NHAI – PIL challenging the proposed felling of approximately 5,000 trees for the construction of the Zirakpur–Panchkula bypass — Court queried NHAI as to whether the States of Punjab and Haryana are ready and willing to provide public land in close vicinity for compensatory afforestation in lieu of the proposed tree felling — NHAI's counsel had no answer and sought time to seek instructions — NHAI also directed to submit all re-alignment proposals considered by its technical team to enable the Court to examine whether mind was applied to alternative sites — Held: Inactivity of respondents requires drastic remedial measures — This Court prohibits cutting of any tree of any age or species in the State of Haryana, including the 5,000 trees proposed for the bypass, without permission of this Court, till the next date of hearing [Paras 1, 1.1, 1.2, 4].

Forest Cover – State of Haryana – Ecological Catastrophe – As per the Indian State Forest Report 2023, forest cover in Haryana is only 3.65% of its geographical area — The Court observed that the functionaries of the State of Haryana appear neither serious nor conscious of the impending ecological catastrophe — The low forest cover lends urgency to the interim prohibition against tree felling [Paras 2, 3, 3.1].

Interim Directions – NHAI Assurance – NHAI's counsel assured the Court that no tree for the construction of the proposed bypass will be cut until further orders are passed — CM-156-CWPIL-2026 allowed; Annexures P-13 and P-14 filed by the petitioners taken on record [Paras 5, CM order].

Decision: CM-156-CWPIL-2026 allowed — Cutting of any tree of any age or species in the State of Haryana, including trees proposed for the Zirakpur–Panchkula bypass, prohibited without permission of this Court till further orders — NHAI directed to submit all re-alignment proposals — Matter listed on 17.04.2026.

Sports Law — Election Disputes — Powers of Sports Council — Section 31A, Kerala Sports Act — Kerala Hockey, a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, is recognized by the Sports Council and affiliated to Hockey India — Disputes arose regarding validity of bye-law amendments made in General Body meeting dated 02.10.2016 and elections held on 15.05.2022 — Held: Though the conduct of elections is primarily an internal affair of a Society governed by its bye-laws, the Sports Council has statutory authority under Section 31A to enquire into failure to conduct elections as prescribed, or serious lapses in the election process, for the limited purpose of withdrawing recognition — The Single Judge's view that the Sports Council cannot intervene in the election process is therefore not entirely correct [Paras 19–21].

Sports Law — Enquiry Committee — Second Report — Government Powers — Sections 8(3) and 8(4), Kerala Sports Act — Upon receipt of the first enquiry committee's report dated 20.12.2023 which accepted the election with a 2:1 majority, the Government directed constitution of a second committee in view of complaints received — Held: The power of the Government under Section 8(4) to cancel or modify resolutions of the Sports Council after hearing it, coupled with complaints received, justified obtaining a second report — The second report can only be treated as continuation of the enquiry under Section 31A(1), leading to proceedings for withdrawal of recognition under Section 31A(2) — Contention of res judicata rejected [Paras 22, 28].

Natural Justice — Opportunity of Hearing — Report under Section 31A(1) — Enquiry Report — Contention that the appellants were not heard before submission of the second enquiry report — Held: The report under Section 31A(1) is only a preliminary report — The opportunity of hearing is available to the affected party under Section 31A(2) when steps for withdrawal of recognition are initiated — Violation of natural justice at the stage of enquiry under Section 31A(1) does not arise [Para 23].

Sports Law — Disqualification — Section 31A(3), Kerala Sports Act — Ineligibility of Office Bearers — Sri V. Sunil Kumar was President of Hockey Kerala when its affiliation was cancelled by Hockey India on grounds of financial irregularities in 2014 — Section 31A(3) bars office bearers of an organisation whose recognition was cancelled from becoming office bearers of any other sports organisation — Contention that Section 31A(3) was enacted only in 2015 and therefore inapplicable — Held: Financial irregularity is one of the grounds for disqualification under Section 31A(3) — Issue left for adjudication in Section 31A(2) proceedings [Para 26].

Sports Law — Dissolution of Society — Direction by Government — Powers of Sports Council — Government Order dated 02.05.2025 directing dissolution of Kerala Hockey and conduct of fresh elections through an ad-hoc committee — Held: There cannot be a direction for dissolution of a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act through the Sports Council — Direction for dissolution set aside by Single Judge upheld — Conduct of election is within the exclusive domain of the Society and not within the purview of the Sports Council [Paras 28–29].

Sports Law — Technical Committee — Section 5, Kerala Sports Act — Direction by Single Judge to constitute a Technical Committee to protect the rights and interests of hockey players till recognition is settled — Held: The direction is justified in view of the wide powers of the Sports Council under Section 5(2)(a), (d), (i) and (q) of the Sports Act to organise, coordinate, regulate and promote sports — Upheld [Para 30].

Decision: Writ appeals disposed of — Recognition of Kerala Hockey to stand suspended till culmination of proceedings under Section 31A(2) — Sports Council directed to initiate steps under Section 31A(2) without delay — Direction for dissolution of the Society and conduct of election through an ad-hoc committee set aside — Direction to constitute a Technical Committee to cater to the needs of hockey players upheld — No costs.

Specific Performance – Oral Agreement for Sale of Flat – Readiness and Willingness – Decree Granted on Payment of Additional Amount – Original Plaintiff entered into an oral agreement with original Defendant to purchase Flat No. 13 in a co-operative housing society at Wadala, Mumbai for Rs. 50,000/-, paying Rs. 30,000/- in part performance – Defendant refunded the amount by cheque in 1981 citing changed circumstances – Trial Court held Plaintiff not ready and willing and declined specific performance, directing only refund of Rs. 30,000/- with interest – On First Appeal, High Court found that the trial court's conclusion was erroneous and that the Plaintiff had demonstrated continuous readiness and willingness – Held: Plaintiffs entitled to specific performance subject to payment of Rs. 25,20,000/- to the Defendant to balance equities, considering the steep rise in property prices since 1978 – Appeal allowed [Paras 28–55].

Readiness and Willingness – Letter Dated 1st September 1981 – Sufficiency of Averment – Trial Court held that Plaintiff's letter did not show readiness to pay balance of Rs. 20,000/- and that non-deposit of balance amount during pendency of suit indicated lack of readiness – High Court held that the letter clearly evidenced readiness and willingness as it called upon the Defendant to complete the transaction urgently for the purpose of the daughter's marriage – Non-deposit of balance amount in Court is not a ground for dismissal of a specific performance suit – As per Explanation (i) to Section 16(c), it is not essential for the Plaintiff to tender or deposit any money unless directed by the Court; averment of readiness and willingness in substance suffices [Paras 38–41, 45–46].

Contemporaneous Documentary Evidence – Preponderance of Probability – Defendant's case, that in October 1978 Plaintiff told him he had no money to pay balance, and that on 23rd August 1981 Plaintiff agreed to accept refund, not reflected in Defendant's own letter dated 5th September 1981 – Said letter does not contain any reference to alleged non-payment in October 1978 nor does it state that Plaintiff had accepted cancellation of the agreement – High Court held that contemporaneous documentary evidence corroborated the Plaintiff's version, making it more probable – Oral evidence of limited value as both original parties had passed away [Paras 32–36].

Discretion in Specific Performance – Exercise of Judicial Discretion – Factors to be Considered – Trial Court's refusal based on (i) friendship and neighbourly relationship of parties, (ii) Plaintiff's daughter having presumably married and settled elsewhere, and (iii) hardship to Defendant's widow – High Court held these reasons legally erroneous and unsustainable – Friendship between parties does not negate sanctity of an agreement – Assumptions about daughter's marriage are speculative and not evidence-based – Defendant having retained possession of Flat No. 13 since 1978 despite receiving over 50% of sale consideration caused grave loss and prejudice to Plaintiffs – Mental agony and monetary loss are factors favouring grant of specific performance [Paras 42–43, 53–54].

Balancing of Equities – Additional Compensation Directed – Steep Rise in Property Prices – Considering that the oral agreement was entered into in 1978 and there has been a steep rise in immovable property prices in Mumbai since then, High Court directed Plaintiffs to pay an additional sum of Rs. 25 lacs over and above the balance consideration of Rs. 20,000/-, totalling Rs. 25,20,000/- – Plaintiffs had also indicated willingness to pay a reasonable additional amount – Held: This would serve the interests of justice and balance equities between the parties [Para 54].

Decision: First Appeal allowed – Impugned Judgment and Decree dated 19th December 2007 set aside – Decree for specific performance granted in favour of Appellants/Plaintiffs in terms of prayer (a) of the Plaint subject to payment of Rs. 25,20,000/- to Respondents/Defendants – No order as to costs.

Discharge – Framing of Charge – Sections 227 and 228 CrPC / Sections 250 and 251 BNSS – Standard of Prima Facie Case – Defective Investigation No Ground for Discharge – Applicant, allegedly arrested on the spot during interception of a truck carrying 19 bulls, sought discharge contending false implication, fabricated arrest, and tainted investigation including removal of a case diary parcha (SCD-9) recording the Gunner's exculpatory statement – Held: At the stage of framing of charge, the court is not to conduct a mini trial or marshal evidence; the test is whether there is sufficient ground for presuming that the accused committed the offence, not whether conviction is certain – Material on record including statements of witnesses, FIR, and recovery memo disclosed prima facie case – The Gunner's statement related to 12.09.2019 whereas the incident occurred on 12.12.2019, rendering it irrelevant to the present case – Discharge application rightly rejected; charge framing orders valid [Paras 19–34].

Defective Investigation – No Benefit to Accused at Discharge Stage – Applicant alleged deliberate manipulation of the case diary by the Investigating Officer including substitution of Parcha SCD-9 – Held: An accused cannot be discharged or acquitted on the ground of defective, faulty or impartial investigation alone – Even where investigation is found to be designedly defective, the prosecution evidence must be scrutinised dehors such lapses; to acquit or discharge on grounds of defective investigation would be to play into the hands of a biased or interested investigator – Court's function is to evaluate the evidence independently of investigative lapses [Paras 14–18].

Decision: Application dismissed – No orders as to costs – Registrar (Compliance) directed to send a copy to the concerned trial court.

Bail — Espionage — Official Secrets Act, 1923 — BNS, Section 152 — Petitioner accused of transmitting sensitive defence information to Pakistani intelligence operatives — FIR registered on basis of disclosure statement made during custody in a prior Arms Act case — Petitioner had visited Pakistan in November 2024 on a religious trip to Kartarpur Sahib and Nankana Sahib — Alleged to have remained in contact with Pakistani contacts through WhatsApp and Snapchat upon return — Accused of recording movements of Indian Army and sharing confidential information including details of Army establishments at Patiala — Held: Bail granted on consideration of weak evidentiary foundation, absence of prosecution sanction, clean antecedents, and arguable points of law [Paras 1–17].

Disclosure Statement — Sole Basis for FIR — Second FIR Registered Immediately After Bail in First Case — Petitioner's mobile phone already in police custody pursuant to FIR No. 108 (Arms Act) — Present FIR No. 31 registered on the same date bail was granted in FIR No. 108, based solely on petitioner's disclosure statement — No independent recovery effected in the present case — Court questioned the occasion for registering a second FIR when the solitary evidence (mobile phone) was already in custody — State unable to answer specific queries posed by Court regarding circumstances of disclosure and basis of second FIR [Paras 3, 5, 9].

Corroborative Evidence — Absence Thereof — No material to show video or photographs transmitted to Pakistani contacts — Alleged communications between petitioner and "Shah Ji" confined to period 18.04.2025 to 10.05.2025 — Operation Sindoor commenced 09.05.2025 — No allegation of communication after commencement of Operation — State unable to identify specific information shared, confirm period of video recording, establish pecuniary motive, or demonstrate that "Shah Ji" was an intelligence operative — Motive attributed to petitioner's ancestral affinity for Pakistan, not substantiated by evidence [Paras 5–12].

Prosecution Sanction — Official Secrets Act, 1923 — Mandatory Precondition — Proposal for sanction forwarded to Union of India in July 2025 — No sanction accorded despite lapse of approximately nine months — Trial cannot commence in absence of such sanction — Held: Non-grant of prosecution sanction is a relevant consideration militating against continued detention [Paras 7, 14, 16].

Decision: Petition allowed — Petitioner directed to be released on regular bail on furnishing requisite bail/surety bond to satisfaction of Trial Court — Petitioner not to threaten or influence prosecution witnesses — Observations not to be construed as expression on merits — Trial Court to decide on available material [Paras 16–19].

Matrimonial Law – Divorce – Mental Cruelty – Repeated Filing of False Complaints – Husband, a doctor, sought dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on the ground of cruelty – Trial Court dismissed the petition holding the incidents to be mere trivial normal wear and tear of married life – On appeal, High Court finds that wife had filed false FIR No. 54 under Section 498-A IPC in which husband and his parents were acquitted; filed FIR No. 1470 alleging forgery of signatures in income tax returns which was not charge-sheeted by police and was subsequently quashed; filed complaint under Section 12 of the DV Act which was dismissed by the Magistrate; and filed repeated complaints to the Director General, Health Department against the husband causing difficulties in discharge of his official duties – Held: Acquittal in criminal proceedings and quashing of false FIR, coupled with repeated complaints to the employer, constitute legal proof of mental cruelty; grant of divorce does not amount to giving benefit to the husband of his own wrongs – Appeal allowed; marriage dissolved [Paras 9, 22, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33].

Mental Cruelty – Concept and Scope – "Cruelty" not defined in Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Mental cruelty broadly defined as conduct which inflicts upon the other party such mental pain and suffering as would make it impossible for that party to live with the other – No straitjacket formula applicable; each case to be examined on its own facts and circumstances taking into account social status, educational level, cultural background and cumulative effect of conduct – Isolated incidents over a period of years do not amount to cruelty; ill conduct must be persistent for a fairly lengthy period causing the wronged party to find it extremely difficult to continue living with the other – Relied upon: Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi; V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat; Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh; K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa; Amutha v. A.R. Subramanian [Paras 13–17, 20, 29, 30].

Cruelty – Adultery by Husband – Effect on Husband's Right to Seek Divorce – Allegation that husband was in adulterous relationship with a nurse, Sheela, supported by birth certificate recording his name as father and departmental enquiry concluding possibility of live-in relationship could not be ruled out – Held: Even if husband had some adulterous relationship, if the conduct of the wife independently reveals cruelty unrelated to such adultery, his right to seek divorce on the ground of cruelty is not forfeited or ousted; adulterous relationship of husband may furnish wife a ground to seek divorce but does not in every situation furnish a defence to oppose divorce when the wife's cruelty is not in retaliation to such relationship [Para 27].

Maintenance and Permanent Alimony – Husband directed to deposit Rs. 16 lakhs as maintenance for wife and daughter (in ratio of 60:40) and Rs. 30 lakhs as permanent alimony in the Family Court within six weeks – Amount of Rs. 30 lakhs to be adjustable against permanent alimony, if any, awarded in proceedings under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 if wife chooses to prefer such petition [Paras 34].