Criminal Law - Discharge Application – Criminal Complaint over Co-owned Property – Section 239 CrPC – Rejection Set Aside - Petitioners, co-sharers of a pond, were accused of criminal intimidation and theft of fish – Trial Court rejected the discharge plea – Held: Allegations lacked criminal intent and involved a civil dispute over property rights – No prima facie offence under Section 379 IPC made out – Order refusing discharge quashed [Paras 1, 4, 11, 14-15].

Civil Dispute Cloaked as Criminal Offence – Co-sharers and WAQF Property – No Exclusive Possession – Criminal Proceedings Quashed - The pond was claimed to be WAQF property with multiple co-sharers – Petitioners' father and uncle recorded as title holders – No evidence of exclusive ownership by complainant – Held: Dispute over sharing of fish among co-owners does not attract criminal liability under IPC without proof of dishonest intent – Criminal case an abuse of process [Paras 6, 9, 13-14].

Abuse of Process – Inherent Power under Section 482 CrPC – Protection Against Frivolous Litigation – Invoked - In light of Supreme Court rulings in Paramjeet Batra, Naresh Kumar, and Usha Chakraborty, Court reiterated that where a dispute is essentially civil, cloaked as criminal, inherent power must be used to prevent judicial time being wasted – Criminal proceedings quashed accordingly [Paras 12-14].

Final Decision – Criminal Proceedings Quashed – Discharge Granted - Revisional application allowed – Order dated 07.03.2007 of Learned Judicial Magistrate, 4th Court, Howrah set aside – No cost imposed – Certified copy directed to be issued on compliance [Paras 14-17].

Service Law – Writ - Compulsory Retirement – Public Interest – Clause 22(2) FCI Staff Regulations – Writ Dismissed – Petitioner challenged the order of compulsory retirement and subsequent rejection of representation, contending non-consideration of satisfactory service record in preceding five years and recent promotion – Held: Reviewing Committee rightly considered entire service record including past punishments – Regulation requires review based on full service history and not just recent performance – Judicial review scope is narrow and Court cannot act as Appellate Authority – No mala fides or arbitrariness found [Paras 1, 5, 10, 12, 13, 16-19].

Washed-Off Theory – Inapplicability in Compulsory Retirement – Old Punishments Relevant – Validity of Action Upheld – Petitioner argued that past penalties, mostly symbolic, should be ignored due to recent promotions and good ACRs – Held: As per SC in Om Prakash, past adverse entries not wiped off for assessing fitness to continue – Old record, especially involving integrity and repeated misconduct, can justify compulsory retirement despite recent satisfactory entries [Paras 6, 11-14].

Promotion in Last Five Years – No Automatic Immunity from Retirement – Merit-Based vs. Seniority Promotion Distinction – No Relief – Petitioner relied on clause that ordinarily prevents retirement within a year of superannuation or after recent promotions – Held: Clause only protects those promoted on merit, not seniority-cum-fitness – Petitioner failed to establish promotion was merit-based – Hence, clause inapplicable [Paras 4, 14, 16].

Discriminatory Treatment Argument – Rejected – Case to Be Decided on Own Facts – Petitioner cited instances of similarly situated employees who were retained – Held: Mere differential treatment not enough – No record of comparators placed before Court – Each case requires separate evaluation based on individual record [Para 15].

Final Decision – Petitioner failed to establish arbitrariness, malice, or non-application of mind by the Reviewing Committee – Writ Petition Dismissed [Paras 17-19].

Criminal Law - Appeal Against Acquittal – Principles of Double Presumption – Acquittal Upheld – The State filed an appeal against the acquittal of two accused charged under Sections 394/397/34/411 IPC for assaulting and robbing the complainant – The Trial Court acquitted the accused citing inconsistencies in identification, non-sealing of recovered items, and contradictory testimonies – High Court reiterated the principle of double presumption of innocence applicable after acquittal and found no compelling reason to interfere – Appeal dismissed [Paras 12-16].

Identification – TIP Refused – Delayed and Tainted Identification Not Reliable – Complainant identified accused in court more than a month after arrest, claiming he recognized them during court visit – Accused had refused TIP citing prior exposure in police station – High Court held such identification lacked evidentiary value due to procedural compromise and delay [Paras 6, 11, 14].

Recovery – Failure to Seal Recovered Items – Recovery Not Credible – Purse, PAN card, and ID card allegedly recovered from accused were neither sealed nor subjected to forensic testing – IO admitted inability to link currency notes to the complainant – Recovery held to be in open condition and devoid of evidentiary worth [Paras 9, 14].

Contradictions in Prosecution Evidence – Independent Witness Denied Presence of Accused – Defence witness DW6, an independent eyewitness and neighbor, stated that quarrel occurred between complainant and other persons and the accused were not present – Prosecution did not cross-examine the witness – DD entries and MLC also did not mention robbery – Held: Prosecution version doubtful [Paras 7-8, 14].

Appellate Review of Acquittal – Scope Limited – No Interference Without Perverse Finding – Citing precedents including Ravi Sharma v. State (2022) and Anwar Ali v. State of H.P. (2020), Court reiterated that appellate courts must be cautious in reversing acquittals – No perversity or illegality found in trial court’s assessment – Appeal dismissed [Paras 12-13, 15].

Final Decision – Appeal dismissed – Acquittal of respondent No.2 under Sections 394/397/34/411 IPC upheld – No interference warranted in well-reasoned judgment of Trial Court – Proceedings against respondent No.1 abated due to death during pendency of appeal [Paras 6, 15-16].

Criminal Law - Maintainability of Second Petition – Abuse of Process – Section 482 CrPC – Petition Dismissed - The petitioner, having earlier challenged his arrest and failed, filed a second petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of the entire proceedings on similar grounds – Held: Filing successive petitions under Section 482 on same or similar grounds without change in circumstances amounts to abuse of process – Second petition not maintainable [Paras 10-11].

Quashing of FIR – Serious Economic Offences – ₹188 Crore Public Fund Misappropriation – Petition Dismissed - The allegations involved diversion of public funds from a Scheduled Tribes welfare corporation using forged documents and dummy accounts – Petitioner allegedly received proceeds in cash and gold and was later arrayed as Accused No.1 in charge sheet – Held: Prima facie material exists showing petitioner's involvement in conspiracy – Quashing of proceedings refused at pre-trial stage [Paras 12-14].

Illegal Arrest – Transit Warrant and Production – No Violation Found – Despite Lack of Transit Warrant – Petitioner was not named in FIR initially; however, on recovery of ₹8 crores cash and gold, he was taken into custody and produced before jurisdictional magistrate in Bengaluru – Held: Procedural lapse, if any, was cured upon production and remand – No basis to declare arrest illegal or release petitioner on that ground [Paras 15-18].

Constitutional Remedy – Articles 226 and 227 – Scope in Criminal Matters – Relief Denied - Petitioner sought constitutional remedy for quashing criminal proceedings alleging violation of rights under Article 21 – Held: Given the gravity of economic offence and public interest involved, extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 should not be exercised to scuttle criminal proceedings at nascent stage [Paras 19-20].

Final Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – No Interference Warranted – Court held that petition was devoid of merit, repetitive, and an attempt to revisit issues already concluded in earlier proceedings – Entire proceedings to continue uninhibited by the present petition [Para 21].

Criminal Law - Murder – Circumstantial Evidence – Sections 302, 498-A, 201 IPC – Acquittal – Appellant convicted for murdering wife by throttling and hanging her body to simulate suicide – High Court found prosecution failed to prove motive, failed to complete chain of circumstances, and relied on weak extra-judicial confession – Medical evidence ruled out manual throttling – Conduct of accused in shifting wife to hospitals consistent with innocence – Held: Prosecution case not proved beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction and sentence set aside; accused acquitted [Paras 23-42].

Motive – Crucial in Circumstantial Evidence – Prosecution failed to prove accused’s alleged extramarital affair or dowry demand – Non-disclosure of alleged woman’s identity fatal to case – Absence of clear motive weighs in favour of accused [Paras 12-15, 31-33].

Medical Evidence – Manual throttling ruled out – Post-mortem showed asphyxia due to pressure on neck but absent signs of throttling such as nail marks, finger impressions, petechial haemorrhage or cyanosis – Medical testimony inconsistent with prosecution theory [Paras 21, 40].

Extra-Judicial Confession – Weak type of evidence – PW-7’s testimony regarding confession improbable and unreliable – Supreme Court precedent in Sunny Kapoor v. State (UT Chandigarh), AIR 2006 SC 2242 applied – Confession discarded [Paras 38-40].

Presumption under Section 106, Evidence Act – Burden on accused arises only after prosecution establishes prima facie case – Here, prosecution failed to prove incriminating chain of circumstances; hence presumption under Section 106 not attracted [Paras 37-38].

Decision: Criminal Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence imposed by IV Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa, in S.C. No. 158 of 2016 set aside – Appellant acquitted of charges under Sections 302, 498-A, and 201 IPC – Fine, if paid, to be refunded – Appellant directed to complete formalities before prison authorities in terms of Batchu Ranga Rao v. State of A.P., 2016 (3) ALT (Crl.) 505 (DB) (AP) [Paras 41-42].

Sales Tax – Exemption on Inter-State Sale – G.O. 3602 dated 28.12.1963 – Claim Rejected – Petitioner purchased gingelly seeds within Tamil Nadu (tax-paid) and from other States; claimed exemption on inter-State sale of locally purchased seeds – Assessing authority found stock mingled on inspection; Tribunal upheld denial of exemption – Held: Mere maintenance of separate accounts insufficient when physical mingling established – Exemption rightly denied – Writ dismissed [Paras 2–10].

Scope of Judicial Review – Article 226 – Court cannot reappreciate factual findings of tax authorities where inspection reports conclusively show mingling of goods – Tribunal’s decision based on evidence upheld – Writ Court’s role limited to examining decision-making process, not merits [Paras 7–9].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Orders of Assessing Authority and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal Confirmed – No costs [Para 10].

Civil Law - Limitation – Registered Document – Deemed Knowledge – Suit Barred – The petitioners challenged the trial court's rejection of their application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on grounds that the plaintiff’s suit was barred by limitation – The plaintiff sought to challenge a Will of 1968 and registered sale deeds of 1992 and 2006 only in 2012, pleading lack of knowledge – Held: Registration of a document provides deemed notice; the plaint was held to be illusory and cleverly drafted to evade limitation – Rejection under Order VII Rule 11 justified [Paras 5.1-5.24].

Cause of Action – Clever Drafting – Frivolous Suit – Trial to be Prevented – The Court observed that the plaintiffs made vague averments without details of fraud or specific knowledge timelines – Mere claims of ignorance for over 24 years are not sufficient to defeat limitation – Held: Where pleadings are ex facie frivolous and time-barred, the Court must reject them at threshold to prevent abuse of process [Paras 5.15-6].

Fraud – Particulars Required – Order VI Rule 4 CPC – Unsubstantiated Allegations – The plaintiffs alleged fraud in a vague manner without particulars as mandated under Order VI Rule 4 – Held: A pleading alleging fraud must contain specific dates and facts; general statements are insufficient to defeat limitation [Para 5.24].

Final Decision – Plaint Rejected – Limitation Applies – The Court allowed both Civil Revision Applications, holding that the suits were hopelessly barred by limitation and constituted an abuse of process – Regular Civil Suit Nos. 646 and 756 of 2012 were rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC [Paras 10-11].

Criminal Revision – Conviction for Negligent Driving – Revision Dismissed – The petitioner was convicted under Sections 279, 304-A IPC and Section 187 MV Act for rash driving that caused the death of a 4-year-old girl – His conviction and sentence were upheld by the Appellate Court – Held: In revision, re-appreciation of evidence is impermissible unless there is gross miscarriage of justice or perversity – No such infirmity found – Concurrent findings of guilt based on credible evidence upheld [Paras 13-18, 41-46].

Negligent Driving – Hit and Run – Minor Child Crushed on Kachha Portion – Maximum Sentence Justified – Evidence showed that the petitioner drove the vehicle off the pucca road and hit the child standing on the kachha portion – He failed to take the injured child to hospital despite being in close vicinity – Witness testimonies were consistent and corroborated – Defence of alternate route not proven – Held: Maximum sentence under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC justified due to reckless conduct and lack of regard for human life [Paras 38-44].

Eyewitness Testimonies – Minor Contradictions Not Material – Testimonies Consistent on Material Particulars – Held: Minor inconsistencies in time estimates or shop descriptions did not shake core prosecution version – Witness behaviour post-incident cannot be used to discredit testimony – There is no standard reaction expected from eyewitnesses [Paras 21-31].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Not Equivalent to Appellate Power – Evidence Appreciated by Trial and Appellate Courts – Held: The revisional court is not an appellate forum – Revisional powers are limited to correcting jurisdictional or legal errors – Concurrent findings not shown to be perverse, arbitrary or unreasonable – Hence, no interference warranted [Paras 13-18, 42].

Defence Evidence – Testimonies Contradictory – Not Sufficient to Displace Prosecution Case – Defence witnesses claimed alternative route was used – Their accounts were inconsistent and failed to disprove prosecution case – Held: Learned Courts below rightly discarded defence evidence [Paras 32-36].

Sentence – Maximum Punishment – No Leniency Warranted – Victim was a 4-year-old child – Driver showed no remorse or responsibility – Held: Courts justified in imposing maximum sentence under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC in view of gravity of offence and alarming rise in road accidents – Plea for sentence reduction rejected [Paras 42-44].

Decision – Revision Petition Dismissed – Conviction and Sentence Upheld – No illegality, perversity, or miscarriage of justice found in concurrent judgments of Trial and Appellate Courts – Revision dismissed and sentence confirmed [Para 46].

Waqf Law - Maintainability of Writ Petition – Challenge to Waqf Tribunal Order – Articles 226 and 227 – Writ Petitions Held Maintainable - The petitioners questioned the legality of the Waqf Tribunal’s declaration of suit land as Waqf property – Objection raised by Opposite Parties that only a revision is maintainable under Section 83(9) of the Waqf Act – Held: In light of the Supreme Court’s judgment in Kiran Devi, jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226/227 is not ousted – The nomenclature of the petition as “writ” is immaterial when substance falls under supervisory jurisdiction of the Court [Paras 4-7].

Nature of Jurisdiction – Distinction Between Appellate and Supervisory Review – High Court’s Role Under Proviso to Section 83(9) – Reiterated - The High Court does not act as an appellate court under Section 83(9) – Its jurisdiction is limited to examining correctness, legality, or propriety of the Waqf Tribunal’s order – Reference made to L. Chandra Kumar and Pepsi Foods Ltd. to hold that wrong labeling of a petition does not affect the Court’s power to adjudicate [Paras 6-7].

Procedural Directions – Reclassification of Petitions – CMP Nomenclature Mandated - Though petitions are maintainable, the Court emphasized that applications arising under Article 227 must be procedurally registered as Civil Miscellaneous Petitions (CMPs) as per Orissa High Court Rules – Directed Registry to re-register the writ petitions as CMPs and place before the appropriate Single Bench [Paras 8-9].

Decision – Writ Petitions Maintainable – To Be Heard by Single Judge – The Court upheld the maintainability of the petitions under Article 227 while clarifying that procedural reclassification is necessary – Directed registry to take necessary steps accordingly [Para 9].