Criminal Law – FIR Quashing – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Cognizance Taken – FIR lodged in 2024 for alleged sexual harassment incidents dating back to 2018–2020 – FIR registered under Sections 354A, 354D, 506, and 509 IPC – Charge sheet later filed under Sections 354 and 354A IPC – Held: FIR not barred merely due to Section 468 Cr.P.C. which limits cognizance by court, not registration by police – Petition under Section 482 maintainable despite charge sheet being filed subsequently [Paras 7–10, 15, 27, 31]

Limitation – Cognizance After Delay – Sections 468 and 473 Cr.P.C. – Complaint filed after more than four years of alleged offence – Court held FIR and investigation not barred by limitation – However, cognizance of offence punishable with imprisonment up to three years requires trial court to apply mind to condonation under Section 473 – Trial court had taken cognizance under Section 354 IPC without considering delay – Held: Allegations, even if accepted, attract only Section 354A IPC (max punishment 3 years) – Matter remanded to trial court to consider condonation of delay afresh [Paras 23–24, 32–35]

Sexual Offences – Section 354 vs 354A IPC – Interpretation – Complaint alleged inappropriate touching, pulling hand, and removal of saree pin – Court held these acts do not meet threshold of "outraging modesty" under Section 354 IPC – Allegations fall within purview of sexual harassment under Section 354A IPC – Charge under Section 354 IPC not sustainable on face of complaint – Cognizance under Section 354 IPC quashed [Paras 22–23, 33]

Quashing Scope – Stage of Charge Sheet – Legal Position – Court reaffirmed that quashing can be sought even after charge sheet filing and cognizance, if ingredients of alleged offences are not prima facie made out – Cited Anand Kumar Mohatta and Joseph Salvaraj decisions – Power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. extends beyond FIR stage [Paras 14–16]

Decision: Criminal petition partly allowed – Cognizance under Section 354 IPC set aside – Case remanded to trial court to consider condonation of delay under Section 473 Cr.P.C. for offence under Section 354A IPC and proceed accordingly – Trial court to determine afresh whether cognizance can be taken for offence punishable under Section 354A IPC in light of limitation [Paras 35–36]

Property Law – Partition Suit – Effect of Previous Litigation – Interpretation of Decree – Appellants (Plaintiffs) sought partition of joint property claiming half share – Respondent (Defendant) contended that Appellants lost rights due to failure to pay Rs. 5,300/- as ordered in a previous Second Appeal (S.A. No. 641 of 1988) – First Appellate Court dismissed the partition suit on grounds of non-compliance with the previous decree – High Court held that the previous decree only created a charge on the property for the amount due and did not extinguish the Appellants' title – The previous judgment clarified that title would not pass without a registered relinquishment deed, which was never executed – Held: First Appellate Court misconstrued the clauses of the earlier decree; the remedy for Respondent was execution/auction, not denial of partition – Plaintiffs entitled to partition [Paras 15-18, 20].

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 100 – Second Appeal – Scope of Interference – Oral Agreement – Respondent claimed an oral agreement existed wherein Appellants agreed to sell their share for Rs. 1,00,000/- – No evidence produced to substantiate the oral agreement – High Court found that the First Appellate Court erred by reversing the Trial Court’s decree without proper appreciation of evidence – High Court noted that Appellants had eventually deposited the requisite amount with the Trial Court – Findings of the First Appellate Court were vitiated by misinterpretation of documentary evidence (Ex. A-1) – Interference under Section 100 CPC justified when findings are perverse or based on misconstruction of documents [Paras 14, 19-20].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court set aside – Judgment and decree of the Trial Court (decreeing the suit for partition) restored – Each party to bear their own costs.

Taxation Law - Customs – Refund of Duty – Short Landing or Pilferage – Goods not received by importer – Bill of Entry filed but no Out of Charge order issued – Authorities in dispute over whether goods were short-landed or pilfered – Held: Importer entitled to refund of duty under Section 23 of Customs Act as goods were lost before clearance for home consumption – Duty paid cannot be retained when goods not delivered – Customs directed to refund duty with 9% interest [Paras 3, 4, 42–45, 50–54, 61–64] –

Administrative Law – Inter-Departmental Dispute – Customs and Port Authorities blamed each other for loss of goods – Court held importer cannot suffer due to unresolved bureaucratic dispute – Liability between public authorities kept open for separate proceedings – Importer’s substantive right to refund not to be defeated by procedural technicalities [Paras 5–6, 49, 55, 65] –

Procedural Fairness – Duty Paid without Clearance – Bill of Entry not closed – Customs insisted on closure letter which could not be obtained due to inter-agency delays – Held: Such procedural conditions cannot defeat substantive statutory entitlement to refund – Rejection of refund without adjudication is not appealable – Writ petition maintainable [Paras 14–16, 53, 56] –

Interest on Delayed Refund – Duty paid in anticipation of clearance – No goods received – Refund delayed due to inaction of authorities – Held: Interest at 9% to be paid under Section 27A of Customs Act for delay in refunding amount from date of payment till date of refund [Paras 63–64] –

Statutory Interpretation – Sections 13 & 23 of Customs Act – Pilferage vs. Loss – Whether case of pilferage under Section 13 or loss under Section 23 immaterial – Refund due in both cases where goods not cleared for home consumption – Importer not liable to bear duty [Paras 43–44, 50–52, 61] –

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Rule made absolute – Respondent No.1 directed to refund ₹35,37,358/- along with 9% interest from date of payment within 4 weeks – Compliance report to be filed by 08/01/2026 – Inter se liability between Customs and Port left open [Paras 64–66].

Service Law – Deputy Librarian – Nomenclature change under G.O. 26.12.1998 – No automatic enhancement of retirement age to 62 years – Higher pay scale wrongly granted but recovery after 17 years impermissible – Retirement at 60 upheld; recovery quashed; pension to be fixed on last pay drawn [Paras 10–16].

Service Benefits – Change of Nomenclature – Whether Retirement Age Altered – Government Order dated 26.12.1998 changed designation of Deputy Librarian (₹2000–3200) to Librarian with UGC pay scale; however, G.O. contains no provision altering age of retirement. Held: Retirement age must be strictly as per service rules; mere change of nomenclature does not alter superannuation benefits. Retirement at 60 years was valid [Paras 10–12].

Pay Scale – Eligibility – Erroneous Grant of Librarian Scale – Petitioner was in pay scale ₹1400–2300, not ₹2000–3200 as required under G.O. 26.12.1998. Therefore, grant of UGC-linked higher pay scale was factually and legally incorrect; strict interpretation of G.O. goes against petitioner [Paras 12–13].

Recovery of Excess Payment – Long Delay – No Fraud – Protection under Rafiq Masih – Although pay scale was wrongly granted, petitioner enjoyed the scale for 17 years, including revised UGC benefits, without misrepresentation. Applying State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (2014) 8 SCC 883, recovery after retirement—especially after nearly two decades—is inequitable and impermissible. Held: Recovery order unsustainable [Paras 14–15].

Retirement Age Claim – Rejection Justified – Since petitioner never received a valid promotion to Librarian post and G.O. does not regulate retirement age, claim to work till 62 years is untenable. Petitioner had already crossed 62 during litigation; no relief could be granted [Paras 3–7, 11–12].

Final Relief – Partial Allowance – Prayer to extend service till 62 years rejected; however, respondents restrained from recovering any amount paid under higher pay scale. Pension to be calculated on basis of last pay actually drawn (higher pay scale) and not on pre-2001 scale. Impugned recovery orders set aside [Para 16].

Criminal Law – Dowry Death – Presumption under Section 113A and 304B IPC – Suicide within 7 Years of Marriage – No Proof of Cruelty or Dowry Demand – Presumption Not Attracted – Deceased committed suicide by consuming Celphos poison within 7 years of marriage – No specific, consistent, or credible evidence of cruelty or dowry demand – Presumption under Section 113A or 113B of Evidence Act not attracted – Conviction under Sections 304B or 306 IPC not sustainable [Paras 10, 14, 15, 39, 41].

Evidence Act – Section 113A – Abetment of Suicide – Discretionary Presumption – Requires Proof of Cruelty – Not Automatic on Death Within 7 Years of Marriage – Prosecution failed to establish cruelty as defined under Section 498A IPC – No proximity between alleged cruelty and suicide – Presumption under Section 113A is rebuttable and not mandatory – Not invoked in absence of foundational facts [Paras 12–14, 25].

IPC Section 498A – Cruelty – Mere Allegations Insufficient – No Specific Instances or Corroboration – Domestic Quarrels Do Not Constitute Offence – Allegations of quarrels and occasional disputes unsupported by specific dates, evidence or consistent witness testimony – General wear and tear of matrimonial life not cruelty under Section 498A IPC – Trial court’s finding of no cruelty upheld [Paras 16–20, 24, 25, 40].

IPC Section 306 – Abetment of Suicide – No Instigation or Intentional Aiding Proven – Suicide Resulted from Trivial Domestic Disagreement – No Evidence of Abetment – Deceased consumed poison after a minor dispute regarding going to a temple – No acts by accused showing instigation or aiding suicide – Abetment not made out under Sections 306/107 IPC [Paras 26–31, 38, 41].

Criminal Law – Sections 201, 176 IPC – Alleged Non-Reporting and Burial Without Post-Mortem – No Intent to Destroy Evidence Proven – Burial Conducted Per Religious Customs – Exhumation and Post-Mortem Later Conducted – Accused did not inform police immediately but offered explanation based on religious urgency – Body was later exhumed and PM conducted – No deliberate intention to screen offenders – Section 201 and 176 IPC not attracted [Paras 32–34, 43, 44].

Criminal Procedure – Appeal Against Acquittal – Scope of Interference – Double Presumption of Innocence – View Taken by Trial Court was Plausible – No Grounds to Interfere – Trial court’s view based on appreciation of evidence – No perversity or illegality demonstrated – Appeal court should not interfere if two views are possible – Acquittal upheld [Paras 33, 35, 36, 45–48].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Acquittal confirmed – No offence made out under Sections 498A, 304B, 306, 201, 176 or 114 IPC – No interference warranted in acquittal [Para 48].

Slum Areas – De-notification of Acquired Land – Legality – Petitioner’s land declared as slum in 1976 and later acquired under Section 17 of the Karnataka Slum Areas Act – Respondents issued possession certificates and began rehabilitation projects – State later de-notified the land citing financial burden and lack of finance department approval – Held: Once land is acquired and vests under Section 18, it cannot be de-notified under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act – De-notification is impermissible and ultra vires [Paras 21-29, 38-40]

Land Acquisition – Possession and Compensation – Petitioner, though having executed Power of Attorney and sale agreement, retained ownership as there was no registered transfer – Possession taken under Government Notification dated 18.10.2004 and confirmed by Slum Board through possession certificates – Held: Possession lawfully taken, petitioner's title not extinguished by mere PoA or agreement to sell – Compensation payable under Section 20 [Paras 24-30, 36]

Constitutional Law – Right to Property and Life – Article 300-A and Article 21 – State’s action in occupying private land without compensation and attempting withdrawal of acquisition contrary to law – Held: Property rights cannot be extinguished without compensation – Financial constraints cannot justify breach of constitutional obligations – Right to shelter of slum dwellers must be balanced with property rights of landowners [Paras 19-23, 31-35]

Statutory Interpretation – General Clauses Act vis-à-vis Special Act – Respondents’ reliance on Section 21 of General Clauses Act to cancel acquisition under Slum Act rejected – Slum Act has no provision for withdrawal once land vests with State – General Clauses Act cannot override specific acquisition provisions [Paras 25-27, 39-40]

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – De-notification quashed – State directed to determine and pay compensation to petitioner within 12 weeks with applicable interest – Directions affirmed by earlier coordinate bench and upheld by Division Bench in W.A. No.100107/2025 [Paras 8, 31, 43-44]

Banking Law – Debit Freezing of Accounts – Suspicious Transactions – No Law Enforcement Requisition – Banks froze petitioners' accounts based on internal suspicion of large-value transactions inconsistent with declared income profiles – No directions received from law enforcement or court for account freezing – Held: Though RBI directions do not explicitly authorize debit freezing without law enforcement requisition, such power is implied in light of Section 35A of the Banking Regulation Act and duties under PMLA – Banks can temporarily freeze accounts for a reasonable period (up to 3 months) to prevent dissipation of suspected illicit funds and allow time for investigation [Paras 1, 14–16, 25–26].

Cybercrime – Preventive Banking Measures – Role of RBI and Banks – Need for SOP – Rapid rise in financial cyber fraud and misuse of bank accounts for illegal transactions noted – Court found RBI’s current circulars and directions inadequate in addressing freezing protocol – RBI criticized for casual affidavit disclaiming responsibility – Directed to frame Standard Operating Procedure defining scope and procedure for account freezing by banks in cases of suspected cybercrime [Paras 14, 24, 27(2)].

Constitutional Law – Right to Property – Article 300A – Petitioners challenged prolonged freezing of accounts (over one year) as violation of property rights – Though freezing without requisition prima facie unlawful, petitioners failed to provide credible explanation for high-volume transactions not matching declared income – Held: In absence of satisfactory justification, bank action not arbitrary – Court issued future guidelines but declined to grant immediate relief [Paras 5–6, 15–16, 20–21].

Mandated Eight-Point Freezing Protocol:

Banks can impose a debit freeze without prior notice if there is reasonable suspicion of illegal transactions.

On the same day, the bank must send a communication to the account holder via SMS and registered post, clearly stating the reason for suspicion.

The bank must also inform the jurisdictional cybercrime police and other relevant authorities under RBI guidelines and ensure receipt of such communication.

The account holder has the right to respond with a written explanation to the bank. Upon receiving it, the bank must evaluate it within one week and communicate its decision.

If no explanation is received, or if the bank finds it unsatisfactory, the freeze can continue only for a maximum of three months, starting from the date of communication to law enforcement authorities.

If, within this three-month window, the bank receives no formal direction from the police, cybercrime cell, or court, it must lift the freeze.

After lifting the freeze, the bank may allow the account to function normally or demand its closure, depending on continued risk.

The account holder has a legal remedy and can challenge the bank’s decision if the explanation is rejected.

RBI Guidelines – KYC/AML Circulars – Interpretation of “Appropriate Action” – Circulars cited (Master Direction on KYC, 2016 and others) mandate monitoring of suspicious transactions and reporting to FIU-IND but do not expressly empower banks to freeze accounts – Court interpreted “appropriate action” under Clause 59 to include temporary freezing where justified, in absence of better-defined guidance – However, freezing must follow safeguards including prompt notice to customer and notification to police/cybercrime units [Paras 18–20, 26–27].

Administrative Law – Court-Issued Guidelines in Policy Vacuum – In absence of statutory framework or RBI SOP on freezing accounts for suspicious activity, High Court issued eight-point interim guideline authorizing debit freeze by banks for up to three months, subject to procedural safeguards, until RBI prescribes formal directions [Para 27].

Decision: Writ petitions disposed – Banks directed to follow eight-point guideline laid down by the Court regarding freezing of suspicious accounts – RBI directed to formulate a Standard Operating Procedure on freezing of accounts in cases of suspected financial cybercrime – Petitioners not granted immediate relief as they failed to satisfactorily explain high-value transactions [Paras 27–28].

Ceiling Law – Title over plot in ceiling proceedings – Earlier order rejecting objection stood set aside in appeal – Res judicata inapplicable – Appellate authority rightly considered Will Deeds, revenue entries and mutation orders to hold the land belonged to Pradeep Singh, not Bhagwan Singh – No perversity or statutory violation – Delay of three years in filing writ – Writ dismissed [Paras 26–32].

Ceiling Proceedings – Determination of Holding – Effect of Remand – Initial order dated 31.10.1994 holding plot no. 508 as part of Bhagwan Singh’s holding was set aside in appeal on 29.01.1997 and matter remanded. Held: Once the remand order wiped out the earlier order, no finality attached to title determination; plea of res judicata misplaced [Para 26].

Appellate Authority – Evaluation of Title – Consideration of Will Deeds and Mutation Records – Appellate authority considered Will Deeds (including Will dated 07.12.1973), long-standing mutation entries and revenue records showing land standing in name of Pradeep Singh / respondents much prior to ceiling proceedings. Findings based on evidence; no perversity shown [Paras 25, 27, 29].

Will Executed During Proceedings – Applicability of Sections 5(6) & 5(8) – State argued that Will dated 06.12.1990 executed during pendency of ceiling proceedings should be ignored. Held: Appellate authority did not treat the Will as a device to evade ceiling law but considered it only to ascertain existing title with reference to revenue entries. No statutory violation made out [Para 28].

Surplus Land Adjustment – No Prejudice to State – Even after exclusion of plot no. 508/5-350 hectares, any deficiency in surplus area was adjusted from other plots of original tenure-holder Bhagwan Singh; no substantial injury to the State established [Paras 11, 29].

Delay & Laches – Administrative Inaction – Impugned appellate order dated 14.10.1999 was received on 29.10.1999 but writ filed only in 2002 after prolonged administrative inaction. Held: Extraordinary writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to cure belated administrative lapses when appellate findings are reasoned and lawful [Paras 13–14, 29–30].

Judicial Review – Limited Scope – Appellate findings supported by evidence; no jurisdictional error, perversity or violation of statutory mandate; High Court cannot re-appreciate evidence in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 [Paras 28–31].

Decision – No illegality found in appellate order dated 14.10.1999 excluding plot no. 508/5-350 hectares from holding of Bhagwan Singh; writ petition dismissed; no costs [Paras 31–33].

Service Law – Displacement Quota – Employment – G.O.Ms.No.98 – Delay in Application – Writ petitioner, son of displaced person from Dachuru village, filed application for employment 10 years after displacement – Rejection of claim by authorities citing limitation of one year under G.O.Ms.No.98 – Held: One-year limitation cannot be strictly enforced in light of settled precedents and State policy – Authorities directed to include petitioner in the first seniority list based on eligibility – Petitioner entitled to appointment as per turn under displacement quota [Paras 4, 8(I), 10, 11].

Administrative Law – Seniority List – Violation of Natural Justice – Second seniority list of 106 displaced persons was set aside by the learned single Judge without impleading affected parties – Held: Order is unsustainable being passed in violation of principles of natural justice – Affected candidates were not heard – Order set aside – Government Memo restoring second seniority list reinstated – Beneficiaries of the second list directed to be provided employment as per their turn [Paras 6, 8(III), 10(i)].

Displacement & Rehabilitation – Seniority Classification – Two-tier seniority system maintained for displaced persons based on actual submergence and displacement – Dachuru village formed part of the first list where water impoundment and displacement occurred in 2005 – Petitioner wrongly sought inclusion in second list instead of first – Court clarified distinction between lists and corrected placement accordingly [Paras 5, 8(II), 11].

Precedent – Relaxation of Time Limit – High Court reaffirmed position laid down in earlier judgment State of Andhra Pradesh v. Rajola Jagannadha Reddy, W.A. No. 356 of 2023 – One-year application time under G.O.Ms.No.98 is not mandatory – Policy aims at livelihood protection and must be interpreted liberally for displaced families [Paras 8(I)(c)-(d)].

Decision:

Writ Appeal No. 315 of 2024 allowed – Order of single Judge dated 05.01.2023 set aside – Government Memo dated 26.12.2014 approving second seniority list restored – Authorities directed to provide employment to appellants as per their turn under G.O.Ms.No.98 [Para 10(i)-(ii)].

Writ Appeal No. 1289 of 2023 disposed of – Authorities directed to include writ petitioner’s name in the first seniority list, not the second – Employment to be provided as per eligibility and turn under displacement quota [Para 11].