Matrimonial Law - Confidentiality in Matrimonial Proceedings – Section 22 of HMA – Scope of “Publication” – Appeal Dismissed – The appellant-husband alleged that the respondent-wife, her brother, and her employer disclosed confidential details of matrimonial litigation and custody disputes to third parties, violating Section 22 – Family Court found disclosures were made in the course of defending against legal proceedings initiated by the appellant and not printed or published in the public domain – Held: Section 22 aims to prevent public dissemination of matrimonial details; bona fide references in legal or administrative proceedings do not constitute prohibited publication – No breach made out [Paras 3-4, 10-14].

Right to Privacy vs. Right to Fair Trial – Disclosures made to authorities, employer, and in POCSO complaint – Court held such references were relevant for defence and not intended for public circulation – Section 22 cannot be used as a shield to suppress material facts in related proceedings [Paras 12, 14].

Burden of Proof – Failure to Establish Public Dissemination – Appellant unable to show any instance of printing or public circulation of matrimonial details – Allegations insufficient to attract statutory bar under Section 22 [Paras 13-14].

Decision – No ground to interfere with Family Court’s order – Appeal dismissed – Observations not to affect merits of pending matrimonial case [Paras 15-17].

Employment Law - Compassionate Appointment – Married Daughter – Dependency Requirement – Appeal Partly Allowed – Deceased Eastern Coalfields employee’s widow (aged above 45), married daughter, and son-in-law sought compassionate appointment under NCWA—Clause 9.3.3 (excluding married daughters) declared unconstitutional by Single Judge with prospective effect; claims rejected for lack of dependency proof—Division Bench held marital status irrelevant but dependency at time of death is condition precedent; married daughter and son-in-law produced no evidence of co-residence or financial reliance; findings of suppression of address documents stood unshaken—Rejection upheld—Widow entitled to monetary compensation under NCWA if applied within 30 days [Paras 13-17, 22, 25-27].

Interpretation of NCWA – Even after striking down Clause 9.3.3, remaining clauses 9.3.0, 9.3.1, 9.3.2, 9.3.4, and 9.5.0 limit benefit to dependents—Dependency must be established by evidence; burden lies on claimant [Paras 15-17, 22].

Precedent Distinction – Sukumoni Hembram and Subhadra cases inapplicable where dependency not proved; those cases involved unmarried daughters admittedly dependent on deceased [Para 19].

Relief to Widow – As per NCWA, widow above 45 years entitled to monetary compensation, not appointment—Direction issued to grant compensation with arrears within 90 days upon application [Para 27].

Decision – Appeal partly allowed; rejection of claims of married daughter and son-in-law upheld; direction issued to release monetary compensation to widow on application; no costs [Paras 26-28].

Civil Writ – Urban Planning & Civic Governance – Unauthorized Occupation Without OC – Massive municipal inaction – Public Safety Concerns – In a batch of petitions concerning a partly redeveloped building at Dadar, the Court found that 12 commercial shops and 2 first-floor premises were being illegally occupied for over a decade without an Occupation Certificate, while 110 residential tenants were deprived of their rightful premises for more than 15 years. The Court recorded serious dereliction and collusion by municipal officers, absence of statutory action under MMC Act/MRTP Act/Fire Safety law, and sham prosecutions leading to acquittals. It condemned the “blame game” between departments, misuse of litigation to perpetuate illegality, and waste of public resources. Emphasising constitutional governance, public accountability, and urgent systemic reforms, the Court appointed a two-member Special Committee (former Justice G.S. Patel & Senior Advocate Naushad Engineer) with four senior municipal officers to recommend measures within four months to curb such illegalities, reduce litigation, and strengthen enforcement. All lawful municipal actions in the case permitted to proceed [Paras 1–39].

Urban Planning – Unauthorized Occupation – Sections 353A & 471 MMC Act – MRTP Act – Failure to Act – Despite knowing no OC was issued, municipal officers allowed illegal commercial use of ground floor for over 12 years; notices issued only after Court intervention – Prosecution under MMC Act failed due to hearsay evidence; acquittal used by occupants as shield – Held: deliberate inaction and complicity by officers aided illegality; such lawlessness undermines rule of law [Paras 7–15, 25–28].

Municipal Governance – Accountability & Litigation Burden – Court criticised culture of inaction, blame-shifting, and generation of unwarranted litigation at public expense – Directed Municipal Commissioner to define roles/duties of officers, maintain ward-wise data on illegal structures, implement technology for transparency, and introspect on litigation costs – Special Committee constituted for systemic reforms [Paras 19, 30–37].

Public Safety – Fire Safety Act, 2006 – Section 8 – Illegal Occupation – Court noted Chief Fire Officer’s duty to act against commercial premises occupied without OC or fire clearance; directed to take lawful sealing action where required [Para 24].

Decision: Special Committee constituted to recommend systemic reforms and enforcement measures within four months; Municipal Commissioner to nominate four senior officers to assist; all lawful actions against illegal occupants permitted; MHADA to take steps for redevelopment, structural audit, and provision of transit accommodation to eligible tenants.

Service Law – Withholding of Gratuity – Rule 2.2(b), 2.2(c) & 9.14 Punjab CSR – Criminal Case Unrelated to Official Duty – Petition Allowed – Petitioner retired in 2004, gratuity withheld due to criminal proceedings—convicted in 2013 but acquitted by High Court in 2018—State’s appeal pending in Supreme Court—Court held Rule 2.2(b) applies only to grave misconduct/negligence during service and related to official duties—four-year limitation in proviso to Rule 2.2(b) indicates departmental nexus—Offences unrelated to official duties fall outside its scope—Since employee was acquitted and later deceased, pendency of State’s appeal lost significance—Directed release of gratuity with 7.5% interest from filing of petition, failing which additional 2.5% interest from date of retirement to payment [Paras 8–18].

Cheque Bounce - Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act – Legally Enforceable Debt – Cash Transaction Above ₹20,000 – Conviction Set Aside – The accused was convicted for issuing a dishonoured cheque for ₹9,00,000 allegedly towards discharge of a debt – The defence contended that the debt was created through a cash transaction in violation of Section 269SS of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 – Held: Such cash transactions above ₹20,000 without explanation under Section 273B of the Act cannot be treated as legally enforceable debts – Section 139 NI Act presumption stands rebutted when the transaction violates statutory norms and is unaccounted – Conviction under Section 138 of NI Act is not sustainable – Accused acquitted [Paras 1, 3, 27-30, 35].

Income-Tax Act – Sections 269SS, 271D – Impact on Criminal Proceedings – Legal Sanction Denied – The Court held that accepting large cash transactions in violation of Section 269SS, without any valid explanation under Section 273B, renders the underlying debt illegal – Observed that criminal courts should not legalise transactions that are statutorily discouraged in order to uphold fiscal discipline and promote digital economy – Disregarded contrary view taken by Division Bench of Bombay High Court – Held: Debt created in contravention of Income-Tax law is not legally enforceable under Section 138 of NI Act [Paras 17-24, 26-27].

Presumption Under NI Act – Section 139 – Rebuttal Through Preponderance of Probabilities – Complainant Failed to Prove Legally Enforceable Debt – Reiterated the law that presumption under Section 139 includes legally enforceable debt, but can be rebutted by raising a probable defence – In the present case, complainant admitted non-disclosure of cash in tax returns and gave no valid explanation – Held: Accused successfully rebutted presumption – No legally enforceable debt existed [Paras 12-16, 29-30].

Judicial Discipline – Per Incuriam Decision Overruled – Earlier Ruling in Sugunan v. Thulaseedharan Declared Per Incuriam – The Court held that the earlier view that violation of tax law does not affect enforceability under NI Act failed to consider binding precedents of Supreme Court – Expressly overruled such view as being inconsistent with Rangappa v. Sri Mohan – Directed prospective application of the current ruling to avoid reopening of concluded trials [Paras 30-34].

Criminal Law – Cognizance under BNSS – Section 223(1) BNSS – Mandatory Prior Notice to Accused – Procedural Safeguard – Complaint under Section 222 BNSS for defamation – Magistrate took cognizance and ordered pre-summoning evidence without prior notice – ASJ set aside cognizance for want of notice but upheld pre-summoning evidence – Held: Under BNSS, first proviso to Section 223(1) introduces significant change from CrPC by mandating opportunity of hearing to accused before cognizance – Magistrate must record complainant/witness statements, then issue notice before deciding on cognizance – ASJ rightly set aside cognizance but correctly held pre-summoning evidence valid at pre-cognizance stage – Petition dismissed [Paras 15, 20-24, 37-38].

Pre-Summoning Evidence – Permissibility before Cognizance – Sections 223 & 225 BNSS – Purpose of examining complainant/witnesses prior to cognizance is to test authenticity and filter frivolous complaints – Examination at this stage does not require accused’s presence – Cognizance arises only after such preliminary verification – No illegality in MM recording pre-summoning evidence prior to notice – ASJ’s view upheld [Paras 28-34].

Cognizance – Meaning and Stage – Defined as application of judicial mind to complaint to decide whether to proceed – Under BNSS, comes after preliminary examination and before summons – Change from CrPC is insertion of prior hearing requirement before cognizance – Provision intended as procedural safeguard, not to negate preliminary verification [Paras 16-19, 21-23, 37].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Order of ASJ upheld – Cognizance rightly set aside for want of prior notice, but pre-summoning evidence recording sustained as valid pre-cognizance process – No infirmity found in impugned order [Para 38].

Anticipatory Bail – Misappropriation of Cooperative Society Funds – Sections 406, 409, 420, 465, 468, 471 IPC and Section 13(1) r/w 13(2) PC Act – Bail Refused – Petitioner, former Secretary of Kollam Cooperative Building Society, alleged to have collected deposits from third parties, issued forged receipts and certificates, and misappropriated ₹43,35,000/- – Issued 12 forged cheques by faking President’s signature – Annexure A11 letter to Chief Minister contained partial admission of involvement – Prosecution pointed out pending similar complaints and need for custodial interrogation to trace misappropriated funds – Held: Serious nature of offences, magnitude of amount, and possibility of influencing witnesses warranted denial of anticipatory bail [Paras 3, 9, 11, 16-18].

Medical Grounds for Bail – Disc Bulge Complaint – Not a Ground for Pre-Arrest Bail – Petitioner cited orthopaedic issues and MRI findings from 2022 as reason for leniency – Court held ailments were neither recent nor incapacitating, as petitioner worked in the society till May 2025 – Health grounds insufficient for anticipatory bail [Para 12].

Custodial Interrogation – Necessity in Economic Offences – Court emphasised that offences involving large-scale financial misappropriation in cooperative institutions require effective custodial questioning to trace funds and ensure successful prosecution – Anticipatory bail in such cases would impede investigation [Paras 16-18].

Decision:

Anticipatory bail application dismissed – Petitioner directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer forthwith – On failure to do so, IO authorised to arrest as per law [Final Para].

Civil Law -  Dismissal of Injunction Suit – Title Disputed – Amendment for Declaration Rejected – Appeal Dismissed – Plaintiff’s suit for permanent injunction over vacant land was dismissed by trial and first appellate courts on the ground that the documents relied upon were fabricated and did not establish clear title – Plaintiff’s application to amend plaint at appellate stage to include declaration was held barred by limitation – Lower courts incidentally adjudicated title due to nature of property and available pleadings – Held: No error in lower courts’ findings; second appeal dismissed as no substantial question of law arose [Paras 1, 36, 59, 83].

Suit for Injunction – Adjudication of Title – Vacant Land – Title Disputed – Held Permissible – Plaintiff claimed right based on Ex-A1 sale deed; defendant asserted superior title via Ex-B5 and associated documents – In case of vacant sites, de jure possession follows title – Where pleadings and implied issues exist, and title question is straightforward, courts may decide title incidentally in injunction suit – Held: Lower courts rightly adjudicated title based on pleadings and evidence [Paras 29–31, 42–59].

Plaintiff’s Title – Fabricated Documents – No Proof of Source – Vendor Not Examined – Adverse Inference Drawn – Plaintiff failed to establish vendor's link to admitted owner Chellammai – Ex-A1 and Ex-A10 contradicted by earlier sale deeds – Neither vendor nor power agent examined; instead, unrelated witness produced – Held: Plaintiff failed to discharge burden under Section 101 of Evidence Act; documents held to be fabricated [Paras 50–57].

Relief of Declaration – Amendment Sought at Appellate Stage – Barred by Limitation – Not Maintainable – Application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC made after 8 years of written statement denying title – Limitation under Article 58 expired – Doctrine of relation back inapplicable where claim is time-barred – Held: Lower appellate court rightly rejected amendment; allowing it would prejudice defendant and restart litigation [Paras 64–75].

Additional Evidence – Application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC – Dismissed – No Procedural Error – Lower appellate court considered additional evidence request alongside main appeal – Found documents unnecessary and not meeting criteria under Rule 27 – Held: Approach proper; no error in dismissal of application [Paras 79–81].

Decision: Second Appeal – No Substantial Question of Law – Concurrent Findings – Lower courts found defendant in possession and with clear title – Plaintiff’s documents inconsistent and unreliable – Amendment barred – Held: All substantial questions of law answered against appellant; second appeal dismissed with costs [Paras 82–83].

Criminal Procedure – Application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. – Maintainability – Prospective accused challenged the order of Magistrate directing registration of FIR and investigation under Sections 173(4) and 175(3) B.N.S.S. – Magistrate acted on complaint by retired SC community bank officer alleging conspiracy and forgery by bank officials to defame him – Held: Under Full Bench decision in Father Thomas v. State of UP, prospective accused has no locus to challenge pre-cognizance investigation order – Application dismissed as not maintainable [Paras 3, 8, 15, 21, 22].

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act – Allegation by SC complainant of false implication by fellow bank officers through forged complaint – Magistrate found prima facie case of criminal conspiracy and defamation – Directed police to register FIR and investigate – Held: No illegality in Magistrate’s order as procedure under Sections 173(4) and 175(3) B.N.S.S. duly followed [Paras 4, 5, 6, 13, 20].

Police Investigation – Direction under Section 173(4) B.N.S.S. – Magistrate satisfied prima facie cognizable offence made out – Considered police report, reply by bank officer, and supporting documents – Held: Application supported by affidavit; procedure under new B.N.S.S. complied – Direction to lodge FIR justified – No abuse of process [Paras 9, 10, 12, 13, 20].

Prospective Accused – Right to be Heard – No Locus at Pre-Cognizance Stage – Applicant had not been summoned or chargesheeted – Challenge to registration of FIR held impermissible – Reliance on Om Prakash Ambadkar held distinguishable as that case involved improper application of judicial mind, not locus of prospective accused – Father Thomas (FB) judgment binding [Paras 14, 15, 21].

Decision: Application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. by prospective accused dismissed as not maintainable – Magistrate’s direction for FIR registration and investigation upheld [Para 22].