Anticipatory Bail – SC/ST Act – Matrimonial Dispute – Accused sought pre-arrest bail in a case involving alleged caste-based verbal abuse and assault of wife by husband and co-accused – Complainant had protection order under Domestic Violence Act – No prima facie material found to indicate grievous injury or fracture – Allegations under SC/ST Act held to be vague – Held: In absence of prima facie offence under SC/ST Act, anticipatory bail can be granted to prevent miscarriage of justice – Bail granted with conditions [Paras 2-3, 6-11, 12]

SC/ST Act – Prima Facie Offence – Allegation of caste-based abuse by husband who had inter-caste marriage with complainant – FIR contents vague regarding caste-related remarks – Held: In absence of specific and clear allegation, applicability of SC/ST Act provisions doubtful – Court relied on Prithvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India [(2020) 4 SCC 727] to hold anticipatory bail can be granted when prima facie case not made out [Paras 9-10]

Domestic Violence – Protection Order – Incident occurred while complainant was residing under protection order in matrimonial home – Court took note but held that no grave injury was evident – Absence of X-ray report or fracture evidence diluted severity of allegations – Complainant failed to produce medical evidence despite repeated opportunity [Paras 5, 7-8]

Bail Jurisprudence – Balancing Matrimonial Disputes and Criminal Process – Court noted that the matter arose out of a domestic dispute – Emphasised need to avoid aggravating family conflict – Found sufficient grounds to allow bail while ensuring cooperation with investigation [Para 11]

Prevention of Money Laundering – Discharge Application – Scope under Section 227 CrPC – Petitioners sought discharge from prosecution under PMLA on the ground that cognizance in predicate offence (scheduled offence) stood quashed – Special Court rejected the application – Held: Offence under Section 3 PMLA is a standalone and continuing offence – Proceedings under PMLA can survive even if cognizance in one scheduled offence is quashed, so long as other FIRs alleging scheduled offences remain pending – No automatic extinguishment of PMLA proceedings upon quashing of predicate offence [Paras 10 to 15, 31].

PMLA – Scheduled Offence – Relevance – Multiple FIRs – Quashing of cognizance in one predicate case – Whether affects PMLA proceedings – Held: Predicate offence is jurisdictional trigger, but proceedings under PMLA are distinct and can proceed independently – Where multiple FIRs exist, each can independently sustain the ECIR and prosecution under PMLA – PMLA process continues if at least one scheduled offence survives with prima facie link to alleged proceeds of crime [Paras 14 to 15, 19].

Money Laundering – Proceeds of Crime – Definition and Scope – Whether proceeds must involve monetary gain – Held: Proceeds of crime under Section 2(1)(u) PMLA includes any property obtained, directly or indirectly, as a result of criminal activity – Property transfers without monetary exchange can constitute proceeds of crime if obtained through or represent advantage from the scheduled offence – Absence of cash component not fatal to prosecution under PMLA [Paras 24 to 25].

Burden of Proof – Presumption under Section 24 PMLA – Reverse burden – Applicability at discharge stage – Held: Once prima facie material exists linking property with scheduled offence, statutory presumption arises that it is proceeds of crime – Burden shifts to accused to explain legitimate origin – At Section 227 CrPC stage, accused must show lack of nexus or insufficiency of material to sustain presumption – Otherwise, matter must go to trial [Paras 20 to 23].

Supplementary Complaint – Validity – Whether reinforces ED’s case – Held: Filing of supplementary complaint under Section 45 PMLA akin to supplementary charge sheet under CrPC – Strengthens foundational basis for cognizance by bringing in new facts or materials – Reflects continuing nature of money laundering – Not illegal or improper if supported by fresh material [Paras 26 to 27].

Discharge – Consideration at Section 227 CrPC stage – Nature of evaluation – Held: Court not to assess sufficiency of evidence or enter into probative analysis – Only required to see whether there exists ground for presuming offence – Where prima facie material indicates systematic transactions linked to alleged crime, discharge not justified – Transactions across extended period involving numerous properties warrant scrutiny in trial [Paras 28 to 30].

Revision Jurisdiction – Scope – Interference in discharge orders – Held: Revisional court cannot re-appreciate evidence or enter into disputed factual determinations – Interference warranted only in case of legal bar or where no offence made out on admitted facts – No such infirmity found in Special Court’s order – Petitioners must face trial [Paras 32 to 33].

Decision: Criminal revision dismissed – Impugned order rejecting discharge upheld – Proceedings under PMLA to continue – No merit found in plea that proceedings were rendered unsustainable due to quashing of one predicate offence.

Criminal Law – Prevention of Corruption Act – Disproportionate Assets – Quashing of FIR – FIR registered against a public servant alleging possession of disproportionate assets under Section 13(1)(b) r/w Section 13(2) PC Act – Held: Though preliminary enquiry is not mandatory in every corruption case, registration of FIR without recording and disclosing credible source information and without recording satisfaction of the Superintendent of Police vitiates the proceedings – Absence of any documented source report or contemporaneous material showing prima facie commission of cognizable offence renders FIR unsustainable [Paras 31–40].

Corruption Case – Source Information – Requirement of Recording Satisfaction – Superintendent of Police authorised investigation under Section 17 PC Act without reducing source information into writing – No details of date, nature, or credibility of information disclosed in FIR – Held: In absence of recorded source information and reasoned satisfaction, relaxation of preliminary enquiry is impermissible – FIR founded on vague and unsubstantiated allegations liable to be quashed [Paras 37–41].

Disproportionate Assets – Known Sources of Income – Income Tax Returns and Asset Declarations – Petitioner and family members had consistently filed income tax returns and annual asset declarations under service rules – Investigating agency failed to dispute genuineness of such public documents – Held: While ITRs are not conclusive, unimpeachable public documents cannot be ignored at the quashing stage where prosecution admits lack of supporting evidence – Allegation of disproportionate assets not made out [Paras 44–48, 65].

Criminal Proceedings – Delay in Investigation – Right to Speedy Investigation – FIR lodged in 2022 and investigation remained incomplete for nearly three years with no substantive material collected – Investigating officers admitted absence of evidence even during departmental enquiry – Held: Inordinate and unexplained delay causing mental trauma violates Article 21 – Proceedings liable to be quashed on ground of denial of speedy investigation [Paras 41–43, 49–50].

Inherent Powers – Section 528 BNSS – Abuse of Process – Continuation of criminal proceedings without prima facie evidence and in face of admitted lack of material amounts to harassment – High Court entitled to examine unimpeachable documents to prevent abuse of process – Held: Allowing prosecution to continue would be travesty of justice [Paras 51–57].

Decision: FIR in Special Vigilance Unit P.S. Case No. 15 of 2022 quashed – All consequential proceedings set aside qua the petitioner – Criminal Miscellaneous Application allowed and disposed of [Paras 66–67].

Specific Performance – Readiness and Willingness – Registered sale agreement dated 16.10.1992 relied on by plaintiff – Plaintiff failed to prove continued readiness and willingness to pay balance consideration of ₹2,00,000 within the stipulated three months – No legal notice issued within prescribed time – Notice issued after 2 years and 11 months – Held: Plaintiff failed to establish readiness and willingness as mandated under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act – Specific performance rightly denied [Paras 14, 18, 24].

Sale Agreement – Competing Claims – Prior Agreement Prevails – Earlier agreement of sale dated 10.12.1990 (Ex.B-7) in favour of defendant No.6 found to be true, valid, and partly acted upon through subsequent registered sale deeds dated 29.04.1993 in favour of defendants 2 to 6 – Plaintiff aware of prior transaction – Held: Ex.B-7 prevails over Ex.A-2 – Plaintiff’s agreement is subject to earlier equitable rights [Paras 16, 18, 24].

Bona Fide Purchaser – Protection under Section 19(b) – Defendants 2 to 6 held bona fide purchasers for value under registered sale deeds executed in pursuance of prior agreement (Ex.B-7) – No relief can be granted against them in absence of any challenge to those sale deeds – Plaintiff’s suit for specific performance not maintainable against bona fide purchasers without notice [Paras 17, 23].

Refund of Advance – Equitable Relief – Though specific performance denied, Court held plaintiff entitled to refund of advance consideration of ₹1,00,000 paid under Ex.A-2, with 6% interest from date of suit till realization – Refund to be paid by legal representatives of deceased vendor out of her estate [Paras 24–25].

Evidence – Proof of Execution – Ex.A-2 found valid – Attesting witness (daughter of executant) and scribe supported execution and payment of advance – Trial court’s contrary view reversed – Agreement held genuine, but unenforceable due to superseding prior agreement and lack of timely action [Paras 15–16].

Appellate Jurisdiction – Interference with Trial Court's Discretion – Trial court’s finding on invalidity of Ex.A-2 reversed due to misappreciation of evidence – However, discretionary denial of specific performance upheld on settled legal grounds, including delay, suppression of facts, and superior equities in favour of prior purchasers [Paras 15, 18, 24].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Relief of specific performance denied – Plaintiff entitled to refund of ₹1,00,000 with 6% interest p.a. from date of suit till realization – Refund to be paid by legal representatives (respondents 7 to 11) from estate of deceased defendant No.1 – Appeal dismissed as against bona fide purchasers (respondents 2 to 6) – No order as to costs [Para 25].

Election Law – Impleadment in Interlocutory Applications – Application by respondent No.1 in election petition seeking impleadment of respondent No.2 as opposite party in three pending IAs relating to dismissal of election petition – Held: Election petitioner had not claimed any relief against respondent No.2 – Respondent No.2 neither a necessary nor proper party for adjudication of pending IAs – Petition for impleadment rejected as not maintainable under Rule 27(a) of Orissa High Court Rules [Paras 1, 4, 7, 10–12]

Court Procedure – Rule 27(a) of Orissa High Court Rules – Interim Relief – Separate Applications – Rule mandates that a separate petition must be filed for each interlocutory relief – Filing of single I.A. seeking impleadment in multiple pending I.As. not permissible – I.A. No.93 of 2025 dismissed as contrary to procedural rules [Paras 5–7]

CPC – Non-Applicability of Order 1 Rule 10 to Election Proceedings – Court held that power of impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC cannot be exercised in election petitions governed by specific provisions of the R.P. Act, 1951 – Reiterated Supreme Court’s view that general CPC provisions cannot override special statute [Paras 8, 11]

Election Law – Scope of Participation – No Right to Participate in IAs – Respondent No.2, not being a contesting party in the interlocutory applications, held to have no legal standing to participate – Mere impleadment in main election petition does not warrant involvement in interim applications filed prior to such impleadment [Paras 9–10]

Decision: Interlocutory Application No.93 of 2025 dismissed on contest – Held not maintainable in law – No merit found in prayer for impleadment – Separate IAs required for separate interlocutory reliefs under Rule 27(a) – No role demonstrated for respondent No.2 in pending IAs – Petition disposed of finally [Paras 11–12]

Criminal Law – Illegal Detention – Chapter Proceedings under Section 107 CrPC – Executive Magistrate’s Jurisdiction – Executive Magistrate passed order remanding petitioner to judicial custody in Chapter Case under Section 107 – Held: Magistrate had no authority under CrPC to remand person to custody in such proceedings – Detention for 7 days was unlawful and violated petitioner’s right to personal liberty under Article 21 – Compensation of ₹1,00,000 awarded to petitioner – State given liberty to recover from erring officer [Paras 10–13, 18]

Judicial Accountability – Misuse of Power – Protection under Judges (Protection) Act – Executive Magistrate claimed immunity under Section 3 of Judges (Protection) Act for remanding petitioner – Held: Power exercised under Section 107 CrPC is executive in nature – Act of Magistrate not judicial or quasi-judicial – Protection under Section 3 not applicable – Respondent No. 3 personally liable for excess of jurisdiction [Paras 15–16]

Fundamental Rights – Article 21 – Right to Life and Personal Liberty – Illegal detention by public authority – Petitioner detained without show cause notice or lawful order – Held: Violation of Article 21 – Compensation a necessary public remedy for infringement of fundamental right – State directed to pay and recover from officer responsible [Paras 13–14, 17–18]

Constitutional Law – Compensation for Violation of Fundamental Rights – Petition under Article 226 maintainable – Petitioner entitled to monetary compensation for illegal arrest and unauthorized detention in breach of statutory safeguards – Compensation awarded despite absence of malice – Focus is on consequences of rights violation, not intention [Paras 14, 17]

Decision:

Writ Petition allowed –

(a) State of Maharashtra directed to pay ₹1,00,000 to petitioner within 4 weeks.

(b) Liberty granted to State to recover said amount from respondent no. 3 (Tahsildar).

(c) Rule made absolute.

Family Law – Divorce – Cruelty – Decree of Divorce Granted – Appellant alleged repeated abusive conduct by wife, threats of suicide, denial of physical relationship, and desertion without cause – Family Court dismissed petition citing isolated nature of incidents and unclean hands due to dowry allegations – Held: Cumulative effect of wife’s behaviour including verbal abuse, threats of false criminal charges, and persistent withdrawal from cohabitation amounted to mental cruelty – Appellant's evidence consistent and largely unshaken – Divorce granted under Section 13(1)(ia) of HMA [Paras 1, 3, 17, 20, 23–25]

Family Law – Clean Hands Doctrine – Section 23(1)(a) HMA – Appellant denied relief by Family Court on ground of unclean hands due to dowry harassment allegations – Held: Allegations by wife were belated and unsupported by contemporaneous evidence – FIR and other proceedings initiated only after divorce petition – No credible material to show petitioner’s conduct constituted matrimonial offence – Principle of clean hands wrongly invoked – Not a bar to relief [Paras 18, 21–22]

Family Law – Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage – Allegation of Sexual Misconduct by In-Law – Wife alleged attempted molestation by father-in-law – Parties living separately since 2020 – No child from marriage – Held: Allegation strikes at core of family trust and makes restoration of marital harmony impossible – Relationship has broken down irreparably – Compelling parties to continue in such marriage serves no legal or societal purpose – Divorce granted [Paras 23–25]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and decree dated 20/03/2025 of Family Court set aside – Marriage dissolved by decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Registry directed to draw up decree sheet – No orders as to costs.

Motor Accident Compensation – Just Compensation – Enhancement in Absence of Cross Appeal – Deceased, a self-employed photographer aged 45 years, died in accident involving APSRTC bus – Tribunal awarded Rs.19,97,000/- without granting future prospects or applying correct multiplier – High Court held: Even in absence of appeal by claimants, Courts are duty-bound to award “just compensation” under Section 168 of the MV Act – Following Pranay Sethi, Sarala Verma, and Ramla, compensation enhanced to Rs.26,80,000/- with 7.5% interest [Paras 13–20].

Negligence – Evidence and Burden of Proof – APSRTC contended accident was due to deceased’s negligence – Driver examined as RW-1 failed to rebut evidence – Eye-witness (PW-2) and police records (FIR, charge sheet) confirmed negligence of bus driver – Tribunal and High Court held accident was caused solely due to rash and negligent driving by APSRTC driver [Paras 10–11].

Assessment of Income – Self-Employed Deceased – Documentary evidence insufficient to prove income of Rs.40,000/- – Tribunal rightly disbelieved income certificate (Ex.A5) – Income reasonably assessed at Rs.18,000/- per month – High Court upheld income computation but modified multiplier and added conventional heads [Paras 11–14].

Multiplier – Error in Tribunal’s Application – Tribunal applied multiplier of 13 though deceased was aged 45 – High Court corrected error and applied multiplier of 14 as per Sarala Verma – Compensation recalculated accordingly [Paras 15–16].

Interest Rate – Award of Interest – Tribunal granted 6% per annum – High Court modified and awarded 7.5% per annum in line with consistent judicial practice [Para 19].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Award modified – Compensation enhanced from Rs.19,97,000/- to Rs.26,80,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum – Appellant (APSRTC) directed to deposit enhanced amount within two months – No order as to costs – All pending IAs closed [Paras 20–21].

Partition Suit – Maintainability of Revision – Article 227 – Order Accepting Partition Commissioner’s Report – Held: A revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is maintainable against an order accepting the Partition Commissioner’s Report if the final decree is yet to be passed – The order accepting the Commissioner’s Report, without drawing up of final decree, does not constitute a decree under Section 2(2) CPC and is not independently appealable under Section 96 or Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC – Once final decree is passed working out rights of parties, it becomes appealable – Held: Interlocutory order accepting Commissioner’s Report can be challenged under Article 227 to prevent denial of remedy where appeal does not lie [Paras 1, 4, 8, 22, 24, 30]

Civil Procedure – Partition Decree – Distinction Between Preliminary and Final Decree – Reiterated that a preliminary decree declares rights of co-sharers, while a final decree works out those rights through metes and bounds division – Until final decree is passed, rights are not conclusively determined, and execution cannot proceed – Court must follow Order 26 Rule 14(3) CPC before passing a final decree [Paras 11–16, 22–23]

Appellate and Revisional Jurisdiction – Challenge to Acceptance of Commission Report – Reiterated: No appeal lies from an order merely accepting Commissioner’s Report unless it culminates in a final decree – Party aggrieved may challenge such order under Article 227 – Section 105 CPC permits challenge in appeal from final decree if no separate appeal lies earlier – Prior decisions in Sanat Kumar Dey and Papy George do not preclude Article 227 remedy [Paras 24, 26–30]

Decision: Application under Article 227 held maintainable – Civil Revision Applications to be de-tagged and heard on merits by appropriate bench – Issue of substantive challenge to Commissioner’s Report to be considered upon further hearing [Paras 30–32]