Anticipatory Bail – Forged Judicial Summons – Circulation via WhatsApp – Petitioner sought pre-arrest bail in FIR alleging conspiracy with co-accused to create and circulate forged summons purporting to be issued by Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, demanding ₹10 lakh as “maintenance” – Co-accused’s disclosure and recovered WhatsApp screenshots indicated petitioner’s active role – Held: Allegations strike at sanctity of justice system and public confidence in judiciary – Grant of anticipatory bail would impede investigation – Petition dismissed [Paras 2, 8–13].

Criminal Law – Custodial Interrogation – Necessity and Scope – Court relied on State v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 – Held: Custodial interrogation is qualitatively distinct and necessary to trace digital origin of forged summons, devices used, and wider conspiracy – Mere argument of “no need for custodial interrogation” not by itself a ground to grant pre-arrest bail [Paras 11–12].

Forgery of Judicial Process – Public Interest and Judicial Sanctity – Forging and circulating fake court summons undermines public trust in judicial institutions – Even compromise between parties cannot dilute gravity of such offence – Judicial institutions must respond firmly to preserve public faith in administration of justice [Paras 9–10].

Compromise Between Parties – Irrelevance in Offences Against Justice System – Settlement between complainant and accused held immaterial – Such offences transcend individual disputes and affect institutional credibility – Compromise cannot justify pre-arrest protection in cases of judicial impersonation [Para 9].

Prima Facie Case – Material Evidence – Disclosure statement of co-accused, recovery of screenshots showing petitioner’s number and chats, and corroborative material established prima facie involvement – False implication plea rejected as defence issue to be tested at trial [Paras 11–12].

Decision:
Anticipatory bail denied – FIR discloses grave offence involving forgery of judicial summons and impersonation of court authority – Custodial interrogation required to trace conspiracy and digital evidence – Petition dismissed – Observations confined to bail stage only [Paras 13–14].

Civil Procedure – Impleadment of Transferee Pendente Lite – Doctrine of Lis Pendens – Application under Order I Rule 10 CPC – Trial court allowed subsequent purchaser’s impleadment despite purchase being made during pendency of civil suit and in violation of interim injunction – Held: Order unsustainable – Purchaser during pendency of litigation is neither necessary nor proper party – Rights of such transferee are subject to outcome of litigation – Their presence is not required for complete adjudication – Trial court erred in allowing impleadment contrary to settled law in Vidur Impex v. Tosh Apartments [2012 (8) SCC 384] – Impugned order set aside – Petition allowed [Paras 1–14]

Transfer of Property – Section 52 – Knowledge of Litigation – Actual or Constructive Notice – Irrelevance – Transferee bound by outcome regardless of awareness of pending suit – Doctrine applies automatically upon pendency of suit relating to property rights – Purpose is to prevent alienation and maintain status quo – Knowledge of injunction or suit immaterial [Paras 7–11]

Civil Practice – Judicial Discretion – Error in Trial Court’s Reasoning – Trial court misapplied test of necessary party by holding issue of bona fide purchaser to be decided in trial – Held: Legal status as transferee pendente lite disqualifies such party from being impleaded – Impleadment would unnecessarily delay proceedings and defeat statutory objective [Paras 6, 12–13]

Decision: Impugned order dated 20.05.2025 set aside – Civil Revision allowed – Trial court to proceed with suit without impleading applicant as party – All pending miscellaneous applications disposed of.

Service Law – Promotion – Notional Promotion and Stepping-Up of Pay – Appellant, a retired Headmaster, claimed entitlement to notional promotion and pay fixation from 1988 at par with his junior of reserved category who was promoted under accelerated promotion scheme – Suit filed in 2018, long after appellant’s actual promotion in 2004 and retirement in 2006 – Held: Claim was hopelessly barred by limitation – First cause of action arose in 1988 or latest by 2004 – Suit filed after 14 years is not maintainable under the Limitation Act [Paras 8–10]

Limitation – Delay in Seeking Notional Promotion – Appellant sought financial and pensionary benefits based on deemed earlier promotion – Distinguished from recurring pensionary claims – Held: Claim for notional promotion and parity in pay fixation is not a continuing cause of action – Time-barred civil suit rightly dismissed by both courts below – Appellant not entitled to relief [Paras 9–11]

Precedent – Distinction from Pension Cases – Appellant relied on Union of India v. Tarsem Singh and other pension benefit rulings – Held: Such cases pertain to recurring causes of action for pension – The present case involving stepping-up of pay based on deemed promotion does not fall in that category – Relief denied [Para 11]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgments of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rohtak dated 23.07.2019 and Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rohtak dated 05.08.2022 upheld – Suit held barred by limitation.

Civil Law – Partition Suit – Power of Attorney – Impounding of Document – Plaintiff filed partition suit through Power of Attorney holder (P.W. Jayaprakash) – Defendant challenged validity of the Power of Attorney (Ext. P2) for non-registration and inadequate stamp duty – Trial Court impounded Ext. P2 under Section 33 of Kerala Stamp Act – Ordered collection of duty and penalty under Sections 37(2) and 39(b) – Plaintiff sought to replace Ext. P2 with fresh Power of Attorney (Ext. P5) – Trial Court rejected this attempt – Held: Mere filing of second Power of Attorney does not constitute valid replacement unless accepted by court – Replacement application viewed as attempt to evade stamp duty – Impounding order upheld – Plaintiff directed to pay stamp duty and penalty [Paras 6–20]

CPC – Amendment of Pleadings – Order VI Rule 17 – Plaintiff filed amendment application to substitute own name and delete Power of Attorney holder – Application allowed by Trial Court – Defendant challenged order – Held: Amendment application premature as application for plaintiff’s personal appearance still pending – Without formal discharge of Power of Attorney holder, allowing amendment unjustified – Trial Court’s amendment order set aside – Both applications to be heard together for proper adjudication [Paras 21–23]

Procedure – Filing of Suit through Power of Attorney – Admitted that suit was filed through Ext. P2 Power of Attorney – Later, conflicting stand taken that earlier suit was filed based on oral authority – Such contradiction in pleadings viewed as misleading – Held: Once suit admitted based on a document, subsequent attempt to deny it invalid – Fresh Power of Attorney cannot be filed to circumvent consequences under Stamp Act [Paras 18–19]

Judicial Reasoning – Sequence of Applications – Court emphasized that amendment to delete Power of Attorney holder’s name cannot precede or preempt decision on application seeking plaintiff’s permission to appear personally – Described as "putting the cart before the horse" – Amendment and discharge must be adjudicated together [Para 22]

Precedent – Karnataka High Court Case – State of Karnataka v. M. Muniraju [2002 KHC 3513] cited – Suit filed through unauthorized Power of Attorney holder is not maintainable – Cited to support the necessity of proper authorization [Para 17]

Service Law – Adverse Remarks in ACR – Judicial Review – Appellant, a police officer, challenged adverse remarks in his ACR for 2019–2020 describing him as “Not Reliable” and “Doubtful Honesty” – Trial court decreed suit for expungement, but first appellate court reversed decree – High Court upheld appellate judgment – Held: Adverse remarks were supported by material including findings in departmental inquiry and viral video evidence – Appellant was given full opportunity to represent and explain – No evidence of mala fides or procedural violation – Judicial interference in ACR not warranted [Paras 6–11]

Departmental Proceedings – Principles of Natural Justice – Challenge to Adverse Entries – Appellant received multiple punishments including stoppage of increments and censure – Contention that principles of natural justice were not followed was rejected – Representation against ACR was duly considered and dismissed via reasoned order – Held: Due process was followed, and bias not established – ACR remarks justified [Paras 6–10]

Reliability and Honesty – Discretion of Reporting Officer – Use of descriptors such as “Doubtful Honesty” and “Not Reliable” in ACR – Justified based on material evidence and conduct history – FIR quashed on compromise does not negate administrative findings or misconduct – Held: Reporting officer’s evaluation falls within domain of administrative discretion unless shown to be arbitrary or malafide, which was not the case here [Paras 9–10]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree of District Judge, Kurukshetra dated 12.07.2024 upheld – No interference warranted with adverse ACR remarks.

Criminal Law – NDPS Act – Ganja Seizure – Enhancement of Sentence – Respondent found in alleged possession of 1.7 kg of Ganja – Seizure included seeds and leaves – FSL Report confirmed presence of flowering tops but also noted seeds and leaf matter – Held: Under Section 2(iii)(b) of NDPS Act, Ganja excludes seeds and leaves unless accompanied by flowering or fruiting tops – Absence of clear separation renders seizure weight questionable – Prosecution failed to prove quantity was above “small quantity” threshold [Paras 15-17, 22].

Sentencing – Principles – Section 377 Cr.P.C. – State Appeal on Ground of Inadequate Sentence – Trial court had sentenced accused to 1 year RI and fine, both complied with – Court reiterates settled law that appellate courts should interfere with sentencing discretion only in exceptional cases – Refers to Bed Raj v. State of U.P. – Held: Sentence imposed was not shockingly disproportionate and consistent with evidence – No ground for enhancement [Paras 1, 3.1, 23].

NDPS Act – Presumption of Possession – Burden of Proof – Alleged seizure occurred from premises under construction – Labourers present at site – Ownership and exclusive possession not proved – Accused explained house belonged to father and was under renovation – Held: Exclusive conscious possession of larger quantity not established beyond doubt – Conviction under consumption and lesser quantity held appropriate [Paras 6, 20-22].

Criminal Trial – Witness Testimony – Panch Witnesses Turned Hostile – Prosecution relied on police witnesses and FSL – Court noted contradictions and absence of corroboration from independent witnesses – Held: Trial court rightly considered benefit of doubt while determining sentence and acquitting co-accused [Paras 10-14, 21].

Sentencing Policy – Proportionality and Deterrence – Court referred to State of Rajasthan v. Mohan Lal, Soman v. State of Kerala, and Alister Anthony Pareira – Held: Sentence must balance gravity of offence, intent, and societal impact – In present case, imprisonment already undergone with fine paid found proportionate [Paras 3, 11-14].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Sentence of 1-year rigorous imprisonment and fine of ₹15,000 upheld – No enhancement warranted – Accused had already served full sentence and paid fine – Sentence found proportionate and consistent with facts and legal standards [Para 23].

Criminal Law – Outraging Modesty – Discharge – Accused sent old and ugly undergarments of women via parcel to a female school principal with intent to insult her modesty – Accused sought discharge under Section 239 CrPC – Magistrate discharged them from Section 354 IPC but retained charges under Section 509 r/w 34 IPC and Sections 4 & 6 of Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986 – Revision filed against continuation under these charges – Held: Sending such items amounts to gesture and exhibiting object to insult modesty – Attracts Section 509 IPC – However, such act not covered under definition of "indecent representation" under Section 2(c) of the Act – Discharge granted under Sections 4 & 6 of the Act [Paras 1–7, 9]

Penal Code – Section 509 IPC – Interpretation – Act of sending ugly female undergarments by parcel constitutes "gesture" and "exhibiting an object" – Deemed intentional insult to modesty of woman – Attracts Section 509 IPC – Plea that offence not made out rejected – Held: No merit in contention of accused – Charge under Section 509 IPC to proceed [Paras 5–6]

Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act – Sections 4 & 6 – Definition – Section 2(c) defines indecent representation as depiction of a woman’s form/body in a way likely to deprave or corrupt – Sending old female undergarments not depiction of woman's body – Held: Act does not attract Sections 4 & 6 – Discharge allowed [Para 7]

Criminal Procedure – Double Jeopardy – Accused claimed they were already prosecuted for similar offence in Tamil Nadu – Held: Offences distinct – One pertains to sending items to another woman in different jurisdiction – No bar under Article 20(2) of Constitution or Section 300 CrPC – No merit in plea of double jeopardy [Para 8]

Decision:

Criminal revision partly allowed – Accused discharged from prosecution under Section 4 read with Section 6 of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986 – Order upheld with respect to prosecution under Section 509 read with Section 34 IPC – Trial to continue for said offence alone.

Criminal Law – Quashing - Drugs and Cosmetics Act – Sale of Drugs Without Valid License – Petitioner (Accused No.2), a licensed drug distributor, alleged to have supplied allopathic drugs to Accused No.1, a non-registered practitioner running a clinic without drug license – Proceedings initiated under Sections 18(a)(vi) and 27(d) of the Act of 1940 – Court held that such supply violated the license conditions of the petitioner – Held: Offences prima facie made out – Petition dismissed [Paras 3, 7].

Limitation – Section 468 CrPC – Complaint alleged to be barred as maximum punishment for Accused No.2 is two years – Court held that offences against co-accused (Accused No.1) are punishable up to five years – As per Section 468(3) CrPC, limitation is computed with reference to most severe offence in joint trial – Petition not barred by limitation [Paras 4, 8].

Authority of Complainant – Drug Inspector’s Locus Standi – Petitioner contended that complainant was not notified as Inspector for Gadag Circle under Section 21(1) of the Act – Court held: Once duly notified as Inspector for Shivamogga Circle, subsequent transfer covered under Section 21(2) – No fresh Gazette Notification required for each transfer – Narrow interpretation rejected as impractical and contrary to object of Act – Held: Inspector was competent to file complaint [Paras 9-16].

Cognizance and Trial – Role of Magistrate – Petitioner argued Magistrate lacked jurisdiction to entertain complaint under Section 32 – Court held: Sessions Court alone competent to try offences under Chapter IV of the Act – However, cognizance must be taken by Magistrate and committed under Section 193 CrPC – Held: Complaint properly committed to Sessions Court under Section 209 – No illegality [Paras 17-20].

Special Laws and Cognizance – Comparison with SC/ST Act and PC Act – Court contrasted express cognizance provisions under other special statutes – Noted absence of similar provision in Drugs and Cosmetics Act – Reinforced need for committal procedure via Magistrate – Petitioner's argument rejected [Paras 11-15].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Proceedings against petitioner under Sections 18(a)(vi) and 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 upheld – Complaint held valid in law – Committal to Sessions Court proper – No ground for quashing.

Criminal Law – Quashing of Summoning Order – Cognizance under Sections 427, 448, 294, and 506-B IPC – Petitioner sought quashing of cognizance order passed by JMFC, Panna, which was affirmed in revision – Held: Trial Court rightly took cognizance under Sections 427 and 506-B IPC based on prima facie evidence from complaint and statements under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC – However, ingredients of offences under Sections 448 and 294 IPC not made out – Cognizance for these sections set aside – Petition partly allowed [Paras 1, 2, 25 to 29].

Criminal Procedure – Section 482 CrPC – Inherent Powers – Exercise of power to quash cognizance – Petitioner contended that dispute was purely civil regarding property and false complaint was filed to pressurize her – High Court held that ingredients for Sections 427 and 506-B IPC made out from complaint and supporting statements – At cognizance stage, sufficiency for conviction not required to be tested – Prima facie allegations sufficient to proceed – No abuse of process shown – Invocation of Section 482 CrPC for quashing cognizance refused for Sections 427 and 506-B IPC [Paras 3 to 5, 23 to 25].

Criminal Procedure – Issuance of Process – Section 204 CrPC – Principles reiterated – Magistrate is only required to see if sufficient ground exists to proceed – Not necessary to record detailed reasons – Detailed scrutiny of evidence or defence not required at this stage – Relying on Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta (2019) 20 SCC 539 and Deepak Gaba (2023) 3 SCC 423 – Held: Magistrate rightly exercised jurisdiction under Section 204 for offences prima facie made out [Paras 8 to 10, 22].

Police Investigation – Enquiry Report under Section 202 CrPC – Delay and Gaps – Police enquiry report submitted nearly two years after incident claimed no cognizable offence committed – However, no spot panchnama, inspection report, or supporting documentation produced – No notice given to complainant to produce witnesses – Report based solely on accused’s version without reasoning for discarding complainant’s version – Held: Enquiry report lacks evidentiary value to negate occurrence of incident [Paras 13 to 19].

Penal Code – Section 427 IPC – Mischief – Breaking of wall causing ₹50,000 loss alleged – Petitioner allegedly demolished complainant’s wall with help of laborers – Incident witnessed by others – Prima facie ingredients of mischief made out – Cognizance justified [Paras 12, 20, 21, 25].

Penal Code – Section 506-B IPC – Criminal Intimidation – Threat to kill with firearm alleged – Specific allegation in complaint and supporting statements – Consistent testimony from complainant and witnesses – Held: Prima facie offence made out under Section 506-B – Cognizance upheld [Paras 12, 20, 21, 25].

Penal Code – Sections 448 and 294 IPC – No Prima Facie Case – Mere trespass or entry not made out in context of wall breaking – No specific abusive words mentioned in complaint – Alleged obscenities not detailed or supported sufficiently – Held: Ingredients of Sections 448 and 294 IPC not made out – Cognizance for these sections set aside [Paras 20, 21, 26, 27].

Civil vs Criminal Dispute – Allegation of property dispute being given colour of criminal case – Court held that complaint disclosed criminal intent beyond civil dispute – Prima facie case of criminal trespass and intimidation made out independently – Mere pendency of civil suit not ground to quash criminal proceedings – Held: No misuse of criminal process proved [Paras 3, 4, 5, 23].

Decision: Petition partly allowed – Cognizance under Sections 448 and 294 IPC set aside – Cognizance under Sections 427 and 506-B IPC upheld – Proceedings to continue for these offences [Paras 27 to 29].