Criminal Law – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Quashing of Proceedings – Second Complaint – Maintainability – Applicant sought quashing of summoning order and complaint proceedings arising out of Complaint Case No.188 of 2017 – Earlier FIR lodged on the same incident pursuant to Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. application – Police submitted Final Report – Protest petition filed by complainant rejected – Final Report accepted by Magistrate – Criminal Revision against acceptance of Final Report dismissed – Held: Filing of a criminal complaint on the same set of facts amounts to a second complaint and is not maintainable when the earlier proceedings culminated in acceptance of Final Report on merits [Paras 2–5, 14–21].

Second Complaint – Same Cause of Action – Bar under Judicial Discipline – Supreme Court in Subrata Choudhury @ Santosh Choudhury v. State of Assam reiterated that where the core allegations in both complaints are identical and the first complaint/final report was rejected on merits after considering protest petition, the second complaint is barred – Held: Present case squarely covered by the ratio of Subrata Choudhury and Magistrate could not have entertained the subsequent complaint [Paras 14–16, 20].

Final Report – Acceptance after Protest Petition – Effect – Magistrate accepted the Final Report holding that investigation did not suffer from infirmity – Revisional Court affirmed the order – Held: Acceptance of Final Report after hearing the complainant attains finality and bars re-agitation of identical allegations through a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. [Paras 3–5, 21–22].

Distinction between Exceptional Circumstances and Re-litigation – Reliance placed by opposite party on Mahesh Chand and Vishnu Kumar Tiwari distinguished – Held: Second complaint is permissible only in exceptional circumstances such as manifest error, miscarriage of justice, or new facts not earlier available – No such exceptional circumstances pleaded or established in the present case [Paras 17–20].

Abuse of Process of Court – Complaint filed after failure of FIR, protest petition, and revision – Held: Continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law warranting interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. [Paras 20–21].

Decision: Application allowed – Summoning order dated 10.01.2020, order issuing bailable warrant dated 01.04.2021, and entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.188 of 2017 quashed – Liberty reserved to complainant to seek appropriate remedy against revisional order dated 01.08.2023 in accordance with law.

Public Tender – Blacklisting / Debarment – Perpetual Disqualification – Constitutional Validity – Tender condition stipulated that bidder “must not have been ever blacklisted or debarred” by any authority and that revocation of blacklisting is not permissible – Clause operated as a permanent embargo irrespective of duration or revocation of earlier blacklisting – Held: Such condition amounts to perpetual civil disability and creates permanent hindrance on right to carry on trade or business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution [Paras 7–9, 13–15].

Blacklisting – Doctrine of Proportionality – Civil Death – Blacklisting is a serious measure having civil consequences – Perennial or indefinite debarment tantamounts to “civil death” – Apex Court has consistently held that blacklisting must be for a limited and proportionate period – Permanent exclusion offends constitutional ethos and settled judicial precedents [Paras 9–12, 14–15].

Interpretation of Tender Clause – Use of Word ‘Ever’ – Expression “have been ever blacklisted or debarred” conveys disqualification for all time to come – Even a bidder blacklisted for a single day stands excluded permanently – Such blanket exclusion held arbitrary, unreasonable and unconstitutional [Paras 8, 13, 15].

Judicial Review of Tender Conditions – Scope – While tendering authority has discretion to prescribe eligibility criteria to ensure discipline and efficiency, such discretion cannot transgress constitutional guarantees – Conditions resulting in permanent exclusion without proportionality are liable to judicial interference [Paras 6, 14–15].

Effect on Batch of Writ Petitions – Since tender itself quashed, other challenges relating to earlier tender or ancillary issues rendered academic – No further adjudication required on those grounds [Paras 17–18].

Direction to Authorities – Balasore Municipality directed to float a fresh tender in accordance with law and constitutional principles, keeping in view observations of the Court – Exercise to be completed within fifteen days [Para 16].

Decision: Impugned tender quashed and set aside – Batch of writ petitions disposed of – Liberty granted to Municipality to issue fresh tender consistent with Article 19(1)(g) and doctrine of proportionality.

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Sanction for Prosecution – Validity – Application of Mind – Sanction granted under Sections 19(1)(b) & (c) PC Act to prosecute public servant for alleged disproportionate assets challenged – Held: Sanction is not an idle formality and must disclose due application of mind to all relevant material – Mechanical sanction ignoring material facts vitiated in law [Paras 16–17, 21].

Disproportionate Assets – “Known Sources of Income” – Independent Income of Spouse – Investigating Agency and sanctioning authority excluded professional and agricultural income of spouse (petitioner No.1) while computing disproportionate assets of public servant – Income duly disclosed in Income Tax Returns and intimated under Conduct Rules qualifies as “known sources of income” – Non-recognition of spouse’s independent professional identity held arbitrary and unsustainable [Paras 17–20].

Income Tax Returns – Evidentiary Value in Disproportionate Assets Cases – Income disclosed through regular Income Tax Returns presumed to be correct unless shown to be fabricated or false – Sanctioning authority erred in rejecting professional income merely due to non-availability of client details beyond statutory retention period under Rule 6F, Income Tax Rules – ITRs constitute conclusive proof of income for sanction consideration [Paras 6, 17–19].

Agricultural Income – Legitimate Source – Wrongful Exclusion – Agricultural income of spouse duly verified through mandi receipts, production records and equipment seized during raid – Exclusion of such income from computation of total income held unjustified – Once included, alleged disproportionate assets fall within negligible margin (below 10%) and do not warrant prosecution [Paras 4–5, 17].

Sanctioning Authority – Disagreement with Departmental Recommendation – Detailed report of Excise Commissioner opining that case was not fit for sanction ignored – Sanctioning authority failed to record reasons for disagreement with reasoned departmental recommendation – Absence of reasons indicative of non-application of mind [Paras 5–6, 17].

Stage of Challenge to Sanction – Maintainability of Writ Petition – Validity of sanction can be challenged at any stage including pre-trial – Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 can be invoked where sanction suffers from patent illegality and abuse of process – Reliance placed on Nanjappa v. State of Karnataka and S. Subbegowda [Paras 13–15].

Judicial Review – Abuse of Process – Bhajan Lal Principles – Where even on admitted material no offence of disproportionate assets is made out, continuance of prosecution amounts to abuse of process – High Court justified in quashing sanction and consequential proceedings [Paras 19–21].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Sanction order dated 04.04.2025 set aside – All consequential proceedings quashed – No order as to costs.

Civil Law – Title to Immovable Property – Exchange Deed – Res Judicata – Respondents claimed ownership on the basis of exchange/partition deed dated 22.07.1970 – Same exchange deed was relied upon and adjudicated in earlier suit for permanent injunction between same parties – Issue of ownership framed, evidence led and claim rejected by competent court – Judgment attained finality – Held: Subsequent suit for declaration on same basis barred by res judicata – Finding on title in injunction suit operates as res judicata when directly and substantially in issue [Paras 15–23].

Res Judicata – Injunction Suit – Finding on Title – Though earlier suit was for permanent injunction, specific issue as to ownership was framed and decided on merits – Parties led full evidence on exchange deed – Title adjudication was essential for deciding possession – Held: Principle of res judicata squarely attracted in subsequent declaratory suit [Paras 16–21].

Adverse Possession – Plea of Title and Adverse Possession – Mutually Inconsistent Claims – Respondents claimed possession under exchange deed and simultaneously pleaded adverse possession – Possession asserted through true owner till dismissal of earlier suit – No animus possidendi established – Held: Plea of adverse possession not maintainable and limitation did not commence till hostile assertion after 1983 – Mere long possession insufficient [Paras 12–14, 24].

Adverse Possession – Requirement of Hostility – Ajit Singh asserted ownership by sale deed dated 06.09.1979 – Appellants continued asserting title thereafter – Respondents filed injunction suit in 1980 claiming through exchange – Possession neither hostile nor uninterrupted for statutory period – Held: No acquisition of title by adverse possession [Paras 12–14].

Exchange Deed – Unregistered Document – Admissibility – Alleged exchange deed dated 22.07.1970 held to be compulsorily registrable and insufficiently stamped in earlier proceedings – Claim based on such deed barred by res judicata – Question of admissibility rendered academic in subsequent suit [Paras 19, 23].

Second Appeal – Substantial Questions of Law – Applicability of res judicata – Claim of adverse possession – Effect of unregistered exchange deed – All questions answered in favour of appellants – First Appellate Court erred in reversing well-reasoned trial court judgment [Paras 10, 24].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – Judgment and decree of First Appellate Court dated 16.12.1993 set aside – Judgment and decree of Trial Court dated 16.05.1992 restored – Suit of respondents dismissed – Suit of appellants decreed.

Mining Law – Dead Rent – Non-operational Quarry Lease – Petitioners challenged demand of dead rent for the period during which mining operations could not commence allegedly due to non-handover of possession and absence of environmental clearance – Held: Dead rent is payable irrespective of actual mining operations so long as lease subsists [Paras 4–5, 25–28].

MMDR Act, 1957 – Section 9-A – Nature and Scope – Dead rent is an independent statutory liability and not merely an enabling or ancillary provision to Section 9 (royalty) – It operates as a minimum guaranteed payment during the subsistence of lease, even if no mineral is extracted [Paras 21, 27].

Royalty vs. Dead Rent – Distinction – Royalty depends on quantity/value of minerals extracted – Dead rent is a fixed minimum annual payment based on leased area, payable whether mine is worked or not – Dead rent serves as minimum guarantee to the lessor – Lessee liable to pay whichever is higher between royalty and dead rent [Paras 19–20, 25].

Quarry Lease – Renewal – Deemed Renewal – Petitioners’ leases were cases of renewal and not fresh grants – Failure to obtain environmental clearance or commence mining does not absolve lessee from liability to pay dead rent during renewed lease period [Paras 3, 13–14].

Environmental Clearance – Effect on Liability – Mere inability to operate lease due to lack of statutory or environmental clearances does not discharge lessee from obligation to pay dead rent – Responsibility to obtain clearances lies upon lessee – Suspension or non-operation does not suspend liability under Section 9-A [Paras 14, 22].

M.P. Minor Mineral Rules, 1996 – Rule 30 – Non-commencement of Mining – Lessee entitled to apply for declaration of lapse or extension where mining could not commence for reasons beyond control – Failure to invoke Rule 30(7)–(10) results in continuation of lease and corresponding liability to pay dead rent [Paras 23–24].

Central Government Circular dated 09.10.2001 – Applicability – Circular relied upon by petitioners does not override statutory provisions post amendment of Section 9-A and framing of State Rules – Held not applicable to present cases governed by amended law [Paras 7–8].

Precedents – D.K. Trivedi & Sons v. State of Gujarat – Supreme Court affirmed power of State Governments under Section 15(1) MMDR Act to levy dead rent and royalty – Law no longer res integra [Paras 10–17].

Decision – All writ petitions dismissed – Demand and recovery of dead rent upheld – Interim protection vacated – Directions issued to place copy of judgment in all connected matters [Paras 29–31].

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 138 – Dishonour of Cheque – Concurrent Conviction – Revisional Interference Declined – Petitioner convicted by Trial Court and conviction affirmed by Appellate Court for dishonour of cheque of Rs. 6,00,000/- – Revision under Section 482 CrPC challenging legality and propriety of concurrent findings – Held: No perversity, illegality or miscarriage of justice shown warranting interference – Revision dismissed [Paras 30–33].

Presumption under Sections 118 & 139 NI Act – Legally Enforceable Debt – Accused admitted issuance of cheque but pleaded absence of liability and alleged cheque was issued as security for a different loan – Statutory presumption of debt/liability squarely attracted – Mere denial or bald plea of “security cheque” without cogent evidence insufficient to rebut presumption – Accused failed to discharge burden of proof [Paras 11, 15–16, 30].

Cheque Issued as Security – Defence Rejected – Plea that cheque was issued for Rs. 1,00,000/- loan taken from third party and misused by complainant – No documentary or oral evidence adduced to substantiate defence – Held: Issuance of cheque for Rs. 6,00,000/- inconsistent with defence of smaller loan – Defence found improbable and unacceptable [Paras 11, 16].

Absence of Written Loan Agreement – Effect – Contention that no written agreement existed for accommodation loan of Rs. 6,00,000/- rejected – Held: Written agreement not sine qua non for proving legally enforceable debt – Oral evidence and conduct of parties sufficient when supported by statutory presumptions [Paras 16, 29].

Service of Statutory Demand Notice – Compliance with Section 138(b) – Demand notice issued within statutory period and duly served through registered post with acknowledgment due – Accused neither replied nor disputed service at relevant time – Mandatory requirements under Section 138 fully complied with [Paras 13–14].

Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction – Section 482 CrPC & Article 227 – High Court cannot re-appreciate evidence or act as appellate court – Interference permissible only in cases of patent illegality, jurisdictional error or perverse findings – Concurrent findings of fact based on evidence immune from revisional scrutiny [Paras 24–28].

Acquittal of Co-Accused – No Joint Liability – Co-accused acquitted as complainant failed to establish joint liability – Conviction of petitioner unaffected – Proper exercise of judicial discretion by Trial Court upheld [Para 31].

Decision: Criminal revision dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Section 138 NI Act affirmed – Interim orders vacated – Directions issued for compliance with sentence.

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Demand and Acceptance of Bribe – Proof – Conviction Sustained – Accused, District Officer, Ground Water Department, demanded and accepted illegal gratification from PW1 and PW2 for providing employment as casual labourers and from another person for appointment as driver – Evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW3 consistently proved demand and acceptance – Held: Proof of demand and acceptance, being sine qua non for offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d), stood established beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 13–14, 25–27, 42].

Corruption Offences – Mode of Proof – Circumstantial and Oral Evidence – Absence of Trap – Demand proved through consistent testimony of complainant witnesses supported by surrounding circumstances and corroborative evidence – Held: Conviction can be sustained even without trap proceedings when demand and acceptance are otherwise proved [Paras 13–17, 26–27].

Sanction for Prosecution – Section 19 PC Act – Non-examination of Sanctioning Authority – Effect – Sanction order produced through Investigating Officer – No objection raised at trial stage – Held: When sanction order shows application of mind, non-examination of sanctioning authority is not fatal unless failure of justice is demonstrated [Paras 33–40].

Sanction – Defect or Irregularity – Appellate Interference – Saving Clause – Section 19(3) PC Act – Mere omission or irregularity in sanction does not vitiate proceedings – Interference permissible only on proof of failure of justice – Held: No failure of justice established in present case [Paras 34–40].

FIR – Preliminary Enquiry – Vigilance Cases – Non-holding of preliminary enquiry – Effect – FIR registered based on vigilance enquiry report – Held: Preliminary enquiry is not mandatory; FIR does not suffer from illegality [Paras 29–32].

Recovery of Part Amount – Defence Plea – Agreement Showing Repayment – PW1 and PW2 admitted receipt of partial amounts but denied contents of agreement – Held: Disputed defence plea cannot negate prosecution case at stage of framing charge or conviction when demand and acceptance are otherwise proved [Paras 14, 41].

Section 420 IPC – Cheating – Acquittal – Trial Court acquitted accused of offence under Section 420 IPC – Said finding not interfered with [Para 6].

Sentence – Appellate Power – Modification – Considering long lapse of time and circumstances, sentence reduced while maintaining conviction – Rigorous imprisonment reduced from two years to six months (Section 7) and one year (Section 13) – Fine maintained – Substantive sentences to run concurrently [Paras 43–44].

Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – Conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) PC Act confirmed – Sentence modified – Accused directed to surrender to undergo remaining sentence [Paras 44–45].

Criminal Law – Abetment of Suicide – Section 306 IPC – Acquittal – Appellant (husband) convicted by Trial Court for abetment of suicide and cruelty – On appeal, High Court finds absence of evidence establishing instigation, intentional aid or conspiracy as required under Sections 107 and 306 IPC – Mere allegations of harassment and abusive conduct without proof of mens rea or proximate link to suicide insufficient – Held: Conviction unsustainable – Appellant entitled to acquittal [Paras 13–16, 33–34].

Cruelty to Wife – Section 498A IPC – Essential Ingredients – Failure of Proof – Prosecution alleged mental and physical cruelty and dowry harassment – Key witnesses including parents of deceased failed to depose specific acts of cruelty attributable to appellant – Evidence largely hearsay and inconsistent – No proof of willful conduct of such nature as likely to drive deceased to commit suicide or cause grave injury – Held: Ingredients of Section 498A not established beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 18–24, 31–34].

Dowry Demand – Acquittal under Dowry Prohibition Act – Effect – Trial Court acquitted appellant and other accused of offences under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act and Section 304B IPC – High Court held that once dowry demand itself not proved, conviction for cruelty and abetment based on same allegations cannot be sustained – Inconsistent findings by Trial Court corrected in appeal [Paras 9, 31–32].

Evidence – Appreciation – Interested and Hearsay Witnesses – Father, mother and relatives of deceased did not provide direct or cogent evidence of cruelty or dowry demand – Independent witnesses and panch witnesses did not support prosecution case – Hostile witnesses further weakened prosecution version – Held: Conviction cannot rest on vague, omnibus and uncorroborated allegations [Paras 19–25, 34].

Medical and Circumstantial Evidence – Injury on Deceased – Inquest noted injury on back of head of deceased – No evidence linking such injury to appellant – No investigation or charge for homicidal offence – Trial Court’s presumption that injury supported case of cruelty or suicide held to be speculative and impermissible [Paras 26–27, 33].

Benefit of Doubt – Criminal Jurisprudence – Prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt – When evidence is deficient and prosecution story improbable, accused entitled to benefit of doubt – Conviction based on conjectures cannot be sustained [Para 34].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 21.08.2014 set aside – Appellant acquitted of offences under Sections 498A and 306 IPC – Fine, if deposited, to be refunded – Bail bonds cancelled.

Partition Suit – Grandchild’s Claim – Oral Family Settlement – Proof and Effect – Plaintiff, granddaughter of original owner, sought partition of residential property alleging joint ownership and illegal exclusion – Defendants pleaded oral family arrangement whereby suit property fell to their share and another property to plaintiff’s branch – Evidence showed execution of reciprocal release deeds and receipt of consideration – Conduct of parties, including sale of property allotted to plaintiff’s branch, corroborated family settlement – Held: Oral partition/family arrangement duly proved – Suit property ceased to be joint [Paras 29–33, 38–39].

Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act – Section 8 – Transaction by Guardian Without Court Permission – Void or Voidable – Plaintiff contended that oral partition effected during her minority was void for want of court permission – Held: Section 8(3) HMGA renders such transactions voidable, not void – Transaction remains valid unless set aside by minor within limitation – Reliance placed on Vishwambhar v. Laxminarayan – Plaintiff failed to seek setting aside within prescribed period [Paras 34–37].

Limitation – Declaration – Article 58 Limitation Act – Plaintiff sought declaration that mutation and conveyance deed were null and void – Documentary evidence showed plaintiff had knowledge of impugned mutation much prior to alleged date – Limitation of three years under Article 58 runs from date when right to sue first accrues – Held: Prayer for declaration barred by limitation [Paras 21–25, 27].

Limitation – Partition – No Prescribed Period – While declaration relief was time-barred, suit for partition per se not barred by limitation – Partition is a continuing right of co-sharers – However, once oral partition proved and not set aside, no subsisting jointness survives – Reliance placed on Vidya Devi v. Prem Prakash [Paras 26–27, 38].

Registration Act – Unregistered Release Deeds – Collateral Purpose – Objection raised that unregistered release deed could not be read in evidence – Held: Under proviso to Section 49 of Registration Act, such document admissible to prove collateral transaction, namely existence of oral partition – Document not relied upon to effect transfer but to evidence family arrangement [Para 30].

Evidence – Admission by Conduct – Silence and Subsequent Acts – Signature of plaintiff’s mother on release deed not denied – Sale of property allotted to plaintiff’s branch pursuant to oral partition remained undisputed – Held: Conduct amounts to admission supporting defendants’ case – Plaintiff failed to rebut inference of prior partition [Paras 32–33, 39].

Cause of Action – Partition After Valid Family Settlement – Once oral partition stood proved and not avoided within limitation, plaintiff had no subsisting right, title or interest in suit property – Held: Suit for partition devoid of cause of action [Paras 38–40].

Decision: Suit dismissed – Prayer for declaration barred by limitation – Oral family settlement upheld – Plaintiff not entitled to partition or any other relief – No order as to costs.