False Promise to Marry – Quashing – Long-term Consensual Relationship – No Evidence of Deceitful Intention at Inception – Section 69 BNS Not Attracted – Criminal Intimidation Under Section 351(2) BNS Not Made Out – Criminal Law Not a Tool for Private Relationship Fallouts – Proceedings Quashed [Paras 8–17].

False Promise to Marry – Section 69 BNS – Ingredients – Intention at Inception Essential – Court held that for an offence under Section 69 BNS, prosecution must establish that sexual intercourse was induced by deceit or a promise to marry made without intention to fulfil the same – Mere breach of promise without mala fide intent at inception is not an offence – Reliance placed on Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana (2013) 7 SCC 675 [Paras 6–8, 12].

Prolonged Consensual Relationship – Criminal Liability Diluted – Relationship between parties spanned from 2020 to 2025; such long-term intimacy negates inference of deception – Cited Mahesh Damu Khare v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 INSC 897, holding that prolonged physical relationship renders plea of misconception of fact implausible [Paras 9, 12].

Consensual Relationship Turning Sour – Not Criminal Conduct – Court reiterated that every failed or soured relationship cannot be given criminal colour – Cited Amol Bhagwan Nehul v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 INSC 782, emphasising that misuse of criminal machinery must be curbed [Para 10].

Abuse of Criminal Process – Complaints After Relationship Breakdown – Court relied on Biswajyoti Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal, 2025 INSC 458, reiterating that retrospective branding of consensual relationships as deceitful constitutes abuse of process [Para 11].

Criminal Intimidation – Section 351(2) BNS – Not Attracted When Relationship Was Consensual – Allegation of threats rejected as parties were in a voluntary intimate relationship for several years – Cited Prashant v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2024 INSC 879 – No ingredients of criminal intimidation established [Para 13].

Court’s Observations on Contemporary Personal Relationships – Court observed that premarital intimacy between consenting adults is common; emotional discord cannot be converted into criminal litigation; criminal law is not a tool for moral policing or resolving personal fallouts [Paras 14–16].

Decision – Continuation of Proceedings Would Be Abuse of Process – No material to show deceitful intent at inception; allegations indicate only a breakdown of consensual relationship – Proceedings in PRC No.75/2025 quashed [Para 17].

Parole – Incapacitated Elderly Convict – Delhi Prison Rules 2018 – Clemency Delay – Premature Release under Rule 1246A – Humanitarian Relief – Home Confinement Directed Pending Decision on Premature Release; State Directed to Frame Rules for Such Situations [Paras 14–16, 21–25, 30–34].

Parole – Nature, Scope & Limits – Temporary Release Not a Right – Rules 1198, 1212 & 1212A, Delhi Prison Rules – Parole is a privilege facilitating social contact; not remission of sentence – Maximum permissible parole capped at 8 weeks + 8 weeks in emergent situations – Court cannot extend parole indefinitely under Article 226, as this would effectively rewrite statutory rules – Poonam Lata v. M.L. Wadhawan reiterated [Paras 16–19].

Elderly Bedridden Convict – Human Dignity – Inability to Surrender – Humanitarian Principles – Petitioner aged 81, bedridden, unable to move or return to jail – Court emphasises that conviction does not strip an inmate of dignity; prison system unable to provide round-the-clock assistance – Blind insistence on surrender would be inhumane [Paras 20, 23].

Rule 1246A – “Incapacitated Convict” – Premature Release – Feasibility to Be Explored – Rule 1246A (introduced in 2024) covers convicts aged 70+ unable to perform daily tasks and having served ≥50% of actual sentence – Petitioner is eligible – Authorities granted 4 weeks to evaluate case for premature release; however, interim custodial solution necessary because petitioner cannot surrender pending decision [Paras 11–12, 13.1–13.2, 21.1, 23].

Clemency Under Articles 72/161 – Mercy Petition Pending Since 2018 – Judicial Review of Delay – Court Declines to Intervene at This Stage – Though delay is reviewable per A.G. Perarivalan, High Court cannot exercise Article 142-type powers; clemency issue not raised by petitioner; Court declines to call for records or direct consideration of mercy plea at this stage [Paras 13.3–13.6, 22].

Home Confinement – Exceptional Measure for Terminally Ill / Incapacitated Convicts – Calcutta & Madras High Court Precedents – Citing Gautam Navlakha, In re: Overcrowding in Prisons (Calcutta HC), and M. Rajeshwari (Madras HC), Court notes precedent for substituting imprisonment with home confinement in extraordinary medical circumstances – Constitutes deprivation of liberty within supervised framework – Appropriate interim mechanism until premature release evaluation [Paras 13.7–13.8, 25–29].

Direction – Home Confinement Ordered Till Decision on Premature Release – Petitioner to remain confined at home under care of son; cannot leave home except for medical treatment – Personal bond of ₹10,000 with two sureties required – Jail Superintendent to supervise compliance [Para 30].

Direction to Authorities – Expeditious Decision on Premature Release – State directed to decide petitioner’s case under Rule 1246A within 4 weeks [Para 31].

Systemic Direction – Need for Amendments to Prison Rules – Court notes recurring situations where incapacitated convicts cannot surrender despite expiry of parole – Directs GNCTD to frame/amend rules to cover such exigencies, including prolonged medical incapacitation [Paras 32–34].

Amicus Appreciation – Court acknowledges assistance of amicus curiae; DHCLSC directed to pay fee as per rules [Paras 35–36].

Decision – Petition disposed of with directions for home confinement and expeditious consideration of premature release [Para 37].

Civil Law – Specific Performance – Agreement to Sell – Concurrent Findings – Appellant (Defendant) challenged the decree for specific performance of an agreement to sell land for ₹2,00,000/- – Plaintiff proved payment of ₹1,80,000/- earnest money and execution of agreement via marginal witness and scribe – Defendant admitted signatures but claimed they were obtained on blank papers as security for a loan which was repaid – Trial Court and First Appellate Court decreed the suit – High Court upheld the findings – Held: No substantial question of law arises under Section 100 CPC [Paras 1, 8, 15].

Evidence – Proof of Execution – Defense of Blank Papers – Defendant admitted signatures on the agreement (Ex. P3/PW1) but alleged misuse of blank papers given as security – Plaintiff adduced credible evidence through PW-2 (marginal witness) and PW-3 (scribe) proving due execution and payment of earnest money – Defendant’s claim remained a self-serving assertion without corroborative evidence – Court observed it is improbable for a person of ordinary prudence to repay a loan without retrieving signed blank papers – Adverse inference drawn against the Defendant – Execution of agreement held proved [Paras 12-13].

Contract Law – Readiness and Willingness – Plaintiff attended the Tehsil Complex on the stipulated date with balance consideration and swore an affidavit regarding his presence – Defendant failed to appear – Plaintiff sent legal notice requiring performance – Held: Plaintiff successfully established readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract – Defendant found to be in breach [Para 14].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree of the courts below affirmed.

Service Law – BSF – Disciplinary Proceedings – Extra-marital Conduct – Officer engaged in intimate relationship with a female constable while being married – Compromising photographs leaked and circulated on social media – SCOI and ROE conducted – Disciplinary authority found conduct to be unbecoming of an officer in a disciplined force – Held: Relationship, though consensual, constituted grave misconduct warranting action under Rule 20(2) and 20(4)(c) of BSF Rules – Compulsory retirement upheld [Paras 2–6, 18–19, 38–39].

Judicial Review – Scope under Article 226 – Disciplinary Action – High Court reiterates that Court cannot substitute its views unless the decision is illegal, arbitrary, or perverse – Decision to treat holding of GSFC as "inexpedient" is valid if based on material facts and nature of misconduct – Held: No violation of principles of natural justice as officer was heard at multiple stages – No interference warranted under Article 226 [Paras 21–22, 30–31, 34–40].

Interpretation – Rule 20(2) of BSF Rules – Meaning of "Inexpedient" – Court held term "inexpedient" has wider ambit than "not reasonably practicable" – Covers situations where holding GSFC may not be suitable or appropriate to achieve disciplinary objectives – Rule 20(2) intended to give discretion to competent authority in fit cases without mandatory GSFC – Held: Invocation of Rule 20(2) justified in facts of case [Paras 30–37].

Constitutional Law – Distinction from Article 311(2)(c) – Rule 20(2) BSF Rules operates independently and does not require satisfaction on grounds of “security of the State” unlike Article 311(2)(c) – Full Bench decision in Laishram Sushil Singh not applicable to BSF Rule 20(2) – Held: Provisions not pari materia and operate under different legal tests [Paras 28–29].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Court upheld the disciplinary authority’s decision to compulsorily retire the petitioner under Rule 20(4)(c) of the BSF Rules – Held: Decision to invoke Rule 20(2) based on seriousness of misconduct and nature of evidence was lawful – No ground for judicial interference under Article 226 of Constitution of India [Para 41].

Electricity – Crop Damage – Strict Liability – Respondent’s wheat crop destroyed by fire due to electrical short-circuit from a Three Phase LT Line passing over his field – Writ Court directed compensation of ₹50,400 with 6% interest – Defence of natural calamity (wind storm) raised by State rejected – No proof of windstorm placed on record – High Court upheld finding that Electricity Department failed in its duty to maintain the electric line safely – Held: Transmission of high-voltage electricity is inherently hazardous – Even without negligence, supplier is strictly liable under law of torts for damage caused by uncontrolled discharge of electric energy – Referenced Supreme Court’s judgment in M.P. Electricity Board v. Shail Kumar and J&K High Court’s ruling in Gittan Ram v. State – Appeal dismissed [Paras 7–16].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Writ Court’s award of ₹50,400 compensation with interest upheld – Doctrine of strict liability applied – State liable irrespective of proven negligence.

Writ Petition – Suppression of Material Facts – Abuse of Process – Clean Hands Doctrine – Petitioners challenged 33KV transmission line being laid through residential area citing safety concerns and violations of Indian Electricity Rules – However, petitioners failed to disclose ongoing civil suit on identical subject matter with interim relief already granted by Trial Court – Held: Non-disclosure of parallel litigation amounts to abuse of process and fraudulent misrepresentation; writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked with unclean hands [Paras 14–26, 30].

Electricity Infrastructure – Safety Standards – Petitioners raised concerns regarding insufficient clearance (less than 3.7 meters) from residential buildings in alleged violation of Indian Electricity Rules – Spot inspection confirmed proximity of lines to houses – However, since matter was already under adjudication in civil court, High Court declined to adjudicate merits under Article 226 [Paras 3–11, 22].

Civil Suit Pending – Parallel Proceedings – Interim relief in civil suit already granted to maintain status quo – Petitioners failed to await outcome and instead filed writ – Held: Filing of writ petition despite pendency of civil proceedings on same cause of action is improper and amounts to forum shopping [Paras 16–20, 24–25].

Costs Imposed – Concealment of Facts – Petition dismissed in limine with cost of ₹20,000 to be deposited in Advocates’ Welfare Fund – Exemplary costs imposed to deter litigants from misleading the Court [Paras 34–35].

Decision: Petition dismissed in limine – Petitioners held to have suppressed material facts – Costs of ₹20,000 imposed for abuse of process – Petition to be listed after two weeks for verification of cost deposit compliance.

Hindu Law – Private Debuttar – Building Plan Sanction – Shebaits’ Authority – No Statutory Requirement of Prior Court Permission – Municipality Cannot Demand Civil Court Order for Development of Debuttar Property – Impugned Refusal Quashed – Municipality Directed to Process Plan [Paras 29–37].

Hindu Religious Endowments – Private Debuttar – Nature of Shebaitship – Shebait not a “trustee” under the Indian Trusts Act – Savings clause in Section 1 excludes Debuttar properties – Section 34 inapplicable – Shebait possesses inherent managerial authority to develop property for benefit of the deity – No statutory mandate requiring prior permission of Civil Court for development of private Debuttar estate [Paras 28–31].

Municipal Law – Building Plan Sanction – Scope of Municipal Authority – Municipality cannot insist on production of civil court order as condition precedent for sanctioning building plan of Debuttar property – Function of Municipality is administrative and confined to verifying compliance with building regulations – Municipality cannot adjudicate Shebaitship disputes or validity of Arpannama/Rectification Deed [Paras 29–34].

Administrative Law – Mohinder Singh Gill principle – Authority cannot supplement or improve the impugned order with new reasons during litigation – Municipality’s attempt to add new objections during writ proceedings impermissible [Para 14].

Debuttar Property – Development vs. Alienation – Proposed construction held to be an act of preservation and beneficial utilization, not alienation – Consistent judicial view (Shakuntala Devi Dalmia; Kunal Kumar Adhikary; Risabh Ruia) followed – Court distinguishes precedents relied on by Municipality as inapplicable on facts [Paras 31–33, 35–36].

Shebaitship – Validity of Present Shebaits – Arpannama provides for succession by male heirs – Municipality not competent to question authority of Shebaits – No rival claimants shown – Shebaits’ Development Agreement validly executed for benefit of deity [Para 34].

Decision – Impugned notice quashed – Municipality directed to process the building plan strictly under applicable laws and to take a final decision within 8 weeks – Writ petition allowed [Para 36–37].

Judicial Service – Temporary Promotion – Rule 31(a)(i) KS&SSR – Rule 8 Judicial Ministerial Rules – Government Circulars of 1997 & 2008 banning temporary promotion cannot override statutory rules – Vacancies in Bench Clerk Grade-I causing administrative stagnation due to disproportionate cadre strength – Government’s 19.07.2025 communication allowing temporary promotions following seniority under proviso to Rule 28(a) – Held: Competent authorities free to effect temporary promotions untrammelled by earlier circulars – Writ petition disposed of with declaration [Paras 18–23, 26–28].

Judicial Service – Temporary Promotions – Effect of Rule 31(a)(i) KS&SSR – Emergency Requirement – Stagnation in Cadre - Rule 31(a)(i) empowers appointing authorities to make temporary promotions in public interest where immediate vacancies exist and there would be undue delay in regular promotions – Such promotions permissible even without declared probation if seniority is maintained as per the proviso – Court notes eight vacancies of Bench Clerk Grade-I and several Central Nazir vacancies, leading to functional paralysis – Held: Temporary promotion permissible; Rule 31(a)(i) cannot be neutralised by executive circulars [Paras 6–7, 17–19, 23, 26].

Government Circulars – Circulars of 1997 and 2008 Banning Temporary Promotions – No Override over Statutory Rules - Ext.P6 (09.09.1997) and Ext.P7 (15.09.2008) imposed a ban on temporary promotions under Rule 31(a)(i) requiring CM-level justification and intended eventual cessation – Court holds that circulars cannot override or dilute statutory powers under Rule 31(a)(i) KS&SSR and Rule 8 of the 1975 Rules – Hence such circulars cannot be invoked to deny temporary promotions in exigencies of judicial administration [Paras 20–22, 26].

Kerala Judicial Ministerial Subordinate Service Rules – Rule 8 – Seniority Subject to Fitness – Interplay with KS&SSR - Rule 8 mandates promotion strictly by seniority subject to fitness – Petitioners contended this statutory rule overrides administrative restrictions – Court accepts that statutory rules prevail over conflicting circulars and administrative instructions – Held: Rule 8 read with Rule 31(a)(i) governs promotions; circulars cannot operate to frustrate statutory eligibility [Paras 20–23, 26].

Cadre Imbalance – Central Nazir (41 posts) vs Bench Clerk Grade-I (182 posts) – Practical Impossibility of Regular Promotion - Court records severe structural imbalance causing inability to promote due to paucity of approved probationers in feeder category – High Court’s proposal to make Central Nazir and Bench Clerk Grade-I interchangeable noted – Amendment to Special Rules pending before Legislature – Until legislative amendment, temporary promotions indispensable to maintain judicial functioning [Paras 10–13, 23–25].

Government Communication dated 19.07.2025 – Relaxation in Approach – Permitting Temporary Promotion - Additional Chief Secretary’s 19.07.2025 letter states temporary promotions may be granted without supersession of seniors following first proviso to Rule 28(a)(i) – Court treats this as relaxation of earlier rigid stand – This communication reinforces validity of temporary promotions in present exigency [Paras 27–28].

Circulars Cannot Nullify Rule-Made Power – Statutory Rule Prevails - Court reiterates principle that executive circulars cannot water down statutory authorities’ powers unless Rules themselves are amended – Amendments to Special Rules are legislative and pending; till then statutory discretion under Rule 31 continues unaffected [Paras 23, 26].

Decision: Held: Respondents 4–19 (District Judges/Registrar) competent and free to effect temporary promotions to Bench Clerk Grade-I under Rule 31(a)(i) KS&SSR maintaining seniority and subject to fitness – Such promotions shall not be restricted or prevented by Government Circulars of 1997 and 2008 – Writ petition disposed of with declaration; no costs [Paras 26–28].

Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act – Protected Tenancy – Statutory Purchase – Sections 32G & 32M – Effect of Mutation Entries – Exclusive Title – Civil Court Jurisdiction – Plaintiff (sister) filed suit for partition in 2002 claiming suit property as joint family property inherited from parents who died in 1949 and 1978 – Evidence showed that defendant Krishnabai became protected tenant in 1957 and purchase was duly completed in 1961 after statutory inquiry, issuance of 32G order, fixation of purchase price, and issuance of sale certificate under 32M – Held: Once purchase under 32G/32M fructifies, title statutorily vests in tenant and property ceases to form part of estate of predecessors – Civil Court cannot ignore binding statutory orders – Concurrent findings contrary to statutory record unsustainable [Paras 5.1–5.4, 10–12, 15–16, 25–26].

Tenancy Law – Representative Capacity – Claim of Joint Family Cultivation – No Evidence – Plaintiff failed to prove that Krishnabai’s protected tenancy was in representative capacity for entire family – No evidence of joint cultivation, sharing of produce, or admission by tenant/landlord as required under Ramakant Ganesh Naik precedent – On contrary, evidence and revenue records (Exhs. 41–50) show exclusive cultivation by Krishnabai for decades – Held: Property not proved to be joint family property – Ratio of Ramakant Ganesh Naik inapplicable; reliance misconceived [Paras 12–15, 22–23].

Limitation – Partition Suit – Articles 65-B & 110 – Plaintiff silent from 1957 to 2002 – No steps to challenge mutation, 32G order, or 32M sale certificate despite public notices and statutory proceedings – First challenge raised only via suit in 2002, nearly 41 years after vesting of title – Held: Suit hopelessly barred; plea of exclusion within 12 years unproved – Mere assertion of proposal for partition unsupported by evidence – Plaintiff’s witness admitted complete absence of proof of joint possession – Limitation bars the suit [Paras 16–17, 19–24, 26].

Civil Court Jurisdiction – Sections 85 & 85-A, BT&AL Act – When Bar Applies – Findings of tenancy authorities under 32G/32M are binding – Civil Court cannot reopen or disregard statutory vesting – Trial Court ought to have declined jurisdiction or referred matter appropriately – Failure to consider statutory bar constitutes legal infirmity warranting interference in second appeal [Paras 6.4–6.6, 25–26].

Statutory Proceedings – Public Notice – Non-challenge – Plaintiff’s long silence – Sale certificate shows public notices, individual notices, and participation of interested persons – Plaintiff neither objected nor appealed under tenancy law – Challenge before SDO in 2002 stood rejected – Held: Plaintiff estopped from disputing statutory vesting of title in 1961 [Paras 18–21, 23].

Substantial Questions of Law – Answered in Appellant’s Favour – Courts below ignored binding statutory orders under 32G/32M and misapplied principles of joint family property and limitation – High Court sets aside both judgments [Paras 26–30].

Decision: Second Appeal allowed – Judgments dated 08.02.2006 and 21.01.2017 set aside – Regular Civil Suit No.50 of 2002 dismissed – Record to be returned to Trial Court after appeal period – Parties may act on server copy [Paras 27–30].