Civil Law - Injunction Suit – Title Under Cloud – Suit for Bare Injunction Not Maintainable – The plaintiff sought an injunction based on a sale deed executed by an alleged attorney without producing the power of attorney – The defendants disputed title and possession – Held: Trial Court erred in granting injunction without verifying valid title – When title is clouded or disputed with substantial grounds, injunction cannot be granted solely on possession – The case involves substantial title dispute that must be addressed in a comprehensive suit – Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court set aside [Paras 7].

Power of Attorney – Failure to Prove Authority – Sale Deed Invalid – The plaintiff claimed title through a sale by an attorney without producing the power of attorney or proof of its existence – Testimony of alleged attorney about loss of power of attorney rejected – Held: In absence of power of attorney, sale deed confers no valid title – Plaintiff failed to establish prima facie ownership [Paras 7].

Additional Evidence – Order 41 Rule 27 CPC – No Justifiable Grounds – Plaintiff's attempt to produce additional evidence at appellate stage rejected – Documents were post-suit, xerox copies, and not satisfying conditions under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC – Court reiterated additional evidence is not a right but a discretionary power to be exercised on judicial principles – Application for additional evidence dismissed [Paras 8].

Title Dispute – Relegation to Declaration Suit – The Court reiterated principles from Anathula Sudhakar case that when there is substantial dispute over title, parties must approach through a suit for declaration and not mere injunction proceedings – Trial Court’s approach in avoiding title examination held incorrect [Paras 7].

Final Decision – Appeal Allowed – Judgment and Decree of Trial Court decreeing suit for injunction set aside – Plaintiff’s suit dismissed – Application under Order 41 Rule 27 rejected [Paras 9-10].

Civil Law - Grant of Letters of Administration – Holographic Will – Long Delay in Publication – Grant Upheld – The appellants objected to the grant of letters of administration on the basis of a Will executed in 1968 but disclosed after 30 years – The Court held that the application for letters of administration was filed after disputes arose among heirs and hence was not time-barred under Article 137 of the Limitation Act – The delay did not by itself create a suspicious circumstance sufficient to invalidate the Will – Grant of letters of administration by the Trial Court upheld [Paras 34-44, 60].*

Limitation in Probate Proceedings – Continuous Right to Apply – Article 137 of the Limitation Act – Not Time-Barred – The Court held that the cause of action to apply for letters of administration accrues upon the need to prove the Will, especially upon dispute or challenge from other heirs – Citing Kunvarjeet Singh Khandpur and Sameer Kapoor cases, the Court ruled that probate rights are continuing and not extinguished by mere lapse of time – Appeal dismissed [Paras 38-44].*

Suspicious Circumstances – Burden of Proof on Objector – Holographic Will Carries High Presumption of Regularity – The Court reiterated that the burden to dispel suspicious circumstances in case of a Will lies on the propounder, but once execution and attestation are proved by credible evidence, it shifts to the objector – In the present case, the handwritten Will was proved by attesting witness and corroborated by the propounder – The appellants failed to produce any evidence of physical or mental incapacity of the testator or any forgery – Allegations of suspicious circumstances were held to be conjectural and unsupported – Will upheld [Paras 45-57].*

Effect of Family Settlements – No Bar to Probate – Joint Mutation Not a Waiver of Probate Right – The Court clarified that family arrangements or joint mutation of properties do not defeat the right or duty to apply for probate or letters of administration – The probate court is bound to determine the validity of the Will irrespective of subsequent settlements among heirs – Reliance placed on Carapiet case – Grant of letters of administration affirmed [Paras 58-59].*

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Letters of Administration Confirmed – The appeal challenging the grant of letters of administration was dismissed – No costs awarded – Lower court records directed to be returned – Application for stay of judgment rejected [Paras 60-62].*

Regular Bail – Police Officer Accused Under Prevention of Corruption Act – Bail Granted – The petitioner, a police official, was arrested in connection with an FIR registered under Section 7 of the PC Act and Section 75 of the BNS – Investigation was completed and challan filed – Petitioner remained in custody for approximately 3 months – No prosecution witness examined as yet – Held: Continued custody not necessary – Bail granted subject to strict conditions [Paras 1, 5–6].

Prosecution Objection – Risk of Witness Influence – Complainant Yet to Testify – Addressed by Bail Conditions – State opposed bail citing petitioner’s position as a policeman who may influence witnesses – Court held that appropriate safeguards could mitigate this risk – Directed imposition of heavy sureties and multiple undertakings to ensure fair trial – Bail not denied solely on presumption of influence [Paras 3, 6].

Judicial Discretion – Bail with Stringent Conditions – Liberty Preserved While Ensuring Trial Integrity – Bail granted with multiple safeguards including surrender of passport, declaration of residence and contact details, appearance compliance, and non-interference with witnesses – Violation to invite cancellation – Held: Procedural safeguards essential to balance liberty and justice [Paras 6–7].

Final Decision – Bail Granted – Petition Allowed – The Court allowed the petition and directed release of the petitioner on regular bail with liberty to the trial court to impose additional conditions while accepting sureties – Pending applications also disposed of [Paras 6–8].

Criminal Law - Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Civil Dispute Dressed as Criminal Offence – Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 469, 120B IPC – Quashing Allowed – The petitioners challenged the criminal proceedings initiated under multiple penal provisions arising out of allegations of cheating and forgery in respect of a loan transaction secured by pledge of shares – The Court noted the existence of prior civil suits filed by the complainant on the same cause of action, including litigation before Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court, and observed that the dispute had purely civil ramifications without any prima facie evidence of criminal intent – Held: Continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to gross abuse of process of law, as the transaction was governed by contractual terms and did not exhibit any fraudulent inducement or criminal breach of trust – Criminal proceedings quashed [Paras 1-37].

Criminal Intent – Requirement of Mens Rea – Distinction Between Breach of Contract and Cheating – Sections 415, 420 IPC – Intent Missing – The Court reiterated the legal principle that for constituting cheating, fraudulent or dishonest intention must exist from the inception of the transaction – In the instant case, no evidence existed to show the petitioners had any dishonest intention while entering into the loan agreements – Held: Mere breach of contract or business losses arising from market conditions cannot be elevated to criminal liability – Absence of mens rea precludes criminal prosecution [Paras 27-32].

Forgery Allegations – Absence of False Document Creation – Sections 467, 468, 469 IPC – No Prima Facie Case – The Court applied the settled principle that forgery involves creation of a false document with intent to deceive – Held: Since the petitioners were not makers of any false documents but acted within the agreed contractual framework, allegations of forgery were devoid of merit – Proceedings quashed [Paras 30-31].

Jurisdiction of Criminal Courts – Misuse of Criminal Process to Enforce Civil Claims – Applicability of Bhajanlal Guidelines – The Court found the case squarely covered under the guidelines laid down in State of Haryana vs. Bhajanlal, especially that criminal law should not be used to settle civil scores – Held: The FIR and criminal proceedings constituted an abuse of process of court – Revision allowed [Paras 19-37].

Decision – Criminal Revision Allowed – Proceedings Quashed – The Court allowed the revision petition and quashed the proceedings in G.R. Case No. 887 of 2014 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Howrah, arising out of Howrah P.S. Case No. 124 of 2014 – Further directed return of case diary and disposal of pending applications [Para 37].

Civil Law - Compromise Before Mediation Centre – Appeal Withdrawn – Refund of Court Fee – Section 89 CPC and Section 16 of the Court Fees Act – Appeal filed against judgment and decree withdrawn after compromise between parties before Mediation and Conciliation Centre of the High Court – In view of settled legal position, parties entitled to refund of court fees affixed in lower court and High Court proceedings – Held: Where disputes are amicably resolved before the Court or its Mediation Centre, refund of court fees is permissible as per the mandate of Section 16 of the Court Fees Act read with Section 89 CPC [Paras 1-8].

Encouragement of ADR Mechanism – Refund of Court Fees as Incentive for Settlement – Referring to Pritam Singh v. Ashok Kumar, 2019 (1) Law Herald 721, and Pradeep Sonawat v. Satish Prakash, 2015 (1) RCR (Civil) 955, the Court reiterated the objective of encouraging amicable dispute resolution – Refund of court fee incentivizes parties to settle disputes and reduce litigation burden – Entitlement extends even to settlements reached during pendency of appeal [Paras 4-6].

Legal Principle Reaffirmed – Refund of Court Fee Not Restricted to Lok Adalat Settlements – Court emphasized refund entitlement applies to settlements before Mediation Centre or even outside court proceedings, in line with precedents of Supreme Court and High Courts [Paras 4-6].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed as Withdrawn – Decree in Terms of Compromise – Refund of Court Fee Allowed – Appeal dismissed as withdrawn in terms of compromise dated 07.03.2024 recorded before Mediation Centre – Decree to be drawn accordingly with compromise appended – Court fee to be refunded to appellants as per applicable rules [Paras 7-8].

Criminal Law - Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Matrimonial Dispute – Settlement Recognized – FIR Quashed - Petition filed for quashing of FIR No. 323/2022 under Sections 323/354/34 IPC on the basis of amicable settlement between husband and wife – Allegations included physical assault, molestation, and threats – The parties executed a settlement deed dated 24.04.2025 wherein they agreed to dissolve their marriage and settle all claims including alimony and istridhan – Respondent no. 2 confirmed the settlement in court and raised no objection to quashing – Held: Continuation of proceedings would be futile and an abuse of process of law – FIR and consequential proceedings quashed in the interest of justice [Paras 1-3, 5, 8-9].

Cheque Dishonour – Appeal by Complainant – Section 138 NI Act – Appeal Maintainable Under Proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. – Not Under Section 378(4) – The complainant had preferred an appeal against acquittal along with an application for leave under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. – Held: In light of Supreme Court’s ruling in Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, the complainant under Section 138 NI Act is a ‘victim’ as defined under Section 2(wa) Cr.P.C. – Thus entitled to file appeal directly under the proviso to Section 372 without seeking special leave – Appeal not maintainable under Section 378(4), but properly lies under Section 372 – Appeal remitted for consideration accordingly [Paras 3–5].

Retrospective Operation of Judicial Pronouncements – Clarification of Law – Applicability of Celestium Financial Decision – Objection raised that the precedent should apply prospectively only – Rejected – Held: Judicial decisions operate retrospectively and clarify what the law always was – Supreme Court’s pronouncement in Celestium Financial must be given full effect in all pending matters – Reliance placed on DRI v. Raj Kumar Arora and ACIT v. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. [Paras 5.1–5.2].

Substantive Justice Over Procedural Defect – Appeal Not Dismissed – Relegated to Sessions Court – Court held that dismissing the appeal for technical filing error would defeat the cause of justice – Instead, in the interest of fairness and efficiency, the matter was remitted to the Sessions Judge to be treated as a valid appeal under proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C./Section 413 BNSS – Directions issued for immediate transmission of record [Paras 6–7].

Final Relief – Appeal and Application Disposed of – Directions Issued – The appeal and accompanying application(s) were disposed of – Directed to be treated as appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. – Sessions Judge empowered to assign or retain the matter – Court did not express any opinion on merits [Para 7].

Criminal Revision – Allegation of Forgery and Misrepresentation – Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. – Seeking Registration of FIR – Revision Dismissed – The revisionist filed a criminal revision against the Magistrate’s order rejecting his application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., seeking registration of FIR against respondent no. 2 (Deputy Chief Minister of U.P.) for allegedly furnishing forged educational certificates and misrepresenting facts in election affidavits and to Indian Oil Corporation – Held: No cognizable offence disclosed – Certificates not proved to be forged – Delay, lack of personal locus, and absence of complainant injury noted – Criminal revision dismissed [Paras 1, 18–19, 38–40].

Forgery Allegations – Prathma, Madhyama, and Uttama Certificates from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan – Not Recognized, But Not Forged – The Court held that unrecognized educational certificates are not per se forged – There was no proof that certificates were fabricated or not issued by the concerned authority – Absence of complaint from affected parties like Election Commission or Indian Oil Corporation held critical – Held: Use of unrecognized certificates may be improper but not criminally punishable without mens rea or false fabrication [Paras 18.4, 20, 26].

Locus Standi – Social Worker or RTI Activist Without Personal Harm – Application Not Maintainable – The revisionist, claiming to be a social worker and RTI activist, was found to have no personal stake or injury – No prior complaints to competent authorities – Court held that a person not deceived or aggrieved cannot invoke criminal law merely based on personal hurt – Held: Revisionist lacked standing under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. [Paras 18.1–18.3, 34].

Delay and Limitation – Section 125A of RPA – Barred by Section 468 Cr.P.C. – The alleged offences under Section 125A of the Representation of the People Act were in relation to affidavits filed in 2007, 2012, and 2014 – Court held the application made in 2021 was clearly barred by limitation as per Section 468(2)(b) Cr.P.C. – Held: Criminal law cannot be revived after expiry of limitation period without just cause [Paras 20, 21, 24–25].

Prospective Accused – Right of Hearing in Revision – Section 401(2) Cr.P.C. – Upheld – The Court held that the proposed accused had the right to be heard in the criminal revision challenging rejection of Section 156(3) application – Reliance placed on Manharbhai Muljibhai Kapadia and Santhakumari decisions of the Supreme Court – Held: Right of hearing of prospective accused is mandatory where an adverse order may result [Paras 14.1, 31].

Misuse of Judicial Process – Malicious Prosecution – Harassment Prevented – The Court observed that the revisionist failed to produce supporting records, filed vague affidavits, and appeared to be acting with personal and political motives – Held: Criminal law cannot be allowed to be misused for vendetta or publicity – Petition dismissed with strong observations against abuse of process [Paras 18.6, 33, 36–37].

Final Decision – No Prima Facie Cognizable Offence – Revision Dismissed – The High Court found the impugned order dated 04.09.2021 to be reasoned, legally sound, and not warranting interference – Held: No case made out for directing FIR – Criminal revision rejected [Paras 38–40].

Quashing of Charges – Discharge of Private Vendor – Sections 120-B, 420, 471 IPC and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act – Discharge Allowed – Applicants sought quashing of orders rejecting discharge and framing charges alleging criminal conspiracy and wrongful gain in award of HMIS project under NRHM – Court held that applicants, being private vendors, completed the project within budget and were duly empanelled – No material indicating conspiracy, forgery or dishonest intention – Basic ingredients of alleged offences not made out – Criminal prosecution held to be abuse of process – Impugned orders quashed and applicants discharged [Paras 17.1-17.27, 18-21].

Criminal Conspiracy – Section 120-B IPC – No Evidence of Meeting of Minds – Allegations of favouritism in selection process not supported by material to show agreement or joint intention between applicants and public officials – Mere participation or efforts to secure work order insufficient to constitute conspiracy – Charge under Section 120-B quashed [Paras 17.24-17.25].

Cheating – Section 420 IPC – Lack of Dishonest Inducement – Court found no evidence that applicants misrepresented facts or dishonestly induced government to part with money – Applicants supplied hardware/software as per work order and received partial payment – No prima facie case under Section 420 IPC – Charges not sustainable [Para 17.26].

Forgery and Use of False Document – Section 471 IPC – No False Document Proven – Charge under Section 471 IPC based on use of so-called fake tender documents – Court held that no document created falsely or used dishonestly as genuine was shown – Absent any ‘false document’, offence under Section 471 not made out [Para 17.27].

Prevention of Corruption Act – Section 13(1)(d) – Inapplicable to Private Vendor – Applicants were not public servants and there was no evidence of giving or receiving illegal gratification – Court held that amended Section 13(1)(d) requires clear proof of illicit enrichment or dishonest misappropriation by public servant – No such element made out against applicants – Charge unsustainable [Paras 17.17-17.22].

Retrospective Benefit of Amendment – Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 – Retrospective Application Deferred – Court acknowledged legal submissions about the omission of Section 13(1)(d) and lack of saving clause – Referred to conflicting views in judicial forums – Held: No decision required on retrospective applicability in view of failure to make out ingredients of offence under unamended provision itself [Para 17.21].

Abuse of Process – Discharge Warranted – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Court held that the prosecution lacked foundational material to proceed against the applicants – Held: Continued trial would amount to harassment and misuse of judicial process – Orders dated 02.03.2024 and 29.04.2024 set aside – Applicants discharged from all charges [Paras 19-21].