Criminal Law – Dismissal for Default – Acquittal – Petitioner filed complaint under Sections 500, 195, 120B IPC against a developer alleging defamation and conspiracy – Complaint was dismissed for default on 22.07.2024 after petitioner failed to appear due to confusion in reading the next date as 07.08.2024 instead of 07.03.2024 from cause list – Application for restoration filed on 30.07.2024 was rejected by Magistrate on ground of lack of power to recall dismissal – Held: Magistrate rightly rejected restoration as he became functus officio – No provision in CrPC permits restoration after acquittal due to default [Paras 3–4, 10–16]

Acquittal – Consequences of Dismissal – Though Magistrate’s dismissal order did not expressly record “acquittal,” it amounts to deemed acquittal under Section 256 CrPC – Absence of appearance by complainant justified default dismissal – Complainant's remedy lies in appeal, not revision or restoration application – No illegality found in Magistrate’s refusal [Paras 13–16]

Inherent Powers – Scope under Section 482 CrPC / Article 227 – In view of specific remedy available under CrPC (appeal with leave), High Court’s inherent powers cannot be invoked for restoration – Held: Inherent powers are not to bypass express statutory scheme – Petition not maintainable [Paras 12–14]

Court’s Observations – Confusion arose due to mistaken entry of next date as 07.08.2024 in court records – Petitioner is at liberty to seek appropriate remedy in accordance with law – However, current revisional application dismissed as unsustainable [Paras 17–18]

Decision: Revisional Application Dismissed – No power of restoration after default dismissal under CrPC – Petitioner may pursue appropriate legal remedy

Family Law – Divorce by Mutual Consent – Jurisdictional Error – Consent Requirement – Fault-Based Petitions – Section 13 vs. 13B HMA – Family Court suo motu passed decree under Section 13B of HMA despite pendency of separate contested petitions under Section 13 filed by husband and wife on grounds of cruelty and adultery – Held: Statutory precondition under Section 13B of mutual consent through a joint petition and second motion was not met – Court lacked jurisdiction to recharacterise fault-based proceedings as mutual consent divorce – Impugned decree set aside [Paras 17–27, 32–33, 36–37, 46–47].

Family Courts Act – Scope of Sections 9 and 10 – Procedural Discretion vs. Substantive Law – Family Court erred in invoking procedural flexibility under Sections 9 and 10 of Family Courts Act to bypass mandatory requirements under Section 13B of HMA – Held: Procedural provisions cannot override express substantive statutory safeguards – Mutual consent must be explicit, contemporaneous, and continuous – Mere separate prayers for divorce do not establish mutuality [Paras 39–45].

Constitutional Law – Article 142 – Limits on Judicial Power – Role of Supreme Court – Family Court assumed plenary jurisdiction analogous to powers under Article 142 of Constitution to mould relief in absence of statutory compliance – Held: Only Supreme Court has authority under Article 142 to grant relief beyond statute – Reliance on Anil Kumar Jain v. Maya Jain affirmed – Decree passed by Family Court ultra vires [Paras 50–52].

Statutory Interpretation – Section 13B of HMA – Substance vs Form – Consent as Jurisdictional Fact – Section 13B not a mere procedural shortcut but a substantive provision requiring mutual, ongoing, voluntary consent by both spouses – Fault-based proceedings cannot be retrofitted into mutual consent divorce – Decree passed without jurisdiction, nullity in law [Paras 21, 25–27, 36–38, 42–44].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned Judgment and Decree dated 18.07.2024 passed by Family Court set aside – Divorce petitions remanded to Family Court for adjudication on merits – No order as to costs [Paras 53–56].

Criminal Law – Murder – Dying Declaration – Victim named appellants Dilip Dey and Manoj Singh as shooters in statement recorded by police officer in presence of doctor and relatives – Statement corroborated by brothers of deceased (PWs 5 and 7) – Medical officer (PW9) confirmed victim was conscious – Objection to lack of medical certificate of mental fitness rejected – Court held dying declaration reliable and consistent with medical evidence [Paras 3, 6, 42–45, 49–53]

Criminal Law – Firearm Recovery – Weapon recovered on basis of disclosure by Manoj Singh under Section 27 Evidence Act – Seizure corroborated by police witnesses (PWs 20, 25) – Forensic expert (PW22) confirmed bullet retrieved from victim matched the recovered firearm – Held: Recovery legal and directly links appellant to the crime [Paras 34–36, 57–58]

Evidence – Hostile Witness – PW16 (friend of deceased) turned hostile but admitted being present, taking victim to hospital, and confirming victim’s consciousness – Statement of hostile witness corroborated by medical and family witnesses – Held: Partial reliability sufficient for corroboration of prosecution version [Paras 16, 28–30, 47–48]

Criminal Procedure – FIR based on Dying Declaration – Statement of victim formed basis of FIR – Recorded by police in presence of attending doctor and family members – FIR and injuries consistent with post-mortem report – Held: FIR valid, dying declaration admissible under Section 32 Evidence Act [Paras 49–51]

Forensic Evidence – Ballistics – Recovered firearm found to be in working condition – Expert confirmed bullet removed from body fired through same weapon – Court accepted ballistic report as conclusive link to accused [Paras 36, 57–58]

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Section 302/34 IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act affirmed – Sentence to run concurrently – Detention already undergone to be set off under Section 428 CrPC [Paras 59–61]

Motor Accident Claim - Compensation – Permanent Disability – Functional Disability – Appellant, a Patwari by profession, sustained 65% permanent disability including hemiparesis and knee stiffness – Tribunal awarded ₹1,30,000 under this head – High Court held that functional disability should be considered at 50% considering nature of employment – Monthly income ₹2700, annual loss ₹16,200 – Applying multiplier of 17 (age 30 years), total disability compensation assessed at ₹2,75,400 – After adjusting Tribunal's award, enhancement of ₹1,45,400 granted [Paras 6–9].

Tort Law – Negligence – Cross-objection by driver dismissed – Driver had been convicted in criminal proceedings related to the same accident – Court upheld MACT's finding that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by respondent No.2 – Finding of negligence affirmed [Paras 5–6].

Interest on Compensation – Rate of Interest – Enhanced compensation of ₹1,45,400 awarded with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till realization – No enhancement under other heads claimed [Para 10].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – MACT award modified – Enhanced compensation of ₹1,45,400 with 7.5% interest p.a. granted – Cross-objections dismissed.

Bail – Fraudulent Availment of Input Tax Credit under CGST Act – Compliance with BNSS – Bail Order Set Aside – Accused allegedly availed fraudulent ITC of ₹8.27 Cr and ₹8.26 Cr respectively – Petitioner challenged bail granted by CJM, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, based on omission of Section 47 and 48 headings in Arrest Memo and Notice to Relatives – Held: Arresting authority substantially complied with BNSS mandates – Grounds of Arrest provided and acknowledged – Relative was served with arrest notice containing essential details – No demonstrable prejudice to accused – Bail order held legally unsustainable [Paras 3, 39–41, 49–50, 57–59, 61].

CGST Act – Section 132 Offence – Authorization to Arrest – Valid Arrest – Commissioner had “reasons to believe” based on prima facie material that accused fraudulently availed ineligible ITC – Arrest Authorization and Grounds of Arrest provided in writing – Offence cognizable and non-bailable – Arrest compliant with Section 132 and CBIC Guidelines dated 17.08.2022 – Admission of wrongdoing by accused noted – Held: Arrest justified [Paras 45–46, 49].

BNSS – Sections 47 and 48 – Compliance vs Technical Omission – Prejudice-Oriented Test Applied – Absence of headings in arrest and relative’s notices does not ipso facto vitiate arrest – Apex Court decisions in Vihaan Kumar and Sri Darshan reconciled – Prejudice test applied – Held: No failure of justice or denial of legal remedy – Arrest not illegal for want of headings when substance was disclosed [Paras 50–56].

Criminal Revision vs Bail Cancellation – Jurisdiction Distinguished – Petition filed to set aside bail order as perverse and illegal, not for cancellation based on post-bail conduct – Held: Courts can annul perverse or unsustainable bail orders under Section 528 BNSS – Judicial power properly invoked [Paras 33–35].

Judicial Review under Special Acts – Liberal Construction Discouraged – Court emphasized that liberal interpretation of procedural mandates under special fiscal statutes may undermine their purpose – Minor lapses not fatal where statutory safeguards are substantively met – Reiterated principles from Radhika Agarwal case [Paras 47–49].

Decision: Impugned order dated 07.06.2025 granting bail set aside – Bail bonds cancelled – Respondents at liberty to seek fresh bail before appropriate forum [Paras 63–65].

Criminal Law – Misappropriation by Public Servants – Quashment – Petitioners, employees of BEVCO, were prosecuted for misappropriating foreign liquor stock worth ₹27,92,523 during 01.04.2018 to 30.07.2018 – Contended that remittance of the loss amount in accordance with BEVCO’s circular dated 20.12.2017 absolved them of criminal liability – Held: Circular subsequently set aside by Division Bench in WA No. 642/2025 – Repayment made after detection of shortage and without interest – Does not erase the offence or eliminate criminality – Quashment denied [Paras 3–12]

Intent – Shortage of Foreign Liquor Stock – Scale of shortage to the tune of ₹27.92 lakhs held to indicate intentional misappropriation and not mere clerical or operational lapse – Petitioners’ argument that discrepancies were common in BEVCO outlets due to delay in audit and voluminous work not accepted – Court held the magnitude points to deliberate acts requiring trial [Paras 10–12]

Effect of Repayment – Criminal Liability – Repayment of misappropriated amount after misappropriation complete – Criminal liability under Prevention of Corruption Act and IPC not extinguished by post-facto repayment – Held: Criminal trial must proceed as remittance was not voluntary but consequence of detection [Paras 8–12]

Decision: Petition dismissed – Interim stay vacated – Criminal proceedings in CC No. 2/2024 to continue before Special Judge, Muvattupuzha

Tenancy Law - Civil Procedure – Partnership Dispute – Order 30 Rule 8 CPC – Eviction Petition – Respondents filed eviction petition against M/s Indian Furniture Store through alleged partner Satish Grover – Petitioner filed application under Order 30 Rule 8 CPC read with Section 151 CPC, contending that his appearance be treated as under protest and Court must first determine whether he was a partner – Rent Controller, instead of deciding the application, directed petitioner to disclose partnership details on affidavit – Held: Impermissible – Rule 8 CPC envisages preliminary adjudication – Person disputing partnership cannot be compelled to furnish details before Court determines his status as partner – Impugned order set aside [Paras 5-7].

Civil Revision – Rent Controller’s Jurisdiction – Rent Controller must first adjudicate application under Order 30 Rule 8 CPC before proceeding with eviction petition – Only upon deciding petitioner’s status as partner can he be compelled to disclose partnership particulars – Impugned order contrary to the scheme of the Code – Civil revision allowed – Rent Controller directed to decide application under Order 30 Rule 8 CPC in accordance with law [Paras 8-9].

Decision: Civil Revision allowed – Impugned order dated 22.08.2025 set aside – Rent Controller directed to first decide application under Order 30 Rule 8 CPC and then proceed with eviction petition [Paras 8-10].

Criminal Law – Attempt to Murder – Conviction Reversed – Appellant convicted under Section 307 IPC while co-accused were acquitted on the same evidence – High Court held that the trial court failed to justify the distinction in treatment between co-accused and appellant – Evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 did not support exclusive guilt of appellant – No plausible explanation for selective reliance on witness statements. Acquittal[Paras 6.1, 7].

Criminal Trial – Deficiency in Investigation – No recovery of weapon or forensic linkage – Pellets allegedly recovered were neither sent for ballistic examination nor conclusively linked to appellant – Crime scene not photographed – SHO (PW-6) lacked ballistic expertise – Absence of expert evidence created serious doubt on prosecution’s version [Paras 6.2, 6.4].

Criminal Law – Benefit of Doubt – Inconsistencies between FIR and witness statements – No injuries on the informant despite alleged close-range gunfire – No repeated firing despite clear opportunity – Appellant entitled to benefit of doubt due to serious infirmities in prosecution's story – Presumption of intent to kill cannot rest on conjecture [Paras 6.3, 6.5, 7].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 307 IPC set aside – Appellant acquitted – Bail bonds canceled – Directed to furnish bond under Section 437-A CrPC [Paras 9-11].

Banking Law - SARFAESI – Possession of Secured Asset – Tahsildar’s Competence – ARC filed writ petition challenging Ext. P10 order passed by the Tahsildar on the complaint that property unconnected with loan transaction was taken possession of under SARFAESI proceedings – Held: Tahsildar has no authority to interfere in matters already adjudicated by the Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 14 SARFAESI – Such action amounts to overstepping jurisdiction [Paras 15–16]

SARFAESI – Review and Non-Impleadment – Ext. P10 order passed based on earlier writ direction where ARC was not impleaded – That writ judgment was reviewed and recalled (RP 1196/2019), and writ dismissed for suppression of material facts – Held: Ext. P10 is rendered non-operational to the extent it conflicts with judicial orders under SARFAESI and cannot survive post recall [Paras 8–10, 16]

Property Identification Dispute – Civil Suit Pending – Dispute between parties as to whether correct property was taken into possession under mortgage enforcement – Held: Dispute of identification is a civil matter pending before Civil Court in O.S. No. 1090/2019 – Trial court to independently adjudicate the dispute without being influenced by findings under SARFAESI [Paras 17–18]

Limited Quashment – Only that portion of Tahsildar’s order (Ext. P10) dealing with SARFAESI delivery proceedings set aside – Held: Tahsildar still empowered to act on allegations against Village Officer’s conduct under appropriate administrative powers, with notice to parties [Para 18]

Decision: Writ Petition Partly Allowed – Ext. P10 quashed only to the extent it interferes with orders of the Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 14 SARFAESI – Remaining issues left open for civil and administrative proceedings