Criminal Law – Murder and Criminal Conspiracy – Case Based on Circumstantial Evidence – Appellants convicted under Sections 302/201/120B/149 IPC – No eye-witness to occurrence – Prosecution relied on last seen theory, CDRs, recovery of mobile and motorcycle parts and confessional statements under Section 164 CrPC – Held: None of the incriminating circumstances fully established – Chain of circumstances incomplete – Conviction unsustainable – Acquittal recorded [Paras 37-40, 55-56, 59].

Circumstantial Evidence – Panchsheel Principles – Applicability of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda – Court reiterated that each circumstance must be fully proved and collectively form an unbroken chain consistent only with guilt – In present case material links missing including last seen, motive, place of occurrence and identification of dead body – Benefit of doubt extended [Paras 38, 40-44, 55].

Last Seen Theory – Failure of Proof – Prosecution witnesses did not see deceased in company of appellants – Informant and family members admitted not naming accused in earlier statements – No evidence of deceased being last seen with appellants or co-accused – Last seen circumstance not proved [Para 40].

Identification of Dead Body – 100% Burn Injuries – Discrepancy between articles seized at cremation and those mentioned in inquest report – No conclusive proof that recovered body was of deceased – Identification doubtful – Circumstance not fully established [Para 41].

Electronic Evidence – Call Detail Records – Absence of Certificate under Section 65B Evidence Act – CDR/SDR/CAF not duly certified – Even otherwise no conclusive proof of communication between appellants and deceased – Tower locations not co-relatable – CDR evidence held inconclusive [Paras 42, 31].

Recovery under Section 27 Evidence Act – Limited Admissibility – Alleged recovery of mobile phone and motorcycle parts pursuant to disclosure statements – Identity of recovered mobile not proved – No linkage of recovered motorcycle parts with deceased’s vehicle – Mere recovery without corroboration insufficient – Section 27 to be construed strictly [Paras 45-47].

Confession under Section 164 CrPC – Evidentiary Value – Confessional statements of two appellants recorded by Magistrate – Such confession not substantive evidence – Requires corroboration and independent proof of surrounding circumstances – In absence of corroborative chain of circumstances, confession alone insufficient to sustain conviction [Paras 49-52].

Section 201 IPC – Destruction of Evidence – Ingredients not proved – Knowledge and intentional concealment not established against appellants – Conviction under Section 201 IPC unsustainable [Para 55].

Benefit of Doubt – Prosecution Case Not Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt – Suspicion however strong cannot substitute proof – Evidence scratchy and disjointed – Essential links missing – Held: Conviction set aside – All appellants acquitted – Appellant in custody directed to be released – Others discharged from bail bonds [Paras 55-59].

Decision: All six appeals allowed – Judgment of conviction dated 12.12.2019 and order of sentence dated 13.12.2019 set aside – Appellants acquitted of all charges – Appellant in custody directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case – Appellants on bail discharged from bail bonds.

Banking Law - Jurisdiction – Bar under SARFAESI Act and RDB Act – Guarantor filed suit seeking declaration that no liability accrued under guarantee and obtained injunction restraining bank from proceeding under guarantee – Held: Suit in substance sought adjudication of liability forming subject matter of recovery proceedings – Section 34 SARFAESI Act bars civil court jurisdiction in respect of matters which DRT is empowered to determine and prohibits injunction against actions “taken or to be taken” – Section 18 RDB Act similarly bars jurisdiction in matters relating to recovery of debts – Commercial Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain suit and could not grant injunction restraining recovery proceedings [Paras 48, 50-57, 64-68, 72].

Injunction – Restraint on recovery proceedings – Scope of Section 34 SARFAESI Act – Expression “taken or to be taken” covers even prospective actions – Even if no proceedings under RDB Act were pending on date of suit, civil court could not injunct institution or continuation of such proceedings – Injunction restraining bank from proceeding under guarantee unsustainable [Paras 55-57, 72].

Guarantee – Extent of liability – Guarantor contended liability limited to value of share in mortgaged land and required prior determination – Held: Such plea constitutes defence to recovery claim and can be agitated before DRT/NCLT – Bank not required to obtain prior civil court determination before initiating proceedings under SARFAESI, RDB Act or IBC – Liability of guarantor co-extensive with principal borrower in absence of clear restrictive covenant in body of guarantee – Commercial Court misdirected itself in holding liability must first be determined in separate suit [Paras 45-48, 77-79, 87-88, 90].

IBC – Proceedings under Section 7 – Jurisdiction of NCLT – Bank initiated CIRP against guarantor – NCLT required to ascertain existence of default under Section 7(4) IBC – Section 63 IBC bars civil court from entertaining proceedings in matters within jurisdiction of NCLT/NCLAT – Civil court cannot interdict NCLT proceedings by injuncting bank from acting on guarantee [Paras 80-86].

Pleadings – Objection to jurisdiction – Whether can be raised in appeal – Held: Pure question of law going to root of jurisdiction can be raised at any stage – Court bound to take note of statutory bar even if not expressly pleaded – Bank not estopped from challenging jurisdiction despite filing separate writ against rejection of Order VII Rule 11 application [Paras 73-77].

Parallel proceedings – Independent suit by borrower/guarantor – Even assuming maintainability of independent suit, DRT proceedings cannot be stayed – Declaratory suit cannot impede expeditious adjudication under special statutes meant for recovery of bank dues [Paras 69-71].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned order dated 25.07.2024 granting temporary injunction set aside – Commercial Court held to have no jurisdiction to grant injunction restraining bank from proceeding under guarantee or under SARFAESI, RDB Act or IBC.

Criminal Law – Withdrawal from Prosecution – Section 321 CrPC – Dismissal of State's Revision Upheld – FIR No. 53/2018 registered for offences under Sections 147, 148, 332, 333, 353, 336, 307 and 436 r/w 149 IPC and Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act arising from stone-pelting by protesters during "Bharat Band" on 02.04.2018 at Raniwada, Jalore – During trial, State filed application under Section 321 CrPC for withdrawal from prosecution – Trial court dismissed the same by order dated 16.01.2021 – State preferred revision (S.B. CRLR No. 953/2021) – Accused's revision (S.B. CRLR No. 444/2024) dismissed as not pressed – Held: Trial court's order refusing consent to withdrawal neither perverse nor illegal – Revision petition devoid of merit – Order dated 16.01.2021 affirmed [Para 4-5].

Role of Public Prosecutor – Independent Discretion – Not a Postman of the State – Section 321 CrPC structures the withdrawal provision in three parts: (i) prosecution part — who can apply; (ii) judicial part — consent of court; and (iii) victim part — rights of unattended complainant – Public Prosecutor must exercise independent legal discretion before filing withdrawal application and must not act as a mere delivery agent or postman of the executive – An application filed under an incorrect provision of law (Section 311 CrPC instead of Section 321 CrPC) conclusively demonstrates non-application of mind and utter disregard to legal parameters – Held: Public Prosecutor cannot abdicate independent judgment merely to relay State Government's resolution [Paras 18-29].

Grounds for Withdrawal from Prosecution – Section 321 CrPC – Four Valid Grounds Enumerated – Following grounds recognized in Sheonandan Paswan (supra) for seeking withdrawal: (1) bleak possibility of successful prosecution bearing in mind evidence; (2) incrimination of individuals born out of political or personal vendetta; (3) inexpediency of prosecution for reasons of State and public policy; (4) unfavourable impact of continued prosecution on public interest in light of altered scenario – In the present case, none of the four grounds existed — evidence showed prospects of successful prosecution, no signs of political vendetta, no public policy impediment, and continued prosecution would not cause pernicious impact on public interest [Paras 30-31].

Judicial Check and Balance – Court's Role – Consent Not a Rubber Stamp – Section 321 CrPC vests supervisory, not merely adjudicatory, function in the Court — Court must satisfy itself that: (a) application is made in good faith in the interest of public policy and justice; (b) application does not suffer from improprieties causing manifest injustice; (c) grant of consent sub-serves administration of justice; and (d) permission not sought with ulterior purpose unconnected with vindication of law – Court cannot act as a mere stamp or rubber stamp while granting consent and must guard against executive interference in judicial process – Trial court that allowed withdrawal merely because State did not wish to continue, without independent application of mind, deserves deprecation [Paras 44-57].

Victims' Rights – Prosecution Withdrawal – Non-Participation Tantamounts to Denial of Access to Justice – Wrongful withdrawal from prosecution leads to: (i) denial of victims' rights; (ii) loss of public faith in legal system; (iii) encouragement of impunity; (iv) weakening of deterrence; (v) wrong perception and threat to majesty of law – Victim's right to review prosecution withdrawal decisions, as available under England's VRR scheme and recognised in R Vs. Christopher Killick [2011] EWCA Crim 1608, could be adopted in India to fulfil fundamental right of access to justice under Articles 14 and 21 – Non-participation of victim in withdrawal proceedings amounts to deviation from "Access to Justice" [Paras 60-68].

Decision: S.B. CRLR No. 444/2024 dismissed as not pressed – S.B. CRLR No. 953/2021 dismissed as devoid of merit – Order dated 16.01.2021 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhinmal, Jalore in Sessions Case No. 14/2020 (FIR No. 53/2018) refusing withdrawal from prosecution hereby affirmed.

Revenue Law – Suo Motu Proceedings – Delay – Section 79A – Bombay Land Revenue Code – Petitioners purchased agricultural land bearing Survey No. 59/paiki/1, Moje Ghanshyampur, Taluka Limbdi, District Surendranagar admeasuring 8 Acres 32 Gunthas from heirs of Raja Bechar under registered sale deed dated 19.03.1990 – Mutation Entry No. 650 certified on 24.05.1992 – Assistant Collector initiated suo motu proceedings in 2003 alleging breach of tenure conditions (Sharat Bhang) – Ordered vesting of land in State Government – Confirmed by Collector and Special Secretary (Appeals) – Held: Proceedings vitiated by unexplained delay of 11 years – Orders passed without jurisdiction – Writ allowed – Impugned order quashed and set aside [Paras 1–25].

"Suo Motu Powers Cannot Be Exercised After Unreasonable Delay — Delay of 11 Years Fatal"

Suo Motu Proceedings – Delay – Reasonable Period – Revenue authority initiated suo motu proceedings under Section 79A after a delay of 11 years from certification of Mutation Entry No. 650 in 1992 – No explanation offered for the inordinate delay – Held: Even where no period of limitation is prescribed for exercise of suo motu revisional powers, such powers must be exercised within a reasonable period – Delayed exercise of revisional jurisdiction is frowned upon as it creates uncertainty and unsettles vested rights and third-party interests – A delay of 11 years without explanation is wholly unreasonable and vitiates the proceedings – Revenue authority cannot suddenly awaken after more than a decade and unsettle vested rights – Exercise of power by the Assistant Collector tantamounts to arbitrary and illegal exercise of such power – Relying on Joint Collector Ranga Reddy District v. D. Narsing Rao, (2015) 3 SCC 695; Chandulal Gordhandas Ranodriya v. State of Gujarat, 2013(2) GLR 1788; Devjibhai Kalabhai Patel v. Collector, Rajkot, SCA No. 21269 of 2017 (confirmed by Division Bench in LPA No. 4963 of 2025) [Paras 15–23].

"Section 79A — Non-Confiscatory — No Power to Vest Land in State or Annul Registered Sale Deed"

Section 79A – Bombay Land Revenue Code – Scope and Jurisdiction – Section 79A empowers the revenue authority only to undertake summary eviction of unauthorised occupants – It does not confer any power of confiscation, forfeiture, or vesting of land in the State Government – It does not empower the revenue authority to annul a registered sale deed or divest a lawful title-holder or bona fide purchaser – Revenue authority, by ordering vesting of land in the State, acted beyond the four corners of the statute and assumed powers not vested in it – Relying on Sharadaben v. State of Gujarat, LPA No. 432 of 2018; State of Gujarat v. Kunjalbhai Lalitbhai Patel, LPA No. 1052 of 2021; Akshat Associates v. Special Secretary (Appeals), SCA No. 7752 of 2016 [Paras 5–6, 22–24].

"Bona Fide Purchaser Under Registered Sale Deed Cannot Be Treated as Unauthorised Occupant"

Section 79A – Unauthorised Occupant – Registered Sale Deed – Petitioners are lawful purchasers of the land under a duly registered sale deed which remains valid, operative and unchallenged – Revenue record nowhere mentions the land to be of new tenure since the first mutation entry in 1965 – Petitioners purchased the land after verifying revenue records which did not reflect new tenure status – No civil proceedings initiated to set aside or cancel the registered sale deed – Unless a registered conveyance is set aside by a competent civil court, title conveyed thereunder remains absolute and enforceable – Revenue authorities cannot unilaterally annul sale deeds; such matters must go to a civil court – Petitioners cannot be dubbed unauthorised occupants so as to attract Section 79A – Assumption of jurisdiction by the Assistant Collector is fundamentally flawed [Paras 10–11, 22–24].

"Government Resolutions — Conversion of New Tenure to Old Tenure After 15 Years of Continuous Cultivation"

Government Resolutions – Tenure Conversion – Government Resolutions dated 11.03.1996, 19.10.2000, 20.12.2006, 04.07.2008 and 17.03.2017 mandate that lands granted as new or restricted tenure, upon continuous agricultural use for 15 years, must be converted to old tenure – Such conversion is an obligatory duty of the revenue authority to be carried out suo motu without requiring any application from the agriculturist – Petitioners had completed more than three decades of continuous cultivation well before 2002 – Revenue authorities were obligated to convert the land to old tenure rather than initiate punitive action [Para 9].

Decision: Writ Application allowed – Impugned order dated 30.05.2012 passed by the Special Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department in Revision Application No. MVV/JMN/SNR 76-2008 quashed and set aside – Rule made absolute.

Temporary Injunction – HUF Property – Burden to Prove Joint Family Nucleus – Plaintiff alleged that disputed property “Shanker Godam” purchased in 1943 in name of Gaya Prasad was from HUF funds – No documentary evidence of existence of HUF in 1943 or of adequate joint family nucleus produced – Estate duty assessment order of 1974 insufficient to establish title – Held: Plaintiff failed to establish prima facie case of HUF ownership [Paras 27–34, 41–42].

Hindu Law – Presumption of Joint Family Property – Mere existence of joint family does not raise presumption that property standing in name of member is joint – Initial burden lies on person asserting coparcenary character – Only upon proof of adequate nucleus does onus shift – In absence of proof of nucleus in 1943, no presumption attracted [Paras 33–34].

Admission – Effect on Title – Reliance placed on estate duty assessment proceedings wherein share of deceased noted as 20% in HUF – Held: Title cannot pass by mere admission – Assessment order not conclusive proof of ownership – Photocopy inadmissible and information supplied by third party not binding [Paras 37, 42].

Interim Injunction – Prima Facie Case, Balance of Convenience and Irreparable Injury – Plaintiff neither sought declaration of title nor partition – Property already sold to third parties during pendency and construction raised – Held: No prima facie right shown – Balance of convenience not in plaintiff’s favour [Paras 45–46].

Suppression of Material Facts – Earlier Suits – Prior suits (O.S. No. 259 of 1991 and O.S. No. 156 of 2024) involving same property and similar reliefs not disclosed – Discretionary relief of injunction can be declined on ground of concealment [Para 44].

Precedent – Distinguishable Facts – Judgment in Writ-B No. 6108 of 2014 relating to different plot (No. 1866, purchased in 1956) held not applicable to property purchased in 1943 – No identity of subject property established [Paras 35–36, 43].

Appellate Jurisdiction – Interference with Discretionary Orders – Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) – Appellate Court can interfere only if order is perverse, arbitrary, capricious or contrary to settled principles – If view taken by trial court is a possible view on material, interference not warranted – No perversity found [Paras 38–40, 47].

Decision: Appeal dismissed at admission stage – Order dated 29.08.2025 rejecting injunction applications 6-C2 and 31-C2 affirmed – Trial court directed to decide suit preferably within six months – Observations confined to disposal of appeal [Paras 48–50].

Service Law – Recruitment – Change of Eligibility Criteria Midway – Advertisement prescribed 10+2 with Diploma in Knitting from ITI – During selection, Board issued clarification extending eligibility to Diploma in Knitting/Textile from recognized Institution/ITI – Selected candidates possessed qualifications like Diploma in Handloom Technology and Textile Technology (Spinning) not borne out from advertisement or draft Recruitment Rules – Held: Board clandestinely added qualification not notified to candidates – Change of criteria midway violative of Articles 14 and 16 – Selection vitiated ab initio [Paras 27-31, 34-35].

Recruitment – Draft Recruitment Rules – Legal Sanctity – Selection sought to be justified on basis of un-notified draft Rules – Even draft Rules did not include certain qualifications considered for selection – Held: Un-notified draft Recruitment Rules cannot override advertisement – Selection dehors notified criteria unsustainable [Paras 25, 29, 31].

Estoppel by Participation – Unsuccessful Candidate Challenging Selection – Respondent participated in interview but challenged selection after result – Where selection process suffers from glaring illegality and undisclosed criteria – Held: Doctrine of estoppel by participation not applicable – Candidate cannot be estopped from challenging unconstitutional and arbitrary process [Paras 30, 32-33].

Natural Justice – Service of Notice – Plea of being condemned unheard – Notices issued through registered post – Deemed service under Section 27 of General Clauses Act – Held: In absence of proof of wrong address or non-issuance, service deemed valid – Plea rejected [Paras 14-17].

Judicial Review – Scope – Tribunal quashed select and wait list for post of Knitting Instructor – High Court found no perversity or illegality in Tribunal’s reasoning – Where illegality in process is widespread and affects entire selection, Court need not segregate beneficiaries – Matter left to competent authority for remedial steps [Paras 35-37].

Equality in Public Employment – Non-Arbitrariness – Inclusion of ineligible candidates and deviation from notified criteria renders selection arbitrary – Selection failing test of non-arbitrariness under Articles 14 and 16 cannot be sustained [Paras 29, 35].

Decision: Impugned Order dated 16.11.2021 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Jammu Bench in TA No. 61/6718/2020 upheld – Select list and wait list for post of Knitting Instructor, Divisional Cadre Jammu quashed – Both Writ Petitions dismissed – Interim directions vacated – Matter left to competent authority to take steps in accordance with law.

Public Interest Litigation – Maintainability – Challenge to Government programme involving expenditure of ₹20 Crores – Allegation of misuse of public funds and violation of Rules of Business – Held: Petitioners, as citizens raising issue of public finance and constitutional compliance, have locus – Court can examine policy decisions where arbitrariness, illegality or violation of constitutional/statutory provisions alleged [Paras 21–22].

Executive Action – Article 166(3) – Rules of Business – Mandatory Compliance – Programme involving collection of development data and welfare study placed under Information & Public Relations Department under head “Special PR Campaign” – Rules of Business allocate planning, evaluation and development studies to Planning and Economic Affairs Department / Programme Implementation, Evaluation and Monitoring Department – Held: Allocation contrary to Rules of Business – Compliance with Rules framed under Article 166(3), especially where public finance involved, is mandatory – Cabinet approval or post facto justification cannot cure inherent defect [Paras 31–37].

Public Finance – Constitutional Scheme – Articles 202 to 207 – Withdrawal from Consolidated Fund – No money can be withdrawn except under appropriation made by law – Supplementary/Additional grants require legislative procedure under Article 205 – Budget Manual mandates that expenditure beyond scope of sanctioned grant cannot be incurred without legislative approval – Held: Allocation and utilisation of ₹20 Crores under “Special PR Campaign” head, beyond sanctioned scope and in violation of Rules of Business, unsustainable [Paras 40–42, 46].

Colourable Exercise of Power – Allocation of Funds – Funds earmarked for “Special PR Campaign” utilised for programme essentially involving development planning and evaluation – Held: Allocation of ₹20 Crores to I&PR Department for functions squarely falling under other Departments amounts to colourable exercise of executive power [Paras 32–33, 46].

Use of Social Volunteer Force Portal – Deviation from Original Purpose – Portal created in 2020 for disaster management and local crises – Used for implementation of development survey programme without adequate clarification or wide publicity – Alleged prior communication by political party before issuance of Government Order lends credence to apprehension of oblique motive – Held: Government failed to satisfactorily explain deviation and transparency concerns [Paras 38–39, 45, 51].

Judicial Review – Limits in Policy Matters – Though Courts ordinarily refrain from interfering in economic and policy decisions, they are duty-bound to intervene where public funds are utilised de hors financial rules and in violation of constitutional framework – Court not examining wisdom of programme but legality of expenditure and adherence to Rules [Paras 21, 52].

Financial Discipline – Fiscal Norms – Government expected to adhere scrupulously to Rules of Business, Budget Manual and constitutional provisions – Deviation in allocation and utilisation of public funds invites judicial scrutiny [Paras 43–44].

Decision: Respondents directed to keep in abeyance all steps pursuant to Exhibit P1 Government Order dated 10.10.2025 – Exhibit P1 set aside to the extent it authorises utilisation of ₹20 Crores under head “2220-01-001-96 – Special PR Campaign” by Information and Public Relations Department – Exhibits R1(a) and R1(b) issued in furtherance thereof also set aside – Writ Petitions (PIL) allowed [Para 54].

Education Law – RTE Act, 2009 – Teacher Redeployment – Validity of G.O. dated 14.11.2025 – Government Order issued to maintain prescribed pupil–teacher ratio under Section 25 of the 2009 Act – Challenge on grounds of arbitrariness, mid-session transfer and absence of procedure – Held: G.O. is supplemental and curative in nature, issued to ensure strict statutory compliance and cannot be termed arbitrary or ultra vires – Policy decision in furtherance of Article 21-A – Valid [Paras 71–79, 103–109, 132].

Service Law – Transfer – Incidence of Service – Scope of Judicial Review – Transfer within same district pursuant to policy for rationalization – No mala fides or statutory violation established – Courts do not sit in appeal over administrative transfers – Interference confined to cases of mala fide, arbitrariness or breach of statutory rules – Petitioners failed to demonstrate such infirmity – Limited judicial restraint reiterated [Paras 93–100, 124, 136–137].

RTE Act – Section 25 – Pupil-Teacher Ratio – Continuing Obligation – Rule 21 of 2011 Rules provides annual review before July – Not an absolute embargo on corrective measures thereafter – State retains power to issue executive instructions in November to address emergent shortages – Obligation to maintain PTR is continuing and overrides timing objection [Paras 82, 88–90].

Administrative Law – Arbitrariness – Procedural Compliance – Though G.O. not arbitrary per se, implementation must be data-driven and transparent – Non-preparation of consolidated verified list of surplus/deficit schools or improper inclusion of Shiksha Mitras contrary to law may render action arbitrary – Issue relates to improper implementation, not absence of power – Individual grievances to be examined by District Level Committee [Paras 112–115, 138–142].

Policy Decisions – Judicial Restraint – Education Policy – Court reiterates that in matters affecting policy and administrative exigencies, judicial review is limited to legality of decision-making process – Courts cannot substitute executive wisdom unless action is unconstitutional, mala fide or contrary to statute – Transfers to achieve statutory mandate of RTE Act fall within executive domain [Paras 122–129].

Natural Justice – Mass Adjustment – Opportunity of Representation – Though transfer is incidence of service, fairness requires affected teachers be permitted to submit objections where large-scale rationalization undertaken – Directions issued to file individual representations before District Level Committee – Speaking orders to be passed [Paras 118–121, 145].

Data Verification – UDISE Portal – Necessity of Accurate Institutional Data – Apparent non-verification of sanctioned strength and working strength necessitates calibrated judicial intervention – Authorities directed to verify and update authentic data and ensure redeployment strictly as per RTE Act [Paras 138, 143–147].

Directions:

(i) Government Order dated 14.11.2025 upheld – Challenge rejected

(ii) Petitioners to submit separate representations within one week before District Level Committee

(iii) Committee to decide objections by reasoned and speaking orders within one month

(iv) Status quo to be maintained for one month or till decision, whichever earlier

(v) Authorities to verify and update UDISE data and ensure maintenance of prescribed pupil–teacher ratio in accordance with the RTE Act, 2009

(vi) Writ petitions disposed of with observations and directions [Paras 145–148].

Rape – Consent on Promise of Marriage – Discharge – Prosecutrix alleged physical relations on false assurance of marriage – Record revealed long-standing relationship of two years – Single incident alleged – Delay in complaint and FIR – No material indicating force, coercion or false inducement from inception – Held: No prima facie material to show consent was vitiated under Section 90 IPC – Trial Court rightly discharged accused under Section 376 IPC [Paras 12-17].

Section 90 IPC – Misconception of Fact – Scope – For consent to be vitiated on ground of false promise of marriage, prosecution must prima facie show that promise was false at inception and intended solely to obtain consent – In present case, parties were in consensual relationship and prosecutrix voluntarily accompanied accused – No grave suspicion of deception or fraudulent inducement made out [Paras 15-17].

Discharge – Standard under Sections 227/228 Cr.P.C. – Court at stage of charge to assess whether material gives rise to “grave suspicion” and not merely suspicion – Where two views possible and evidence gives rise only to suspicion, discharge justified – Trial Court cannot conduct mini-trial but must evaluate whether essential ingredients of offence are disclosed – Impugned order consistent with principles laid down in Prafulla Kumar Samal [Paras 6, 18].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Scope of Interference – Under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C., interference warranted only in case of patent illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error – Where Trial Court’s view is plausible and based on record, High Court not to substitute its own view – No glaring perversity or illegality found in discharge order [Paras 19-20].

Delay and Conduct – Relevance at Stage of Charge – Prosecutrix lodged complaint nearly one month after alleged incident and FIR registered thereafter – No allegation of repeated acts – Conduct of parties, including voluntary travel and continued communication, relevant in assessing existence of grave suspicion at threshold stage [Paras 14-16].

Decision: Revision petitions dismissed – Order dated 31.05.2017 discharging respondent from offence under Section 376 IPC upheld – No interference warranted in revisional jurisdiction.