Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Bar of Limitation – FIR under Section 304-A IPC – Alleged medical negligence leading to death during surgery – Incident dated 04.01.2015 – Challan filed in October 2019 – Offence punishable with maximum imprisonment up to two years – Petitioner contended cognizance barred under Section 468 Cr.P.C. as limitation period expired – Held that though challan filed beyond prescribed limitation, exclusion clause under Section 473 Cr.P.C. empowers Court to take cognizance after expiry if delay properly explained or required in interest of justice – Matter remitted to trial Court to consider plea of limitation before framing of charge – Petition disposed of with directions [Paras 5–14].

Limitation – Section 468 Cr.P.C. – Computation – For offences punishable with imprisonment not exceeding three years – Period of limitation three years – In present case offence under Section 304-A IPC punishable up to two years – Cognizance ordinarily barred after expiry of limitation – However subject to Section 473 Cr.P.C. [Paras 10–11].

Extension of Limitation – Section 473 Cr.P.C. – Scope – Court may condone delay if satisfied that delay properly explained or necessary in interest of justice – Investigating Agency cited delay in obtaining Medical Board opinion regarding cause of death – Trial Court yet to apply mind to explanation furnished in final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. – High Court declined to adjudicate issue at pre-cognizance stage – Appropriate course is to permit trial Court to decide question of limitation first [Paras 8, 12–13].

Inherent Jurisdiction – Exercise of Power – High Court held that at this stage it would not be appropriate to record findings on sufficiency of explanation under Section 473 Cr.P.C. – Parties granted liberty to avail remedies against order of trial Court, if aggrieved – No ground made out for quashing FIR at this stage [Paras 12–14].

Decision: Petition disposed of – Learned trial Court directed to hear parties on plea of limitation under Sections 468/473 Cr.P.C. before framing of charge and pass appropriate order in accordance with law.

Writ Jurisdiction – Hiring of Hotel for Protected Persons – Non-Payment of Verified Dues – Hotel hired by Divisional Commissioner and later by Deputy Commissioner for accommodation of protected political persons and security forces – Bills raised for boarding and lodging – Government constituted Bill Verification Committee which drastically reduced claim and released nominal amount – Held: Where hiring and occupation are admitted and premises remained under control of protectees and security forces, respondents cannot dispute liability at belated stage – Committee proceedings vitiated for violation of principles of natural justice – Petition allowed [Paras 21-23, 28-33].

Pleadings – Specific Denial – Admission by Non-Traverse – First Claim Period – Respondents failed to specifically deny hiring of petitioner Hotel for period w.e.f. 18.11.2020 to 05.10.2021 – In terms of Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC, absence of specific denial amounts to admission – Admission is substantive evidence and need not be proved in view of Section 58 Evidence Act – Held: Petitioner entitled to relief for first claim period [Paras 23-25].

Order XII Rule 6 CPC – Judgment on Admission – Court empowered to pass appropriate order where admission of fact is evident from pleadings or circumstances – Reliance placed on Charanjit Lal Mehra v. Kamal Saroj Mahajan, (2005) 11 SCC 279 – Held: Admitted hiring and occupation justify grant of relief [Para 24].

Contractual / Pecuniary Claim – Maintainability in Writ – Though writ jurisdiction is ordinarily not invoked for disputed contractual claims, where material facts regarding hiring, occupation and State control over premises are admitted and denial is arbitrary, writ court can intervene to prevent unjust withholding of legitimate dues [Paras 16-18, 28-32].

Bill Verification Committee – Distinction from Fact-Finding Committee – Principles of Natural Justice – Committee constituted months after de-hiring to verify bills – No opportunity afforded to petitioner to participate or justify claim – No indication of verification of petitioner’s occupancy records – Rejection/reduction of claim on ground of inflation without hearing violates audi alteram partem – Held: Ex parte report unsustainable and liable to be quashed [Paras 30-32].

Occupation and Control of Premises – Effect – Hotel premises guarded round the clock by security forces – Two rooms under continuous occupation of security personnel – Keys remained with protectees – Petitioner had no control or liberty to commercially exploit premises otherwise – Held: Respondents cannot later contend that rooms were not in actual occupation or deny liability after benefiting from exclusive reservation of accommodation [Paras 28-29, 32].

Delay in Constitution of Committee – Afterthought – Premises de-hired on 01.06.2022 – Committee constituted on 05.11.2022 and report submitted on 02.02.2023 – Held: Belated verification without associating petitioner and without examining whether accommodation was reserved exclusively for State protectees renders report arbitrary [Paras 30-32].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Order dated 05.11.2022 constituting Bill Verification Committee and ex parte report dated 10.02.2023 quashed – Respondents directed to liquidate petitioner’s claims within eight weeks – In default, interest @ 6% per annum payable.

Local Governance – Special Grade Town Panchayat – Applicability of Statute – Karumandisellipalayam being a Special Grade Town Panchayat is governed by the District Municipalities Act and Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act and not by the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 – Arguments based on Panchayats Act held misconceived – Statutory framework under Urban Local Bodies Act applicable [Paras 41–46].

Burial Ground – Long Standing Usage – Revenue Classification as Cart Track – Evidence including 2000 Panchayat Resolution, Government Grant, Cash Book, Road/Street Ledger and Collector’s Report establish existence of burial ground at least from year 2000 and usage for over 70 years – Mere classification in ‘A’ register as cart track does not efface factual and customary use as burial ground – Court holds burial ground exists in S.Nos.621/3 & 628/8 [Paras 50–54].

Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998 – Section 172 – Registration and Licensing of Burial Grounds – Obligation of owner or person in control to register existing burial grounds – Council empowered to regulate and notify – Absence of notification prohibiting burial elsewhere renders plea for total prohibition untenable – Subjective satisfaction of Council required for ban under Section 172(3) [Paras 56–58].

Reclassification – Pending Resolution – Town Panchayat Resolution dated 14.10.2025 seeking measurement and reclassification as burial ground – Matter under consideration by Revenue Authorities – Court declines to interfere at this stage and rejects mandamus to prevent reclassification – Ongoing statutory process not to be interdicted [Para 60].

Right to Dignity – Dead Persons – Disturbance of Graves – Collector’s report reveals levelling of graves and disturbance of burial sites – Held: Right to dignity under Article 21 extends to dead – Temporal sanctity of grave violated – Authorities ought to have initiated criminal proceedings under BNSS/Section 297 IPC – State reminded of constitutional and statutory duty [Paras 62–65].

SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act – Access to Burial Grounds – Denial or destruction of burial sites of Scheduled Caste community amounts to violation of Article 17 and may attract penal consequences under SC/ST Act – District Collector empowered and obligated to act – Failure to protect burial rights deprecated [Para 66].

Municipal Duty – Constitutional Mandate – Article 243W read with XII Schedule mandates Town Panchayat to provide and maintain burial and cremation grounds – Section 172(4) obligates provision and maintenance within municipal limits – Local body directed to secure and maintain burial ground free from encroachment and garbage [Paras 61, 67].

Decision:

W.P.No.37501 of 2025 disposed of with directions –

(i) District Collector to ensure segregation and proper fencing of burial/cremation area in S.Nos.621/3 & 628/8 –

(ii) Town Panchayat to maintain burial ground free from encroachment and garbage –

(iii) Revenue authorities to act on resolution dated 14.10.2025 and exclude burial area from classification as cart track –

(iv) Collector to initiate action against persons responsible for levelling graves –

W.P.Nos.36402 of 2025 and 44377 of 2025 dismissed – No costs.

NDPS – Regular Bail – Commercial Quantity – Applicability of Section 37 – Alleged recovery of 1,37,11,610 tablets weighing 5772.584 kg (with strips) – Petitioners alleged to be part of organised chain involving manufacture, marketing and diversion of NRx medicines through licensed and fictitious firms – Held: Rigours of Section 37 NDPS Act attracted – Twin conditions cumulative and mandatory – No reasonable grounds shown to believe petitioners are not guilty – Bail declined [Paras 7, 10].

Section 37 NDPS Act – Twin Conditions – Scope and Application – Court reiterated that conditions under Section 37(1)(b) are in addition to general bail principles and both conditions are required to be satisfied cumulatively – Satisfaction regarding “not guilty” requires prima facie assessment without conducting mini-trial – Condition regarding likelihood of re-offending to be assessed from entire factual matrix including role and antecedents – No case made out to dilute statutory embargo [Paras 7, 10].

Organised Diversion of Pharmaceutical Drugs – Licensed Entities as Facade – Petitioners contended that they were directors/proprietors of licensed pharmaceutical firms and transactions were lawful – Prosecution alleged large-scale diversion of NRx medicines through shell/fictitious firms and cancellation of licences – Held: Mere existence of licences or corporate structure does not ipso facto negate prima facie inference of organised illegal diversion – Commercial sophistication cannot shield criminal accountability at bail stage [Paras 9-9.2].

Section 67 NDPS Act – Voluntary Statements – Prima Facie Consideration – Statements under Section 67, disclosures regarding sale of crores of tablets to fictitious/inactive firms and coordination in supply chain placed on record – At bail stage, Court not to conclusively adjudicate admissibility or evidentiary value but may consider surrounding circumstances for limited purpose of Section 37 satisfaction [Paras 5, 9, 10].

Long Incarceration – Trial Delay – Effect under NDPS – Petitioners in custody ranging from December 2024 to May 2025 – 50 prosecution witnesses cited, none examined till date – Held: In view of seriousness of allegations, magnitude of recovery and organised nature of offence, incarceration period not such as to dilute statutory rigour under Section 37 – No case of inordinate delay attributable to prosecution so as to invoke Article 21 exception [Paras 7, 10].

Gravity of Offence – Societal Impact – Court took note of Supreme Court precedents emphasising menace of drug abuse and organised trafficking – Held: Alleged offence involves large-scale commercial quantity affecting public health and youth – Discretion in bail to be exercised with heightened caution in such cases [Paras 7, 10].

Decision: All eight petitions dismissed – No ground made out to satisfy twin conditions under Section 37 NDPS Act – Observations not to be construed as opinion on merits – Pending miscellaneous applications disposed of.

Civil Law - Mortgage by Deposit of Title Deeds – Memorandum – Registration – Trial Court granted only personal money decree and declined preliminary decree on ground that confirmation letter/memorandum of deposit of title deeds was unregistered – Deposit and confirmation were in 2009 – Compulsory registration of memorandum in Tamil Nadu introduced only w.e.f. 01.12.2012 by Tamil Nadu Act 29 of 2012 – Held: Prior to amendment registration was not mandatory – Trial Court erred in refusing preliminary decree – Plaintiff entitled to enforce equitable mortgage [Paras 12-14].

Stamp Duty – Unstamped Instrument – Objection at Appellate Stage – Respondents contended Ex.A2 was not stamped and hence inadmissible – Document admitted in evidence without objection before Trial Court – Section 36 of Indian Stamp Act bars challenge to admissibility at later stage once admitted – Held: Respondents cannot question admissibility in appeal in absence of objection at time of marking – Objection rejected [Paras 10-11].

Promissory Notes – Proof of Execution and Consideration – Trial Court found execution of Exs.A1 and A3 promissory notes and Ex.A2 confirmation letter proved – Evidence of PW1 and attesting witness PW2 remained unshaken – Handwriting expert opinion noted – Bank statement (Ex.A9) established source of funds – No cross appeal/cross objection challenging findings – Held: Execution and borrowal of Rs.40 lakhs clearly established – Legal presumption not rebutted [Paras 9-10].

Settlement Deed – Alleged Sham Transfer – First defendant executed settlement deed in favour of second defendant after borrowal – In view of proved mortgage by deposit of title deeds, plaintiff entitled to proceed against mortgaged property in default of payment [Paras 5(a), 14].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and decree of Trial Court set aside insofar as it declined preliminary mortgage decree – Suit decreed with costs – First defendant directed to pay Rs.68,33,000/- with interest at 12% p.a. on Rs.40,00,000/- from date of plaint till decree and thereafter at 6% p.a. till realization – Time for payment two months – In default, plaintiff entitled to seek final decree and proceed against property – Connected CMP closed.

Compromise Decree – Bar under Order 23 Rule 3-A CPC – Scope – Plaintiffs not party to earlier compromise decree of 1975 – Suit filed for declaration that decree obtained by fraud, collusion and suppression and is void ab initio – Held: Bar under Rule 3-A applies where plaintiff was party to compromise or claims through party bound by decree – No absolute prohibition against independent suit by stranger alleging fraud – Separate suit maintainable [Paras 12-13, 22, 24].

Stranger to Compromise – Right to independent suit – Plaintiffs and their mother were not parties to earlier partition suit – Not claiming through parties to earlier decree nor transferees pendente lite – Right asserted by inheritance – Held: Authorities including Triloki Nath Singh distinguishable – None lay down that stranger is precluded from filing substantive suit challenging compromise decree on ground of fraud – Independent suit is appropriate remedy [Paras 11-13, 22-24].

Fraud – Effect – Allegation that compromise decree was obtained by suppression and collusion – Law settled that fraud vitiates all proceedings and decree obtained by fraud is non est – Such challenge involves mixed questions of fact and law requiring full-fledged trial – Not amenable to summary rejection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC [Paras 24-25, 28].

Limitation – Knowledge of decree – Plaintiffs pleaded lack of knowledge of 1975 decree until paper publication dated 17.12.2022 – Suit filed thereafter – Held: Limitation is mixed question of fact and law dependent on evidence – Cannot be decided at threshold under Order VII Rule 11 CPC [Para 25].

Partial Rejection of Plaint – Impermissibility – Present suit concerns two properties whereas earlier compromise related to one property – Defendant No.8 sought rejection of plaint in respect of property covered by development agreement – Held: Partial rejection of plaint not permissible – Reliance on Central Bank of India v. Prabha Jain – Application under Order VII Rule 11 rightly rejected [Paras 26-27].

Successive Applications – Order VII Rule 11 – Successive applications (Exh.24 and 65) filed without specifically pleading bar under Rule 3-A of Order XXIII CPC – Held: No perversity or illegality in Trial Court’s refusal to reject plaint – Revisional interference unwarranted [Paras 29-31].

Decision: Civil Revision Application dismissed – Order refusing rejection of plaint upheld – Observations prima facie in nature – Suit to proceed to trial [Paras 31-32].

Limitation – Condonation of Delay – Inordinate Delay of 450 Days – Explanation of inability to contact counsel found unsatisfactory – However, considering that appeal involved important questions of law and fact relating to adequacy of compensation, delay condoned subject to payment of costs – Application allowed with condition of deposit of Rs.11,000/- in Junior Advocates Welfare Fund [Paras 1-3].

Costs – Welfare Oriented Directions – Court directed deposit of costs in “Junior Advocates Welfare Fund for purchasing Law Books” – Recognizing financial hardships faced by first-generation and young lawyers – Costs utilized for purchase of law/online books to support junior advocates below 28 years of age having practice between 1 to 5 years [Paras 4-9, 15-16].

Judicial Directions – Institutional Support for Young Advocates – Court issued comprehensive directions to Rajasthan High Court Bar Association to create separate bank account in SBI High Court Branch – Disbursement mechanism of Rs.5,000/- per eligible junior advocate on first-come-first-serve basis – Compliance report directed [Paras 15, 19-20].

Policy Directions – Scheme for Aid to Purchase Law Books – State Government, Bar Council of Rajasthan and Bar Associations directed to frame “The Rajasthan Advocates (Aid to Purchase Law Books) Scheme” – Provision for constitution of Purchase Committee, recovery mechanism in case of misuse, inspection of library, and voluntary contribution by senior advocates – Fund to be utilized exclusively for welfare of junior advocates [Para 18].

Access to Justice – Strengthening Legal System – Court emphasized that supporting young advocates through financial aid, mentorship, seating facilities and welfare measures is essential for strengthening justice delivery system – Welfare measures not charity but necessity for institutional growth [Paras 4-14].

Decision: Delay of 450 days condoned subject to deposit of Rs.11,000/- in Junior Advocates Welfare Fund – Appeal to be restored upon production of receipt – Directions issued for creation and implementation of welfare scheme – Matter listed for compliance.

Remission – Premature Release – Section 432(2) CrPC – Competence of Presiding Judge – Life convict’s prayer for premature release recommended by State Sentence Review Board – Judicial Department rejected release based on negative opinion of Chief Judge, City Sessions Court as successor to convicting Bench which ceased to exist – Held: In absence of original presiding Judge, Chief Judge competent to render opinion under Section 432(2) by virtue of Section 5 of City Sessions Court Act and Section 35 CrPC – Provision cannot be rendered unworkable – Question answered in affirmative [Paras 31-39].

Remission – Opinion under Section 432(2) CrPC – Requirement of Reasons – Chief Judge’s opinion primarily reiterated gravity of offence without adequate consideration of post-conviction factors – Relevant parameters in Laxman Naskar and Ram Chander not properly addressed – Mechanical and stereotype reasoning insufficient – Opinion must consider potential for reformation, chance of recurrence, socio-economic condition and purpose of further incarceration – Held: Opinion legally deficient and non-compliant with statutory mandate [Paras 40-45].

Remission – Role of State Government – Whether Presiding Judge’s opinion binding – Judicial Secretary treated negative opinion as sine qua non and mechanically accepted it – Held: Though opinion under Section 432(2) is mandatory procedural safeguard, it is not binding – State must not mechanically follow judicial opinion and must independently assess compliance with statutory requirements – Impugned order unsustainable [Paras 46-49].

Administrative Directions – Effect of Earlier Writ Order directing consideration “in line with SSRB recommendation” – Whether binding mandate to grant release – Held: SSRB recommendation subject to approval of State Government – Earlier order required sincere consideration, not automatic release – Statutory scheme not supplanted – Judicial Secretary not precluded from independent decision [Paras 50-55].

Constitutional Jurisdiction – Power of High Court to Direct Premature Release – Scope under Article 226 – Though constitutional courts may in compelling circumstances grant remission directly, such power to be exercised sparingly – In present case insufficient material regarding reformation, conduct, and comparative parameters – Not appropriate to assume executive function at this stage – Matter remitted for fresh opinion and reconsideration [Paras 56-69].

Parity – Co-accused granted premature release – Whether automatic entitlement – Held: Parity not absolute right in remission matters – Must establish equivalence in behavioural and statutory parameters – Insufficient material regarding co-accused – Claim rejected [Para 70].

Decision: Impugned order dated 24.12.2024 set aside – Chief Judge, City Sessions Court directed to render fresh reasoned opinion under Section 432(2) CrPC within one month considering factors in Laxman Naskar, Ram Chander and Bilkis Yakub Rasool – State Government to take fresh decision within one month thereafter without mechanically relying on judicial opinion – Writ petition disposed of – No costs [Paras 73-75].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Dismissal under Section 256 Cr.P.C. – Accused Never Appeared – Magistrate dismissed complaints on 29.09.2014 and recorded acquittal despite accused not appearing from 2012 onwards – Continuous issuance of summons and warrants – Held: Section 256 Cr.P.C. contemplates acquittal when case is fixed for appearance/hearing and accused is before Court – Acquittal of an accused who never faced trial is patently illegal and contrary to scheme of summons trial [Paras 52-54].

Section 256 Cr.P.C. – Scope and Object – Provision intended to protect accused from harassment when complainant defaults despite accused’s presence – Magistrate must consider whether complainant’s personal attendance was essential and whether adjournment justified – In present case, matter was not at hearing stage and accused never appeared – Invocation of Section 256 improper – Order dated 29.09.2014 illegal [Paras 46-49, 54].

Revision vs Appeal – Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. vis-à-vis Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. – Contention that remedy lay in appeal against acquittal rejected – Held: Where so-called acquittal is passed without trial and without evidence at post-cognizance stage, such order is grossly erroneous and amenable to revisional correction – Revisional court competent to set aside patently illegal order – No bar under Section 401(4) attracted in peculiar facts [Paras 56-57].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Scope – Sessions Court empowered to examine correctness, legality and propriety of order – Revisional interference justified where Magistrate exercised discretion arbitrarily and contrary to statutory scheme – Restoration of complaint by revisional court upheld [Paras 56-57].

Summons Trial – Scheme under Sections 251–255 Cr.P.C. – Presence of accused is foundational for framing substance of accusation and proceeding with evidence – Without accused’s appearance, trial cannot commence – Consequently, acquittal under Section 256 without accused facing trial unsustainable [Paras 50-53].

Section 204(4) Cr.P.C. – Dismissal for Non-payment of Process Fee – Record showed complainant continuously took steps for issuance of summons and warrants – Complaints not dismissed for default in process fee – Hence Section 204(4) not attracted [Paras 37-41].

Summoning Order – Challenge – Argument that cheque issued by company and company not impleaded – Complaint disclosed personal transaction and issuance of cheques by accused – No material to show cheques drawn on company account – Section 141 NI Act not attracted – Summoning order dated 25.02.2012 valid [Paras 31-32, 62].

Section 401(2) Cr.P.C. – Opportunity of Hearing – Allegation that accused not heard in revision – Record and conduct showed continuous evasion of process – No prejudice demonstrated warranting interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. [Paras 31, 56].

Expeditious Trial – Section 138 NI Act – Complaints pending since 2012 – Accused repeatedly avoided summons, bailable and non-bailable warrants – In light of Supreme Court directions in In Re: Expeditious Trial of Cases under Section 138 NI Act, trial court directed to expedite proceedings [Para 63].

Decision: All applications filed by accused under Section 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed – Cumulative cost of Rs. 50,000/- imposed payable to complainant within stipulated time – Application filed by complainant allowed – Trial Court directed to expedite disposal of all connected complaints in accordance with law and Supreme Court guidelines [Para 63].