Criminal Law – Quashing of FIRs - Multiple FIRs – Separate Incidents at Different Locations – Quashment Denied – Petitioner sought to quash FIR in Guruvayoor crime alleging abuse of process due to multiple FIRs – Held: FIRs concern distinct offences at different times and places – Each incident constitutes a separate and independent transaction – No violation of Article 20(2) or double jeopardy principles [Paras 4-7].

Jurisdictional Separation – Guruvayoor and Thiruvananthapuram Offences Independent – FIRs Not Interchangeable – Held: FIR and final report from Thiruvananthapuram did not cover Guruvayoor incident – Charge framing for Guruvayoor offence not shown – Separate investigation and trial warranted [Paras 5-6].

Misuse of Process – No Prima Facie Case of Abuse – Petitioner failed to produce charge documents to show overlap in trial – Court found no legal infirmity or duplication in parallel FIRs – Dismissal of Section 482 petition justified [Paras 6-8].

Directions Issued – Clarity in Trial Scope – Trial Court to Limit Charges – Directed Nedumangad Special Court to confine trial to Thiruvananthapuram incident – Any overlap with Guruvayoor incident to be rectified via alteration of charge [Para 8].

Decision – Petition Dismissed – Section 482 CrPC Invocation Unmerited – No bar on Guruvayoor FIR proceeding – Liberty given to ensure distinct prosecution and avoid prejudice to accused [Paras 8-9].

Civil Law - Court Fees – Partition Suit – Article 17(vi) vs. Section 7(iv)(b) of the Court Fees Act – Fixed Court Fee Payable – Defendant no.2 sought rejection of plaint arguing plaintiff was not in possession and must pay ad valorem court fee – Plaintiff, as Class II heir, pleaded constructive possession and cited tenancy in one of the properties – Held: Plaintiff deemed in constructive possession in law – No averment of ouster – Fixed court fee under Article 17(vi) applicable – Application rejected [Paras 1, 5-7, 13, 21-27, 31-37].

Constructive Possession – Co-ownership in Partition Suit – Presumption in Law – Plaintiff being Class II heir claimed 50% share in estate of deceased brother – Some properties were tenanted and under interim court custody – Held: Law presumes joint possession among co-owners unless ouster is pleaded – Plaintiff successfully averred constructive possession – Ad valorem court fee not attracted [Paras 20-26, 31-34].

Delay in Objection – Application after Three Years – Not Fatal but Considered – Application filed three years after defendants' appearance – Held: While delay alone is not conclusive, timing reflects lack of merit – Application under Order VII Rule 11(c) held to be misconceived [Paras 10, 23].

Distinction from Cited Precedents – Ramesh Kumar Bhagchandka and Om Prakash Arora – Not Applicable – Plaintiff in present case is legal heir with pleaded constructive possession – In contrast, cited precedents involved either admission of ouster or absence of co-ownership – Held: Precedents not applicable to facts of present case [Paras 16, 35].

Decision – Application Dismissed – Fixed Court Fee Found Proper – Plaintiff not required to pay ad valorem court fee – No averment of ouster – Constructive possession deemed in law – Application under Order VII Rule 11(c) dismissed [Paras 33-37].

Civil Law – Ad Interim Injunction - Tender Process – Swiss Challenge Method – Validity Upheld – Plaintiff Challenged Debt Assignment Notice – Swiss Challenge Method Recognised by Law – Court Held: RBI Master Circular and precedent in Ravi Development v. Shree Krishna Prathisthan support the method – Selection of Anchor Bidder not required to be disclosed – No breach of transparency found – Appeal allowed, interim injunction vacated [Paras 29-34, 56-58].

Locus Standi – Challenge to Tender Terms – Participation Not Mandatory but Eligibility Essential – Plaintiff Challenged Terms Without EoI Submission – Held: Even if challenge is to tender terms, challenger must plead eligibility and interest in participation – Plaintiff failed to do so – Suit held prima facie not maintainable [Paras 22-28].

Transparency and Due Diligence – No Violation of RBI Circular – Adequate Time Provided – RBI Clause 59 requires “adequate” time for due diligence – Court found 9 days sufficient given immediate online access – No denial of information – Allegation of arbitrary base-bid disclosure rejected as premature [Paras 36-41].

Non-Disclosure of Valuation Reports – Allegation Unfounded and Premature – Challenge to Reserve Price Unsupported – Held: Plaintiff not entitled to data without EoI submission – No proof offered that mandatory dual external valuations not done – Challenge speculative and unsubstantiated [Paras 42-43].

Alleged Collusion – Resolution on Same Date of EoI Notice Suggests Pre-Planning – Held: Challenge by non-participating plaintiff on borrower-centric grounds creates suspicion of collusion – Particularly as low reserve price benefits buyer, not bidder – Conduct raises prima facie doubt on bona fides [Paras 45-53].

Interim Relief – Grant of Injunction Based on Erroneous Legal Tests – Trial Court Erred – Held: Trial court failed to consider prima facie maintainability and applied incorrect legal standards – Injunction order set aside for being perverse and contrary to settled law [Paras 54-58].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Interim Injunction Set Aside – Trial Court Directed to Decide Temporary Injunction Afresh – Judgment stayed for 15 days to allow challenge – CAN 1 of 2025 disposed [Paras 59-63].

Civil Law - Partition Suit – Modification of Preliminary Decree – No Notice to Purchaser – Dismissal Upheld – Preliminary decree defining co-sharers' shares passed in 1979 – After death of a co-sharer in 1993, another co-sharer sold disputed share without seeking court modification – Application to recall 2012 order modifying decree rejected – Held: Legal heirs had withdrawn from litigation after selling interests; petitioner was aware of litigation and failed to act in time – Modification valid – Recall rightly rejected [Paras 42-45, 57-59, 62-64].

Inheritance Dispute – Applicability of Dayabhaga Law – No Pleadings Raised – Argument Rejected – Petitioner claimed under Dayabhaga law as brother’s heir to justify purchase of disputed share – Held: No foundational pleadings or proof supporting Dayabhaga applicability; parties had proceeded under Mitakshara assumptions throughout – Question not adjudicated in earlier stages – Not entertained under Article 227 jurisdiction [Paras 28-31, 52-54].

Bonafide Purchaser – No Protection under Section 41 TPA – Notice of Litigation – Agreement Executed without Modification of Preliminary Decree – Petitioner entered into agreement in 1995 knowing property was under litigation – No modification of decree to include purchased share – Held: No protection as bonafide purchaser – Purchaser knowingly stepped into disputed title – Section 41 not applicable [Paras 44-46, 55, 58].

Ex-Parte Order Allegation – Service by Publication and Substitution Applications Considered – Legal Heirs Chose Not to Contest – Petitioner Delayed Action – Held: Modification order not ex-parte; heirs served and chose not to participate – Recall application filed nine years later rightly rejected – No procedural lapse by court [Paras 48, 50, 63-64].

Concurrent Jurisdiction – Application Moved in One Case, Order Passed in Connected Case – Final Decree Proceedings Parallel – No Prejudice – Final Decree Cases Nos. 111/1980 and 33/1997 were consolidated in substance – Application filed in one but order recorded in another – Held: Clerical variance not fatal – Intent of order to vary shares upheld [Paras 65-66].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Recall of 2012 Modification Order Denied – Petitioner failed to establish any procedural illegality or miscarriage of justice – Modification of preliminary decree proper – Petition dismissed with direction to send records to lower court [Paras 68-70].

Criminal Law – Quashing - Unnatural Sex by Husband – Consent and Marital Status – Proceedings Upheld – Applicant sought quashing of charges under Section 377 IPC asserting exemption based on marital relationship – Held: Unnatural intercourse by husband without wife's consent, even if she is above 18, is punishable under Section 377 IPC – Marriage does not negate a woman's bodily autonomy or her right to sexual dignity and orientation – Court declined to follow contrary Madhya Pradesh High Court view and relied on Navtej Singh Johar and Puttaswamy to affirm that non-consensual carnal intercourse violates Article 21 and is triable under Section 377 IPC [Paras 18–25].

Dowry Harassment – 498A IPC – Delay in FIR – Not Fatal – Allegations and Continuous Cruelty Sufficient – Allegations of dowry harassment and cruelty were corroborated through statements under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC – Delay in lodging FIR not fatal as harassment was continuous – Independent witnesses’ silence or lack of support not decisive – FIR discloses triable case and no ground for quashing made out [Paras 3–4, 27–30].

Medical Evidence and Consent – Lack of Medical Examination Not Ground for Quashing – Material Sufficient for Trial – Court held refusal of medical examination by complainant does not nullify prosecution – Presence of prima facie material including complainant’s statements justified continuation of trial – Right to privacy and sexual dignity held paramount even within marriage [Paras 19, 29].

Decision – Quashing Denied – Charges Maintainable – Applicant at Liberty to Seek Bail – Allahabad High Court rejected the application to quash proceedings – Held that charges under Section 377 IPC and dowry laws are prima facie made out – Directed that applicant may apply for bail before trial court [Paras 26, 31–32].

Criminal Law - Section 363, 376 of the IPC & Section 4 of the POCSO Act - Framing of Charge – Scope under Sections 227 & 228 CrPC – Legal Principles Reiterated – Held that at the stage of framing of charge, the court has to sift the evidence for limited purposes to determine whether a prima facie case exists – A strong suspicion suffices but the court cannot act as a mere post office – Reaffirmed the legal tests laid down in Prafulla Kumar Samal, Dilawar Balu Kurane, Sajjan Kumar, and Shashikant Sharma cases [Paras 7-13].

Kidnapping – Ingredients Not Made Out – Section 363 IPC – No Evidence of Enticement or Inducement – Both minor victims in their Section 164 CrPC statements clearly stated that they voluntarily took lift in petitioner’s vehicle without any allurement or coercion – Held that mere offering of a lift without inducement does not amount to kidnapping – Charge under Section 363 IPC unsustainable [Paras 14, 15, 22].

Rape – Lack of Evidence – Section 376 IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act – No Statement from Victims Alleging Sexual Assault – Medical report indicated prior sexual intercourse but did not connect the petitioner to the act – Absence of scientific or corroborative evidence such as forensic findings – Held: Charges for rape/penetrative sexual assault cannot be sustained merely on medical opinion without any supporting testimony or material connecting the accused – Charges quashed [Paras 19, 23].

Test for Framing Charge – Mere Existence of FIR and Medical Opinion Not Enough – The trial court failed to apply its mind to evaluate whether the material disclosed the commission of offences – Held that broad probabilities and totality of material should be considered but without conducting a mini trial – Trial court's mechanical framing of charges without requisite satisfaction is unsustainable [Paras 20, 24].

Decision – Petition Allowed – Charges framed under Section 363, 376 IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act set aside – Petitioner discharged – Challan dismissed – Observed that prosecution material did not raise even grave suspicion against the petitioner [Paras 25-26].

Civil Writ - Mobile Tower Installation – Cancellation of NOC by Gram Panchayat – Violation of Natural Justice – Resolution Set Aside – The Gram Panchayat revoked an earlier granted NOC permitting the petitioners to install a mobile tower, citing public objections regarding health risks from radiation – The High Court held the action arbitrary as no notice or hearing was given to the petitioners prior to cancellation – Held: Revocation without following audi alteram partem is invalid and legally unsustainable [Paras 30–31, 39].

Administrative Law – Lack of Scientific Basis – Cancellation Based on Unsubstantiated Complaints – Resolution Quashed – The resolution was based on generalized health concerns without any supporting scientific data – Court emphasized that apprehensions unsupported by evidence cannot override validly granted permissions – Held: Resolution lacks application of mind and fails the test of reasonableness [Paras 32–33, 39–40].

Telecommunication Law – Scope of Panchayat Powers – No Authority to Cancel NOC Once Granted – The Gram Panchayat, having issued NOC under GR dated 11 December 2015, had no further power to rescind it – The High Court reiterated that such powers are not vested under applicable telecom laws or policies – Held: Cancellation was ultra vires the Panchayat’s authority [Paras 34, 44].

Regulatory Framework – Section 14(4) of Telecommunication Act, 2023 – No Coercive Action Without Central Permission – The Court held that, in absence of public emergency or natural disaster, coercive steps such as shutdown or cancellation by local authorities are impermissible – Held: No such exigency existed; hence action unjustified [Para 35].

Telecom Infrastructure – National Policy and Public Necessity – Courts Support Expansion – Referring to national policies and precedents from other High Courts, the Bombay High Court stressed the necessity of mobile towers for modern communication – Held: Mobile connectivity is an essential service, and arbitrary local objections cannot override statutory rights and national infrastructure goals [Paras 41–50].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Resolution Quashed – The Court allowed the petition in terms of both prayer clauses, setting aside the impugned resolution and restraining respondents from obstructing installation or operation of the mobile tower – Held: NOC once granted cannot be revoked arbitrarily or without due process [Para 51].

Service Law - Medical Reimbursement – Heart Transplant at Non-Empanelled Hospital – Petition Allowed – Petitioner underwent urgent heart transplant at a private hospital due to non-availability of CGHS-empanelled hospitals in Mumbai with necessary license and expertise – Held: Denial of full reimbursement on grounds of CGHS rate limitations and 'planned' nature of surgery was arbitrary – High Power Committee failed to appreciate exigency and violated Article 21 rights [Paras 2–4, 32–34, 42–43].

Relaxation of CGHS Rules – Applicability of Office Memorandum dated 15 July 2014 – Judicial Endorsement – Court held that the Office Memorandum clearly permits relaxation for full reimbursement in special/emergency circumstances – Heart transplant held to be such a circumstance – Held: HPC ought to have considered the petitioner’s case sympathetically in light of constitutional obligations [Paras 36–38].

Right to Life and Medical Urgency – Constitutional Interpretation – Court recognized right to medical treatment as part of Article 21 – Petitioner could not be denied treatment due to financial incapacity or mechanical policy application – Held: Medical reimbursement must uphold dignity and life preservation [Paras 39–41, 43–46].

Administrative Function – High Power Committee – Duty of Sensitivity – HPC failed to comply with prior court directions for hearing and ignored facts warranting discretionary relief – Held: Mechanistic rejection without personal hearing contrary to equity and fair play [Paras 23–24, 44–46].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – High Court directed respondents to grant full reimbursement of Rs. 22,08,440 with 9% interest – Impugned decisions dated 30 November 2021 and 13 April 2022 quashed – Reimbursement to be completed within four weeks [Paras 47–48].

Civil Law - Commercial Suit – Disclosure of Documents – Order 11 Rule 1 CPC – Leave Rightly Refused – Petitioner’s application to place additional documents on record during Defendant's evidence stage was rejected by the Trial Court – Held: Petitioner failed to disclose these documents along with the written statement despite opportunity and court direction – COVID-19 restrictions could not explain non-filing in October 2023 – Rejection of application upheld [Paras 4, 5, 14].

Order XI Rule 1 CPC – Reasonable Cause – Burden Not Discharged – The Court emphasized that ‘reasonable cause’ for non-disclosure under Order XI Rule 1 must be shown when documents were in the party’s possession – Petitioner failed to justify delay despite earlier knowledge and possession of the documents – Application filed only after conclusion of Plaintiff’s evidence – Held: Delay was tactical, not bona fide [Paras 11, 12, 15].

Scope of Article 227 – Limited Supervisory Jurisdiction – High Court cannot re-appreciate evidence or substitute its view for that of the Trial Court unless the decision is perverse or suffers from jurisdictional error – Trial Court acted judiciously – Held: No interference warranted [Para 16].

Procedural Discipline in Commercial Litigation – Emphasized – Court reiterated importance of adhering to timelines and procedural rigour under the Commercial Courts Act – Delay or omission must be explained with diligence – Judicial discretion under Order XI must be exercised strictly [Paras 9, 12, 14].

Decision – Petition Dismissed – The High Court upheld the Trial Court’s order rejecting the application for filing additional documents at an advanced trial stage – Directed Trial Court to proceed expeditiously [Paras 17-18].