Quash Petition – Corruption Allegations – Section 482 CrPC – Alleged Conspiracy in Purchase of Fogging Machines – Quash Rejected – Petitioners, former Executive Officers of Salem District Town Panchayats, sought quashing of proceedings in Spl.C.C.Nos.1–3 of 2024 arising from Crime No.3 of 2021 under PC Act and IPC offences – Allegation: machines purchased at inflated rates in collusion with traders, violating tender norms, causing loss to Panchayat funds – Defence: procedure followed, sanction obtained, prices comparable to GeM portal and other Panchayats, selective prosecution, absence of dishonest intention – Held: Grounds raised are factual and disputed, malice or arbitrariness can only be tested at trial – Sufficient materials exist in charge sheet, cognizance properly taken – No case for quashing [Paras 2–3, 6–7, 16–22].

Public Servant Misconduct – Prevention of Corruption Act, 2018 – Section 13(1)(a) – Entrustment and Misappropriation – Petitioners argued absence of dishonest intention, citing audit clearance and departmental approvals – Held: Whether purchases were dishonest, collusive, or in violation of MRP directions are factual issues requiring evidence – Audit clearance not conclusive to absolve criminal liability – Prima facie case made out in charge sheet [Paras 8–11, 16–21].

Selective Prosecution – Allegation of Mala Fide and Arbitrariness – 180 Panchayats purchased machines at similar prices but no action taken – Petitioners claimed abuse of process – Held: Selective targeting and mala fides are matters of trial, not for consideration at quash stage – Petitioners failed to produce unimpeachable material warranting interference [Paras 6, 15, 22].

Quash Petition – Scope under Section 482 CrPC – Judicial Interference – Court reiterated that disputed factual issues, motive, and conspiracy cannot be assessed at the pre-trial stage – As charge sheet supported by sanction, witness statements and documents, no ground to quash prosecution – Petitions dismissed [Paras 21–23].

Decision: All Criminal Original Petitions dismissed – Connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions closed – Trial Court directed to proceed uninfluenced by observations in this order [Para 23].

Civil Appeal – Money suit on promissory note – Presumption under Section 118 NI Act upheld – Defendant failed to rebut presumption – Appeal dismissed, trial court decree confirmed.

Promissory Note – Execution and Consideration – Ex.A.1 promissory note signed, thumb-marked, and stamped by defendant – Attesting witness (P.W.2) and scribe (P.W.3) supported plaintiff’s case – Defendant admitted signature but failed to prove absence of consideration – Presumption under Section 118(a) NI Act stands unrebutted – Plaintiff proved lending of ₹6,77,500 under Ex.A.1 [Paras 17–19, 25–28].

Pleadings – Capacity to Lend – Defendant’s plea of plaintiff’s incapacity to lend rejected – No pleading in written statement nor evidence adduced – Mere assertion at appellate stage not maintainable [Para 20].

Burden of Proof – Principle reiterated – Plaintiff discharged initial burden by proving execution; onus shifted to defendant to disprove consideration – Defendant failed to bring forth probable circumstances to rebut presumption [Paras 21–24].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Decree in O.S. No. 74 of 2008 dated 09.02.2011 confirmed – Interim orders vacated, pending petitions closed – No costs [Paras 29–30].

Interim Injunction – Suit for Specific Performance – Material Misstatement – Injunction Set Aside – The plaintiff/respondent filed a suit seeking specific performance of a property sale agreement and obtained interim injunction restraining alienation of the property – Petitioner challenged the orders under Article 227, alleging misrepresentation in pleadings regarding extension of time for performance – The plaintiff admitted in evidence that he had sent the message extending the date, contrary to the claim in the plaint that it was sent by the defendant – Held: Interim orders based on misstatement of material facts cannot be sustained – Interim injunction quashed – Orders of the trial and appellate courts set aside [Paras 11–11.5].

Motor Accident Claim – Appeal by Insurer – Award Sustained – Allegation of contributory negligence by deceased found baseless – Valid driving license not proved by Insurance Company – No breach of policy conditions established – Tribunal's award upheld [Paras 5–13].

Evidence – Driving Licence – Onus on Insurance Company – Held: Insurance Company failed to prove that driver held no valid driving licence – No investigation done or witness summoned to substantiate defence under Section 149(2) – Plea rightly rejected by Tribunal [Paras 6–10].

Contributory Negligence – No Cogent Evidence – Mere oral allegations without FIR or investigation report not sufficient – Tribunal rightly held that accident occurred solely due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle – No basis to interfere [Para 11].

Appeal Procedure – Deficiency in Appellate Grounds – Appellate court notes absence of specific evidence or legal error in Trial Court findings – No perversity or illegality demonstrated – Appeal found meritless [Paras 12–13].

Final Decision – FAO Dismissed – Award of compensation affirmed – No interference warranted – Insurance Company failed to discharge burden under law [Para 13].

Criminal Law - Possession Dispute – Section 145 CrPC – Magistrate’s Order Restored – Dispute over possession of land between developer and private parties – Magistrate, relying on documents and overt acts, held applicants were in settled possession as on 22.04.2017 and unlawfully dispossessed by police action – Sessions Court set aside order applying strict evidentiary standards – Supreme Court/High Court reiterated preventive nature of Section 145 CrPC, held Sessions Court exceeded revisional powers – Magistrate’s order restored; applicants entitled to possession through Court Receiver [Paras 23–64].

Criminal Procedure – Section 145 CrPC – Scope and Purpose – Proceedings preventive and summary in nature – Object is to maintain law and order by protecting actual possession, not to adjudicate ownership or title – Magistrate must decide who was in possession on relevant date or whether forcible dispossession occurred within two months prior – Strict rules of Evidence Act inapplicable [Paras 23–27].

Possession – Proof through Acts of Control – Applicants established possession by chain of documents: Deed of Assignment-cum-Surrender (10.12.2016), letter of possession (11.04.2017), registered conveyances, bank payments with TDS deduction, and corroboration by witnesses – Further proved by overt acts: erection of cabins, fencing, iron boards, engagement of security guards, and payment of taxes/electricity bills – Held sufficient to establish settled possession [Paras 30–34].

Evidentiary Standards – Preventive Proceedings – Magistrate entitled to rely on probative material including unregistered documents when showing possession – Sessions Court erred in discarding documents on technical grounds of registration and by applying strict rules of proof as in civil trial – Misapplied principle of Bareilly Electricity Supply Co. – [Paras 37–44, 50–52].

Forcible Dispossession – Police Action – Evidence showed applicants’ structures and boards at site on 22.04.2017 – Panchanama and removal of cabins/fencing by police indicated dispossession – Magistrate correctly held applicants in possession and unlawfully ousted – [Paras 34–36].

Preliminary Order – Requirement under Section 145 – Absence of separate preliminary order not fatal where High Court itself directed inquiry under Section 145, later confirmed by Supreme Court – Substantive compliance sufficient [Paras 53–58].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Limits – Sessions Court exceeded jurisdiction by reappreciating entire evidence and substituting findings of fact – Interference only permissible for jurisdictional or glaring legal errors – Magistrate’s findings based on probative material restored [Paras 59–61].

Decision – Revision Allowed – Order of Sessions Court dated 04.08.2022 set aside – Order of Magistrate dated 21.12.2019 restored – Court Receiver directed to hand over physical possession to applicants after charges paid, with police assistance if necessary [Paras 62–64].

Civil Procedure – Permanent Injunction – Ownership and Possession Dispute – Regular Second Appeal against concurrent findings of fact – Plaintiffs claimed ownership of plots 57, 58, 59 through sale deeds and sought injunction against defendants’ alleged attempt to carve passage – Trial Court dismissed suit, First Appellate Court partly decreed only portion BCEX based on defendants’ admission – High Court upheld concurrent findings – Held: Plaintiffs failed to establish title and possession over entire claimed land – No interference warranted under Section 100 CPC [Paras 3–7, 13–20].

Evidence – Parchi Allotments and Site Plans – Plaintiffs relied on allotment parchis and private site plan (Ex.P-2) without demarcation – Court held parchis showed only area, no boundaries/dimensions – Failure to link claimed land to purchased plots weakened case – Local Commissioner’s site plan (Ex.D-7) prepared in presence of parties accepted as reliable – Plaintiffs’ plan rejected [Paras 9–14].

Admissions – Effect of Witness Statements – Plaintiffs’ own witnesses admitted existence of street and boundary walls between properties – Appellate Court relied on such admissions to hold defendants’ possession lawful – Such admissions corroborated Local Commissioner’s findings – Appeal dismissed [Paras 15–16].

Scope of Second Appeal – Concurrent Findings of Fact – High Court reiterated limited scope of interference under Section 100 CPC – Findings based on reliable evidence including Local Commissioner’s report and witness admissions – No perversity or substantial question of law arose – Appeal dismissed [Paras 18–20].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Judgment of First Appellate Court dated 16.11.1999 affirmed – Permanent injunction limited to portion BCEX – Plaintiffs’ claim over rest of land rejected – No order as to costs [Para 20].

Negotiable Instruments – Dishonour of Cheque – Secondary Evidence – Xerox copy of cheque permitted as secondary evidence when original was produced, verified, endorsed and later lost – Trial Court order refusing secondary evidence set aside.

Evidence Act – Secondary Evidence – Sections 63 & 65 – Principles reiterated – General rule requires primary evidence, but exceptions under Section 65(c) apply where the original is lost – Once Trial Court verified original cheque, retained xerox copy with endorsement and returned original, petitioner entitled to rely on xerox copy as secondary evidence – Failure of Trial Court to permit marking resulted in miscarriage of justice [Paras 10–22].

Cheque Dishonour – Section 138 NI Act – Petitioner had produced original cheque during sworn statement; Trial Court’s finding confirms verification and return of cheque – Loss of original thereafter qualifies under Section 65(c) – Xerox copy admissible as secondary evidence [Paras 20–22].

Precedent – Reliance placed on earlier coordinate Bench decision in Crl.RC(MD) No.161 of 2014 (16.10.2019), permitting secondary evidence of lost cheque and pronote where originals were verified and endorsed – Principle applied to present case [Para 23].

Decision – Criminal Revision allowed – Impugned order dated 15.04.2025 in Crl.MP.No.101 of 2025 set aside – Judicial Magistrate I, Pudukottai directed to receive xerox copy of original cheque as secondary evidence, expedite trial and conclude proceedings – No order as to costs [Para 25].

Civil Law - Execution of decree for injunction – Executing Court wrongly dismissed application under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC – High Court held even prohibitory injunction enforceable in execution; demarcation can be directed – Order set aside, matter remanded [Paras 7–13].

Civil Procedure – Order 21 Rule 32 CPC – A decree for permanent injunction can be executed by attachment, detention, or restitution – Decree-holder need not file fresh suit for possession if judgment debtor violates decree by encroachment – Remedy lies in execution itself – Toran Singh v. Imrat Singh, 2012 (3) MPLJ 385 followed [Paras 7–9, 12].

Meaning of “wilful disobedience” – Requires proof of knowledge of decree, opportunity to obey, and deliberate defiance – Mere inadvertent act not enough – Burden lies on decree-holder – Karnataka rulings in Shivamurthy v. Dannammadevi Cycle Mart, AIR 1987 Kar 261 and Kariyappa v. Haladappa, AIR 1989 Kar 163 applied [Paras 7–9].

Prohibitory injunction – Enforceability – Explanation to Order 21 Rule 32(5) (added by 2002 CPC Amendment) makes clear that prohibitory injunctions too are enforceable in execution – Law Commission intent was to avoid multiplicity of suits – Court bound to give effect to decree, not drive decree-holder to new litigation [Paras 8–9, 12].

Error of Executing Court – Executing Court wrongly held that it could not go beyond decree and that possession relief was outside scope – High Court clarified that Executing Court has power to restore possession where decree violated – Impugned order unsustainable [Paras 12–13].

Demarcation – Where dispute arises as to location/identity of land, Executing Court can direct demarcation by revenue authorities before enforcing decree – Necessary for determining whether obstruction (“Muram”) lies on suit land or adjoining land [Paras 11, 13].

Inherent powers – Section 151 CPC – Even apart from express powers, Court has inherent duty to prevent frustration of decrees – Power to “put clock back” where decree violated – Surjit Pal v. Prabir Kumar Sun, AIR 1986 Cal 220; Hari Nandan Agrawal v. S.N. Pandita, AIR 1975 All 482 cited [Para 8].

Disposition – Revision allowed – Impugned order dated 05.01.2023 set aside – Matter remanded to Executing Court to get demarcation done through revenue authorities and then enforce decree under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC – Miscellaneous applications closed [Paras 12–14]

Service Law – Termination of University Employee – Mala fides and Vindictiveness – Fourth termination order challenged – Allegations of forged Ph.D. degree and misuse of salutation “Dr.” – Petitioner denied ever submitting any Ph.D. certificate – Proceedings found to be initiated only after petitioner lodged sexual harassment complaint against Registrar – Held: Proceedings actuated by mala fide intent, bias, and extraneous considerations – Termination unsustainable – Writ Petition Allowed [Paras 52–63].

Disciplinary Proceedings – Proof of Misconduct – Requirement of Cogent Evidence – Mere mention of “pursuing Ph.D.” in CV does not amount to false claim – No material produced to show petitioner gained appointment/promotion using alleged fake degree – Findings based on conjectures cannot constitute misconduct [Paras 53–61].

Bias and Abuse of Power – Initiation of Proceedings after Complaint Against Registrar – Vindictive Approach – Courts have held mala fide and biased disciplinary proceedings void ab initio – Registrar acted with personal enmity; authorities misused process – Proceedings vitiated [Paras 55–59].

Doctrine of Proportionality – Misconduct Must Be Grave, Supported by Evidence – Courts can interfere if punishment shocks conscience – In present case, no misconduct proved; dismissal wholly disproportionate and arbitrary [Paras 47–51].

Decision – Impugned termination order dated 14.12.2024 quashed – Petitioner entitled to reinstatement with consequential benefits – Writ Petition Allowed [Paras 62–63].