Criminal Procedure – Preliminary Enquiry – Section 340 Cr.P.C. – Requirement for Enquiry – Petitioner argued that court should have conducted a preliminary enquiry before ordering prosecution under Sections 340 & 344 Cr.P.C. – Court held that preliminary enquiry is not mandatory if the court can form a prima facie opinion – Petition dismissed [Paras 4-39].

Forged Documents – Issuance and False Evidence – Tehsildar's Actions – Allegations of Forgery – Trial court found that petitioner, as Tehsildar, issued a forged patta and provided false evidence – Directions for criminal action justified – Upheld by High Court [Paras 3-39].

Judicial Review – Certiorari and Mandamus – Scope and Limitations – Writ petition to quash order and prevent action against petitioner dismissed – No interference warranted when trial court followed procedure [Paras 7-10].

Decision:

Petition dismissed. Collector, Chhatarpur directed to proceed with actions as per trial court’s recommendations.

Jurisdiction - Coram Non-Judice - Caste Certificate Cancellation: 

Proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner were deemed coram non-judice as he lacked the authority to review an order that was essentially an implementation of a superior officer’s directive. The Tahsildar's cancellation of the caste certificate was based on the Committee's decision, and the Assistant Commissioner, a subordinate officer, could not act as an appellate authority over such a decision. The appeal should have been made to the appropriate appellate authority as defined by the relevant legislation. [Paras 12-14]

Power of Tahsildar - Scope of Jurisdiction: 

The Court clarified that the Tahsildar's role under Section 4A of the Act is limited to issuing or rejecting caste certificates based on applications. The Tahsildar does not have the authority to cancel a caste certificate independently, especially when acting on the directives of the Caste Verification Committee. The correct appellate process involves appealing to higher authorities designated under the Act. [Paras 13-14]

Role of Committee - Caste Certificate for Election Purposes-The Caste Verification Committee’s jurisdiction extends to caste certificates used for election purposes, contrary to its earlier erroneous decision. The Supreme Court in Bharati Reddy v. State of Karnataka had established that such committees have the authority to review caste certificates issued for elections. The Committee's decision to dismiss the complaint on jurisdictional grounds was incorrect. [Para 15]

Decision:  The writ petition was allowed, and the proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner in MSC/CR/113/20-21 were annulled. The parties were given the liberty to pursue any remedies available under the law. The Court also left open all contentions not addressed in this decision. [Para 16]

Property Law – Registration of Sale Certificate – Denial based on Income Tax dues – Karnataka High Court’s direction to Sub-Registrar for mandatory registration despite pending dues – Importance of SARFAESI Act provisions emphasized – State Government directed to issue compliance circulars to Sub-Registrars – The petitioner sought mandamus directing the Sub-Registrar to register a sale certificate despite the Sub-Registrar’s refusal citing pending Income Tax dues against the property borrowers. The High Court held that SARFAESI Act provisions take precedence over other statutory dues and directed the registration. The State Government was also instructed to issue necessary circulars to Sub-Registrars to prevent unwarranted refusals. [Paras 1-15]

Legal Precedence – SARFAESI Act’s overriding effect – Supreme Court’s interpretation of secured creditors’ priority over government dues – The High Court reaffirmed the SARFAESI Act’s priority provisions and its overriding effect on other statutes like the Income Tax Act, following Supreme Court rulings. The Sub-Registrar’s refusal lacked statutory support, necessitating compliance with registration requirements under the SARFAESI Act. [Paras 8-13]

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Mandamus Issued – State Government directed to ensure Sub-Registrar compliance – Costs and delays in property registration addressed – The Court allowed the petition, mandating the Sub-Registrar to register the sale certificate promptly. Additionally, it directed the State Government to issue a circular to all Sub-Registrars, aligning with the Court’s observations and Supreme Court judgments to prevent future undue refusals and ensure timely registration processes. [Para 15]

Guardianship and Custody – Habeas Corpus Petition – Petitioner no. 2, mother of petitioner no. 1 (minor corpus), ousted from matrimonial home and corpus detained by grandmother – Father (respondent no. 4) abroad with no return date – Corpus produced before Court and interim custody granted to mother – Court asserts mother’s legal entitlement to custody under personal law – Rule nisi made absolute, interim custody arrangement continued, parties advised to seek statutory remedy for any guardianship or visitation disputes [Paras 1-28].

Guardians and Wards Act (GWA) – Welfare of Minor – Court emphasizes welfare of minor as paramount consideration in guardianship decisions – Habeas corpus applicable for illegal detention of minor – Personal law applied in custody issues, consistent with GWA – Mother’s right to custody under Mahomedan Law until male child is seven years old [Paras 10-23].

Decision – Petition Disposed – Held – Interim custody of minor corpus with mother continued – Rule nisi made absolute – Parties advised to seek appropriate statutory remedy for any further guardianship or visitation disputes [Para 24-28].

SARFAESI Act, 2002 – Alternative Remedy – Petition challenging DRT order dismissed due to availability of alternative remedy under Section 18 – DRT’s order on miscellaneous application deemed interlocutory and appealable – High Court emphasized adherence to special statutory remedies provided under SARFAESI Act [Paras 3-10, 14-15].

High Court Jurisdiction – Article 226 of the Constitution – Supreme Court precedent stressed on non-interference by High Courts in SARFAESI matters unless exceptional circumstances exist – High Court reiterated the limited scope for invoking Article 226 when statutory remedies are available [Paras 11-13].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Liberty granted to petitioners to seek remedy through the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal – High Court upheld the principle of exhausting alternative statutory remedies before seeking judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution [Paras 14-16].

Criminal Law – FIR Quashing – Sections 420, 120-B IPC – Alleged Evasion of Stamp Duty – Petitioners sold property recorded as residential land in revenue records – FIR alleged commercial land sold as residential to evade stamp duty – Petitioners contended liability to pay stamp duty rests on purchaser – Court found no misdescription by petitioners regarding land use – FIR quashed [Paras 2-29].

Mens Rea – Essential Element of Crime – Absence of Criminal Intent – No False Declaration – Petitioners did not misrepresent land use – Absence of mens rea for evading stamp duty – Investigating Agency’s action deemed misuse of authority [Paras 20-27].

Judicial Review – Scope under Article 226 – High Court's Interference – Criminal Proceedings – FIR found inherently improbable – Allegations insufficient to make out prima facie case – Investigation not warranted [Paras 9-11, 26-29].

Decision: FIR in Crime No.88/2022 registered by EOW, Bhopal quashed. Petition allowed.

Public Contracts – Non-payment for Completed Work –

Petitioner’s claim for Rs. 68.50 Lakhs for completed road construction from Chowkian to Sarotha upheld – Administrative approval and completion certificate issued – Respondents withheld payment citing lack of “Technical Sanction” and non-adherence to tendering process – Court found objections unjustified, as work was authorized and certified by relevant authorities [Paras 3-6, 11-12].

Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel –

Applied against the government – Government bound by promise made to petitioner for payment upon completion of work – Respondents estopped from denying liability after admitting it in internal communications [Paras 17-19].

Section 70 of Contract Act –

Held applicable – Work done for respondents not gratuitously – Petitioner entitled to compensation for benefits enjoyed by respondents from completed construction [Paras 14-15].

Judicial Review – Contractual Matters –

High Court’s writ jurisdiction includes review of executive decisions and administrative actions in contractual disputes – Contract between parties inferred from communications – Reliance on correspondence showing mutual agreement and completed work [Paras 16, 22-23].

Decision:

Writ Petition Allowed – Respondents directed to release Rs. 68.50 Lakhs to petitioner within six weeks – Failure to pay within stipulated time to attract 9% interest per annum from date of filing writ petition [Paras 24-26].

Motor Vehicle Accident – Fitness Certificate and Insurance Liability – The appellants, owner and driver of the offending vehicle, contested the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's decision to exonerate the insurance company from liability to pay compensation. The Court examined the legal requirements for a valid fitness certificate under Sections 39 and 56 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The absence of a fitness certificate on the date of the accident was deemed a fundamental breach of the insurance policy terms, justifying the insurance company's exoneration​​.

Legal Precedents – Applicability – The Court referred to previous judgments, including United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Vinod and Others and The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Smt. Asha and Others, confirming that the absence of a fitness certificate constitutes a breach of the insurance policy, thereby exonerating the insurer from liability. The principle established in these cases was applied, rejecting the appellants' reliance on contrary precedents​​.

Insurance Policy Conditions – Interpretation – It was argued that the insurance policy did not explicitly mention the necessity of a valid fitness certificate. The Court clarified that compliance with legal requirements, such as maintaining a valid fitness certificate, is implicitly necessary for the insurance policy to be effective. The absence of such compliance constitutes a valid ground for the insurer's exoneration​​.

Decision:

The appeals were dismissed. The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to exonerate the insurance company from liability to pay compensation due to the absence of a valid fitness certificate for the offending vehicle at the time of the accident. The principle of "pay and recover" applied by the Tribunal was affirmed​​.

Criminal Law – Quashing of Complaint under Section 482 CrPC – Complaint under Section 138 of NI Act – Chief Financial Officer's Liability – Dismissal of Petition

Quashing Petition – Petition filed under Section 482 CrPC for quashing of complaint under Section 138 NI Act against petitioner, Chief Financial Officer of Accused No.1 company – Petitioner contends liability cannot be based solely on being signatory of the cheque – Rejection of petition on grounds of sufficient averments against petitioner being in charge and responsible for conduct of company’s business at the relevant time [Paras 2-7, 15-18].

Liability under NI Act – Supreme Court precedent in S.P. Mani and Mohan Dairy v. Dr. Snehalatha Elangovan emphasized – Persons signing cheque or having authority to sign can be assumed responsible for company’s business – Petitioner's role as Chief Financial Officer and signatory satisfies Section 141 NI Act requirements [Paras 10-12, 15].

Section 28 NI Act Argument – Petitioner's argument based on Section 28 NI Act (agent signing without indicating role) found inapplicable – Complaint correctly framed under Section 141 NI Act, focusing on petitioner’s responsibility and charge over company’s business [Paras 6, 16-17].

Decision – Dismissal of Petition – Held – Petition dismissed with the complaint fulfilling the Section 141 NI Act requirements – No merit in petitioner's submissions, including reference to Sivagurunatha Pillai judgment – No impact on petitioner’s defense in trial court [Paras 17-19].