Quashing Of Criminal Proceedings - Section 528 BNSS - Disproportionate Assets – Prevention of Corruption Act – Exoneration in Departmental Inquiry – Quashment Refused – Applicant, Assistant Manager, Greater NOIDA, accused of expenditure 137.80% above known income – Claimed departmental exoneration and quashing of censure – Held: Departmental findings based on preponderance of probability cannot override criminal prosecution which requires proof beyond reasonable doubt – Charge sheet disclosed offence and sanction for prosecution was granted – Criminal proceedings to continue – Application dismissed [Paras 26-31, 39-43].

Standard of Proof – Departmental Inquiry vs. Criminal Trial – Distinction reiterated – Departmental proceedings relate to service discipline and apply preponderance test – Criminal proceedings deal with offence against society requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt – Exoneration in service inquiry not conclusive for quashing criminal case [Paras 27-31].

Supreme Court Precedents – P.S. Rajya, Radheshyam Kejriwal, Ashoo Surendranath Tewari – Distinguished – Those cases turned on peculiar facts such as denial of sanction, penalty under FERA, or absence of evidence – Present case involved valid sanction and prima facie evidence – Recent ruling in Puneet Sabharwal (2024) reaffirmed departmental exoneration no ground for quashment [Paras 32-38].

Decision – Application under Section 528 BNSS dismissed – Charge sheet and proceedings under Sections 13(1)(b), 13(2) PC Act to continue – No interference warranted [Paras 42-43].

Employment Dispute – Maintainability of Civil Suit – Order 7 Rule 11 CPC – Specific Relief Act – Single Judge rejected plaint holding specific performance of employment contract barred under Section 14 SRA – Division Bench held rejection unsustainable since plaint also sought damages of ₹2 crores for arbitrary and mala fide termination and reputational harm – Cause of action disclosed, and rejection of part of plaint not permissible – Suit restored [Paras 2, 5-10].

Civil Procedure – Partial Rejection of Plaint – Not Permissible – Court reiterated that plaint must be read as a whole; partial rejection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC impermissible – Relief for damages independent and maintainable even if reinstatement barred – Hence, plaint could not be rejected in entirety [Paras 6, 10].

Employment Law – Termination – Allegations of Mala Fides and Procedural Impropriety – Plaintiff pleaded arbitrary suspension, sham enquiry, collusion of senior officials, and reputational harm by public removal from workstation – Such allegations constituted triable issues requiring adjudication – Rejection of plaint at threshold erroneous [Paras 8-9].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Impugned judgment of Single Judge set aside – Suit restored to file for trial – Parties directed to appear before Single Judge (Roster Bench) on 16.09.2025 [Paras 15-16].

Criminal Law – Dismissal for Non-Prosecution – Section 256 CrPC – Complaint under Section 138 NI Act – Acquittal Set Aside – The Magistrate had dismissed the complaint and acquitted the accused for absence of complainant and counsel on two dates – The High Court held that such dismissal was harsh and in violation of principles of natural justice – Explained that complainant had been diligent for most hearings and absences were due to mistaken dates and Court officer's error – Held: Order of dismissal and acquittal is quashed – Complaint restored for decision on merits [Paras 4-11].

Natural Justice – Opportunity to be Heard – Compliance Mandated – The High Court reiterated that an opportunity must be given to both complainant and accused to contest the case on merits – Emphasized procedural fairness and the complainant’s right to present evidence – Held: Court below failed to ensure adherence to principles of natural justice by dismissing the complaint without considering bona fide reasons for absence [Paras 6, 9, 10, 11].

Restoration of Complaint – Costs Imposed – Appellant Directed to Proceed Without Adjournments – The Court restored the Summary Criminal Case No.1989/2019 to its original stage and remanded the matter back to the Trial Court – The appellant directed to deposit Rs.2,000/- as cost payable to the respondent and cooperate in speedy trial – Next hearing scheduled on 22/09/2025 [Para 12].

Legality And Propriety Of Two Suo Motu Orders - Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act – Externment Order – Lack of Jurisdiction and Procedural Safeguards – Externment order passed suo motu by Sessions Judge under Section 10 of the SC/ST Act against the PSO and others without police report or material indicating the area as a Scheduled/Tribal Area – Held: The externment order is illegal, based on a closed CSR, and passed without satisfying statutory preconditions – Order quashed [Paras 6–9, 11].

Criminal Procedure – Judicial Overreach – Suo Motu Remand of DSP – Judge remanded a Deputy Superintendent of Police for alleged inaction under Section 4 of SC/ST Act – Held: Arrest is within the discretion of the investigating officer – No administrative enquiry or recommendation as required under Section 4(2) SC/ST Act – Action found arbitrary and unwarranted – Remand order quashed [Paras 10–12].

Misuse of Judicial Authority – Allegations of Bias and Vengeance – Allegations supported by WhatsApp messages suggest misuse of judicial position by Principal District Judge against former PSO – Court observed serious irregularities in initiating criminal process, motivated by personal bias – Directed Vigilance Enquiry against the Judicial Officer to probe allegations of misconduct and abuse of power [Paras 3–5, 14–15].

Due Process – Requirement of Safeguards Before Prosecuting Public Servants – Supreme Court precedent in State of GNCTD v. Praveen Kumar (2024) cited – Held: Cognizance under Section 4 of SC/ST Act requires prior administrative recommendation – Absence of this renders proceedings illegal [Paras 11–12].

Decision – Both Suo Motu Orders Set Aside – Externment and Remand Orders Quashed – Deputy Superintendent of Police Ordered to be Released Forthwith – Registrar (Vigilance), High Court directed to submit report after independent enquiry into conduct of District Judge [Paras 13–16].

Agreement to Sell – Suit for Mandatory Injunction Instead of Specific Performance – Maintainability – Appeal Dismissed – Appellant relied on agreement to sell dated 24.12.2008 (Ex.P1) and claimed to have paid ₹24,00,000/- – Both Courts below found suit misconceived since relief ought to have been one for specific performance, not mandatory injunction – Further, appellant himself was attesting witness to sale deed dated 22.04.2009 in favour of respondents 3 & 4, which was never challenged – Agreement to sell not proved; no evidence beyond appellant’s self-serving statement – Held: Suit rightly dismissed as not maintainable [Paras 2–8].

Fraud and Coercion Allegations – Evidentiary Deficiency – No Relief – Appellant alleged coercion, threats, forced signatures, and FIRs – However, Courts found absence of corroborative evidence and noted contradictions including attestation of rival sale deed by appellant – Hence, plea of fraud rejected [Paras 2–8].

Second Appeal – Section 100 CPC – No Substantial Question of Law – Outcome: Appeal Dismissed – High Court held that concurrent findings based on evidence raised no substantial question of law – Second appeal dismissed as meritless [Paras 8–9].

Final Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Pending applications also disposed of – No relief granted to appellant [Para 9].

Service Law – Disciplinary Proceedings – Non-supply of Inquiry Report – Violation of Natural Justice – Rule 14, CCS (CCA) Rules – Petitioner removed from service on charges of misappropriation – Inquiry report not supplied before punishment – Later supplied on direction of appellate authority, yet petitioner failed to make representation – Held: While non-supply of inquiry report initially violates natural justice, prejudice must be shown – No prejudice established; petitioner had admitted guilt – Appellate authority’s findings upheld – Writ petition dismissed [Paras 18-24].

Service Law – Effect of Criminal Acquittal on Departmental Proceedings – Section 409 IPC – Acquittal in criminal trial was on technical grounds (non-examination of witnesses, illegal procurement of specimen signatures) – In disciplinary proceedings, material witnesses deposed against petitioner and he admitted guilt – Held: Acquittal in criminal case does not automatically vitiate disciplinary findings; no parity between evidence in two proceedings – Contention rejected [Paras 25-28].

Judicial Review – Scope under Article 226 – Court examines legality and propriety of decision-making process, not re-appreciation of facts – Appellate authority considered petitioner’s objections; findings not perverse or illegal – No interference warranted – Petition dismissed [Paras 17-19, 28].

Decision – Writ petition dismissed – Impugned order of removal from service upheld – No costs awarded – Pending applications also dismissed [Para 28].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Cheque Dishonour – Material Alteration – Sections 87, 138, 118(a), 139, NI Act – Cheque issued for ₹7 lakhs returned unpaid for “insufficient funds” – Accused admitted issuing cheque but alleged alteration in account number and limited liability of ₹1.92 lakhs – Evidence (CW1 testimony) confirmed alteration from CD-5956 to CD-6033 without drawer’s authentication – Held: Alteration in name/account of payee constitutes material alteration under Section 87; cheque rendered void; no liability arises on its dishonour. Acquittal [Paras 18-27].

Presumption under NI Act – Rebuttal – Sections 118(a), 139, NI Act – Presumption of consideration and liability arises on issuance of cheque – Presumption is rebuttable; once evidence of alteration and lesser liability is shown, presumption stands displaced – Complainant failed to prove subsisting legally enforceable debt of ₹7 lakhs – Cheque unenforceable [Paras 28-29].

Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction – Sections 397 & 401 CrPC – High Court ordinarily does not reappreciate evidence in revision – However, where concurrent findings of courts below ignore material alteration rendering cheque void, interference is justified – Conviction and sentence set aside; complaint dismissed; accused acquitted [Paras 13-17, 30-32].

Decision – Criminal Revision Allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 138 NI Act set aside – Complaint dismissed – Accused acquitted – Petitioner to furnish bail bonds under Section 437-A CrPC (Section 481 BNSS, 2023) for ₹25,000/- with one surety, effective for six months [Paras 32-33].

Criminal Law - Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Civil Dispute Cloaked as Criminal Offence – Sections 406, 420 IPC – Quashment Allowed – Petitioners (OYO and its Directors) challenged proceedings initiated by the complainant alleging cheating, breach of trust and conspiracy regarding hotel management agreements – The dispute pertained to contractual breaches, revenue sharing, and claims already referred to arbitration and IBC proceedings – Held: No entrustment of property or dishonest inducement at inception – Essential ingredients of Sections 406 and 420 IPC absent – Criminal law cannot be invoked to settle civil scores – Continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process – Proceedings quashed [Paras 7-11, 13-19].

Abuse of Process – Invocation of Criminal Law in Contractual Disputes – Section 482 CrPC – Petitioners contended that multiple similar complaints had already been quashed by coordinate benches; complainant cleverly drafted complaint to give colour of criminality – Court held that criminal process cannot be used as a cudgel for recovery of money or arm-twisting in commercial disputes – Reliance placed on Paramjeet Batra, Sarabjit Kaur, Naresh Kumar, Manish, Rikhab Birani, and S.N. Vijayalakshmi – Complaint held to be mala fide and vexatious [Paras 12-16].

Civil and Criminal Proceedings – Simultaneous Remedies – While in law civil and criminal proceedings may coexist, such coexistence requires a demonstrable element of criminality – In the present case, substratum of dispute was purely civil – Invocation of criminal law deprecated – Reliance on Punit Beriwala distinguished as facts revealed fraudulent intent at inception in that case, unlike present matter [Paras 17-18]

Decision – Criminal Petition Allowed – Proceedings in C.C.No.10486/2023 before IV ACMM, Bengaluru quashed – Clarified that observations confined to exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC and shall not influence other proceedings [Para 20].

Service Law – Absorption on Takeover – Special Officer (CAPE) vs. Senior Superintendent (DME) – Tribunal’s Order Set Aside – Petitioner appointed as Special Officer under CAPE, probation declared post-takeover; later downgraded to UDC by Govt. order – Tribunal dismissed challenge citing lack of proof of equivalence – High Court noted crucial documents (Exts.P9 & P10) recommending creation of Senior Superintendent post to accommodate petitioner were withheld – Held: Tribunal erred in ignoring these – Matter remanded for reconsideration [Paras 10–18].

Qualification Dispute – MBA as Postgraduate Degree – To Be Examined by Tribunal – Notification required Post Graduation + MBA – Govt. disputed MBA as PG – Court held issue of qualification and equivalence must be considered afresh along with absorption claim [Paras 7–13].

Parity Claim – Vanishing Category Posts – Engineers Retained, Officer Downgraded – Petitioner argued Engineers allowed to continue as vanishing category; same principle should apply – Court held Tribunal must examine parity argument in light of policy documents and Govt. practice [Paras 8–13].

Final Order – Tribunal’s judgment dated 04.03.2025 in O.A. No.79/2020 set aside – Case remanded to Tribunal for fresh consideration with Exts.P9 & P10 and observations of Court – OP allowed [Para 18].