Criminal Law – Bail – SC/ST (PoA) Act – Delay in Filing Complaint – Appellant accused of repeated sexual assault and offences under BNSS, IT Act, and SC/ST Act – FIR lodged after nearly two years of alleged incident – Charge sheet not filed even after 60 days of arrest – Appellant in custody – Held: Delay in filing FIR unexplained – No further custodial interrogation required – Bail granted subject to conditions [Paras 2, 7]

Criminal Procedure – Section 483 BNSS – Bail Rejection by Sessions Court – Set Aside – Appellant alleged victim’s complaint was an afterthought and motivated by extortion attempt – Investigation not yielding further material – Held: No justification for continued incarceration – Sessions Judge’s order rejecting bail set aside [Paras 3, 6, 7]

SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act – Rule 7(2) – Delay in Charge Sheet – Charge sheet not filed within statutory period after arrest – Appellant in judicial custody without prosecution progress – Held: Procedural lapses and delay favour bail – Conditions imposed to safeguard trial [Paras 7]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Order dated 03/10/2025 of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District set aside – Bail granted to the appellant on executing self-bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with one surety for like amount – Appellant not to tamper with witnesses or indulge in similar offences [Order portion]

Civil Procedure – Counter-claim – Maintainability of Additional Pleading by Co-defendant – Inter-defendant Claims – Rejected – Defendant No.1 sought leave to file a rejoinder/additional written statement in response to counter-claim raised by Defendant No.3 – Held: Under Order VIII Rule 6A CPC, counter-claims can only be made by a defendant against a plaintiff and not inter se between co-defendants – Rule 9 does not permit a co-defendant to reply to such counter-claims, as 'parties' refers only to plaintiff and defendant in this context – Permitting such response would result in an impermissible trial within a trial between defendants – Application dismissed with costs [Paras 14–16, 20–22].

Statutory Interpretation – Ejusdem Generis – Application to CPC – Expression 'parties' under Order VIII Rule 9 to be read in the limited context of counter-claims as defined under Rule 6A – General provision must be interpreted in harmony with specific statutory framework – Co-defendant not a proper party to respond to a counter-claim unless made by or against the plaintiff [Paras 15–16].

Case Law Distinction – Inapplicability of Earlier Precedents – Orissa High Court ruling in Chandra Kishore v. Babulal Agarwala and Supreme Court decision in Noorul Hassan v. Nathakpam Indrajit Singh held inapplicable – The former concerned amendment post-pleadings and the latter pertained to election petition procedure under Representation of the People Act, not regular civil suits – Hence, not relevant to instant commercial suit under CPC framework [Paras 17–19].

Delay Tactics – Abuse of Process – Costs Imposed – Court held the application to be frivolous and a dilatory tactic to stall trial of the commercial suit – Costs of ₹10,000 imposed on Defendant No.1 payable to West Bengal State Legal Services Authority [Paras 21–22].

Decision: Application IA No. GA-COM/7/2025 dismissed – Co-defendant cannot file additional written statement against counter-claim of another co-defendant – Costs of ₹10,000 imposed on Defendant No.1, payable within two weeks.

Service Law – Dismissal – Unauthorised Absence – Back Wages – “No Work No Pay” – Earlier LPA Granted Only Pensionary Benefits – No Direction for Back Wages – Employee Did Not Perform Duty for Period 09.06.2001–22.10.2007 – Held, Dependents Not Entitled to Back Wages; Treatment of Absence as Duty Without Pay for Pension Purposes Proper [Paras 10–12].

Pensionary Benefits – Earlier Judgment (22.11.2011) – Scope – Division Bench Only Directed Release of Amount in Pension Calculation Chart – No Mandate to Grant Back Wages – Appellant Having Accepted Pension Benefits Cannot Reopen Issue – Order Dated 22.03.2012 Consistent With Earlier LPA Directions [Paras 10–12].

Compassionate Appointment – Consideration – Dependent Daughter Failed Recruitment Test – Authorities Gave Multiple Opportunities and Guidance – Court Reiterates Direction to Consider Eligible Dependent as Per Rules – No Mandamus to Appoint – Only Consideration Permitted [Paras 8, 13–14].

Service Jurisprudence – “No Work No Pay” – Principle Reaffirmed – Back Wages Not Automatic Upon Quashing of Dismissal When No Work Rendered – Especially When Employee Was Absent and Later Died Before Fresh Enquiry Could Be Held [Paras 11–12].

Decision: Appeal disposed of – Denial of back wages upheld – Direction to consider compassionate appointment reiterated, subject to eligibility [Para 14].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Cheque Dishonour – Legally Enforceable Debt Not Proved – Non-production of challan and account entries – Adverse inference under Section 114(g) Evidence Act – Prior arbitral award set aside for lack of proof of debt – Suppression of material facts – Acquittal affirmed [Paras 6–9].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Proof of Legally Enforceable Debt – Burden on Complainant – Non-production of essential documents – Complainant failed to produce challan acknowledging receipt of cheque or to show corresponding entries in the account statement (Ex.P9) – Absence of such primary evidence created reasonable doubt about issuance of cheque and alleged liability – Presumption under Sections 118 & 139 NI Act successfully rebutted by accused [Para 6].

Adverse Inference – Section 114(g) Evidence Act – Withholding Best Evidence – Trial Court relied on the principle in Gopal Krishnaji Ketkar v. Mohamed Haji Latif (AIR 1968 SC 1413) to draw adverse inference against the complainant for withholding relevant documents such as cheque receipt register and complete account details – High Court upheld this inference [Para 8].

Arbitral Proceedings – Effect on Criminal Complaint – Earlier Award Set Aside – Findings on Absence of Debt – Arbitration Suit No.18/2016 resulted in setting aside the arbitral award on the ground that the complainant failed to prove legally enforceable debt and had not produced proper accounts – Criminal Court’s acquittal was considered in the arbitral judgment, which attained finality – This supported the defence that no liability of Rs.9,10,000/- existed [Para 7].

Suppression of Material Facts – Complainant’s Conduct – Clean Hands Doctrine – Subsequent arbitration notice dated 19.05.2025 revealed repeated attempts to initiate proceedings despite earlier findings against the complainant – High Court held that the complainant had suppressed material facts and not approached the Court with clean hands, further weakening its case under Section 138 [Para 8].

Appeal Against Acquittal – Scope of Interference – Re-appreciation of Evidence – High Court reiterated that interference with acquittal is permissible only when the findings are perverse or illegal – On re-appreciation, the Court found no infirmity in the trial Court’s assessment – Acquittal affirmed [Para 9].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment of acquittal under Section 138 NI Act sustained [Para 9].

Criminal Procedure – Cognizance and Summons – Validity – Cognizance taken by trial court on police report against former Chief Minister and others under IPC and POCSO Act – Earlier cognizance order quashed due to lack of reasons – Trial court re-applied mind and passed fresh detailed order – Held: Procedure followed by trial court is in accordance with law – No grounds to interfere with cognizance or issuance of process [Paras 12, 18–19, 23(i)]

Sexual Offences – Allegations Against Public Figure – Victim aged 17 alleged sexual assault by accused No. 1 during a meeting at his residence – Accused Nos. 2 to 4 allegedly facilitated deletion of social media posts and attempted to silence complainant by inducement – Held: Allegations, if true, disclose cognizable offences – Whether they are true or politically motivated can only be tested in full trial – Quashing not warranted at this stage [Paras 9–10, 14, 17]

Earlier Writ Petitions – Binding Effect – Accused had earlier challenged first cognizance order – High Court remanded matter without deciding merits – Fresh challenge to second order barred on same grounds – Held: High Court had already held that allegations warrant trial – Petitioners cannot reargue settled issues – Remedy lies before trial court [Paras 11, 14, 17]

Relief from Personal Appearance – Aged Accused – Accused No. 1, aged and infirm, raised concern of harassment due to compulsory attendance – Held: Trial court directed not to insist on personal presence unless necessary – Exemption applications to be considered leniently [Para 21, 23(ii)]

Judicial Directions – Influence of Observations – Trial court directed to decide case uninfluenced by High Court’s observations in prior or present writ petitions – Proceedings to continue as per law based on evidence led [Paras 22–23(iii)]

Decision: Writ petitions dismissed – Trial court’s order dated 28/02/2025 in Spl.C.C. No. 420/2025 upheld – Cognizance and summons sustained – Trial court not to insist on presence of accused No. 1 unless necessary – Petitioners free to seek discharge or any other remedy as available in law [Para 23]

Compassionate Appointment – Delay of nine years – SBI scheme withdrawn w.e.f. 04.08.2005 – Death in 2003 but application filed in 2012 – Financial crisis long tided over – No vested right to appointment – Prayer rejected – Bank directed to process ex-gratia claim on submission of documents and to release family pension arrears without life certificate [Paras 10–15].

Service Law – Compassionate Appointment – Delay and Laches – Father died in harness in 2003; petitioner attained majority in 2011 and applied in 2012; scheme for compassionate appointment withdrawn by SBI w.e.f. 04.08.2005 – Held: application filed nearly nine years after death defeats the very object of compassionate appointment which is to alleviate immediate financial crisis – Petitioner’s family having survived the crisis, no right to appointment survives; rejection of request upheld [Paras 10–13].

Compassionate Appointment – Applicability of Scheme – Petitioner argued that scheme prevalent at time of death (2003) should apply – Court: even under earlier scheme, application filed after inordinate delay cannot be entertained in view of principles laid down in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138 – Purpose is not employment by succession but immediate relief; delayed claim not maintainable [Paras 12–13].

Ex-Gratia Compensation – SBI Scheme – Petitioner alternatively sought ex-gratia lump sum payment – SBI required certain additional documents (letter dated 15.12.2018) – Held: petitioner to furnish required documents within six weeks; SBI to decide claim within three months and either release admissible amount or communicate a reasoned order [Para 14].

Family Pension – Arrears – Petitioner entitled to arrears of family pension from February 2018 to July 2018 – Since matter remained pending before Court, arrears to be paid without insisting on a life certificate for that period; direction issued to release payment within three months [Para 15].

Decision: Petition partly allowed – Claim for compassionate appointment rejected – Directions issued for processing ex-gratia claim and release of family pension arrears [Para 16].

Civil Procedure – Delay in Filing Written Statement – Condonation Refused – Petitioner, a government body, filed written statement over two years after service of summons dated 01.07.2019 – Trial court had earlier closed right to file WS on 26.09.2020 – Application under Section 151 CPC and Section 5 Limitation Act rejected – High Court upheld the order – Held: Courts can condone delay beyond 90 days only in rare and exceptional circumstances – Petitioner failed to justify delay or show any diligence [Paras 1–3, 13–15, 23–24]

Government Litigation – Blame on Counsel – Plea that panel counsel did not return files after resigning rejected – Petitioner’s own pleadings admitted return of files – No action taken against defaulting counsel – Held: Government body with access to legal officers cannot shirk responsibility by blaming counsel – Litigant must remain vigilant and is bound by acts of authorised counsel [Paras 3, 15–18, 23]

Limitation – Role of Government Departments – Petitioner pleaded administrative delay in appointing new counsel – Rejected – Held: Mere fact that petitioner is a government entity does not entitle it to automatic condonation of delay – Supreme Court precedents stress that law of limitation binds all equally – Delay attributable to bureaucratic inefficiency or red tape not a valid excuse [Paras 21–22]

Procedural Law – Order VIII Rule 1 CPC – Scope – Supreme Court in Kailash v. Nanhku and subsequent judgments clarified that 90-day timeline for filing written statement is directory but not to be routinely relaxed – Extension beyond 90 days to be allowed only in exceptional cases and with reasons recorded – Discretion not to be exercised in cases of negligence or tactical delay [Paras 7–12]

Costs – Frivolous Petition – Petition found frivolous and lacking in merit – Dismissed with costs of ₹10,000 – Directed to be paid to the respondent within two weeks – Recovery ordered from salary of erring officials responsible for negligence [Para 25]

Decision: Petition dismissed – Trial court’s refusal to condone delay in filing written statement upheld – Costs of ₹10,000 imposed on petitioner to be recovered from salary of responsible officers – Trial court directed to expedite suit proceedings.

Stamp Act – Section 35 – Marking of unstamped/unregistered partition deed at interlocutory stage – Trial Court cannot compel payment of stamp duty and penalty before stage of evidence – Exhibits cannot be marked during IA hearing – Impugned order set aside – Matter remanded for decision on IA based on prima facie materials [Paras 5–8].

Stamp Act – Section 35 – Unstamped Instruments – When Duty/Penalty Payable – Under Section 35(a), an unstamped or insufficiently stamped instrument becomes admissible in evidence only upon payment of requisite stamp duty and penalty – However, such requirement arises only at the stage when a party seeks to admit the document in evidence – Held: At the IA stage, where evidence is not being formally collected, direction to pay duty and penalty is premature [Paras 4–6].

Interlocutory Proceedings – Marking of Exhibits – Improper at IA Stage – In an application for temporary injunction, documents may be looked into for prima facie satisfaction but cannot be formally marked as exhibits – Trial Court erred in marking Exs.P1–P6 and R1–R12 at the injunction stage – Exhibiting of documents is permissible only during trial when evidence is formally tendered [Paras 5–7].

Unregistered Partition Deed – Impounding – When Appropriate – Whether an unregistered partition deed requires impounding under Section 33 or attracting Section 35 consequences arises only when the document is sought to be admitted in evidence – Trial Court may consider impounding at the appropriate evidentiary stage during witness examination, but not at the IA stage [Paras 6–8].

Civil Revision – Impugned Order Illegal – Set Aside – Trial Court’s order directing payment of stamp duty and penalty before trial commenced held illegal and improper – Order quashed – Trial Court directed to decide I.A. No.477/2017 based on oral and documentary materials placed for prima facie consideration without treating them as exhibits [Paras 7–9].

Direction for Expeditious Disposal – Trial Court directed to dispose I.A. No.477/2017 within three weeks and the suit within one year, avoiding unnecessary adjournments; parties directed to cooperate [Para 10].

Criminal Law – Section 314 IPC – Illegal Abortion Causing Death – Conviction Confirmed – Appellant, an unqualified person, attempted to terminate pregnancy of deceased (8 months pregnant) using root-like object and fishing hook – Deceased died due to hemorrhage and septicemia following crude and unhygienic abortion – Eyewitness PW-1 (sister-in-law) and PW-3 (daughter of deceased) deposed to invasive act and pleas of victim to be taken to hospital – Medical evidence corroborated uterine perforation and presence of foetal parts – Held: Act was performed without medical qualification, consent of deceased does not exonerate appellant – Conviction under Section 314 IPC upheld [Paras 3–5, 11–13, 22–27, 32, 40–42]

Evidence – Ocular and Medical Corroboration – PW-1 and PW-3 provided consistent, credible eyewitness testimony of abortion being performed with fishing hook – Medical Officer (PW-5) confirmed cause of death as septicemia and hemorrhage due to mid-trimester incomplete abortion – Hook-like injuries matched medical findings – Testimony found natural, unimpeached and consistent with scientific evidence – Held: Prosecution proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 11–13, 26–27, 29–30, 32]

Criminal Procedure – Sentencing – Plea for Reduction Rejected – Appellant claimed sentence excessive due to her old age (over 70 years) and lack of intention to cause death – Court held appellant’s actions were inherently dangerous and illegal, involving gross negligence and reckless disregard for life – Consent of victim to abortion irrelevant when procedure is manifestly unsafe – Held: Sentence of 7 years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 314 IPC is just and proportionate – No mitigating circumstance warranting reduction [Paras 8, 33–39]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Section 314 IPC affirmed – Appellant directed to undergo remaining part of sentence [Paras 40–43]