Quashing of Proceedings – Scope under Section 528 B.N.S.S. – At the stage of quashing, Court is required to see whether allegations in FIR and material collected disclose prima facie commission of offence – Detailed appreciation of evidence or adjudication of disputed facts impermissible – Where allegations disclose ingredients of offences, proceedings cannot be quashed [Paras 11–12, 22].

Sexual Intercourse by Deceitful Means – Section 69 B.N.S. – Section 69 is a new penal provision criminalising sexual intercourse obtained by deceitful means, including false promise of marriage – Distinction between breach of promise and false promise made without intention to marry reiterated – Prima facie allegations that accused was already married and induced victim into sexual relationship on promise of marriage sufficient to attract Section 69 B.N.S. [Paras 15–17, 21–22].

False Promise of Marriage – Married Accused – Where accused was admittedly already married at the inception of relationship, promise of marriage made to victim prima facie constitutes deceitful means – Question whether victim was aware of accused’s marital status is a matter of trial and cannot be adjudicated at quashing stage [Paras 17, 22].

Consensual Relationship – Long Duration – Effect – Long-standing relationship by itself does not negate allegation of deceit or false promise of marriage – Consent allegedly obtained on misconception of fact arising from promise of marriage cannot be conclusively termed consensual at threshold stage [Paras 12, 21–22].

Contradictory Defences – Marriage Certificate and False Promise – Plea that victim claims both false promise of marriage and existence of marriage raises disputed questions of fact – Such contradictions require evidence and cross-examination and cannot be resolved in proceedings under Section 528 B.N.S.S. [Paras 18–19, 22].

Role of Accused as Teacher – Position of Trust – Allegations that accused was a teacher and victim was his student bring the case within the broader framework of abuse of position of trust – Relevant while examining culpability under B.N.S. provisions – Reinforces need for trial [Paras 17, 20].

Prior Complaint and Alleged Compromise – Earlier complaint allegedly withdrawn by victim and departmental enquiry report relied upon by accused – Such material not part of charge-sheet and disputed by victim – Cannot be basis for quashing criminal proceedings at threshold [Paras 12, 22].

Reliance on Precedents – Limited Applicability – Judgments relating to consensual relationships and breach of promise under IPC regime cannot be mechanically applied to Section 69 B.N.S., which introduces a distinct statutory offence – Each case must be examined on its own prima facie facts [Paras 16, 21–22].

Decision: Application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. dismissed – Charge-sheet, cognizance order and criminal proceedings allowed to continue – No case made out for quashing at pre-trial stage.

Criminal Law – Acquittal – Offences under Sections 504, 323, 324, 326 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST (PoA) Act – Appellants convicted by Special Court for assault and grievous hurt allegedly caused to complainant belonging to Scheduled Caste – On appeal, High Court finds material inconsistencies in testimonies of PW1 to PW3 who are interested witnesses – Independent witnesses turned hostile and did not support prosecution case – Medical evidence did not corroborate ocular version – X-ray reports not produced and no radiologist or specialist examined to prove grievous injury – Held: Prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction set aside and appellants acquitted [Paras 12–31].

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act – Section 3(2)(v) – Applicability – Requirement that offence must be committed solely on the ground that victim belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe – Evidence on record showing pre-existing dispute relating to aquaculture between parties – Held: Mere proof that victim belongs to Scheduled Caste is insufficient – Prosecution failed to establish that offence was committed on account of caste identity – Charge under Section 3(2)(v) not made out [Paras 26–27].

Evidence – Interested Witnesses – Reliability – Evidence of complainant and her parents suffering from inconsistencies regarding role of accused and manner of assault – Independent eyewitnesses not supporting prosecution – Absence of corroboration – Held: Unsafe to base conviction solely on such evidence [Paras 20, 27].

Medical Evidence – Grievous Hurt – Proof – Doctor deposed fracture based on X-ray but X-ray plates and reports not produced – Neither radiologist nor orthopedic/ENT specialist examined – No external injuries noted by doctors – Held: Prosecution failed to prove grievous hurt within meaning of Section 320 IPC – Offences under Sections 324 and 326 IPC not attracted [Paras 29–30].

Delay in Lodging Complaint – Incident alleged at 8.30 p.m. – Complaint lodged at about 12.30 a.m. – Delay not satisfactorily explained – Adds to doubt regarding prosecution version when evidence otherwise weak [Paras 8–9, 31].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 17.10.2014 set aside – Appellants acquitted of all charges – Bail bonds cancelled – Fine, if any, to be refunded [Order clauses i–vi].

Civil Law – Appeal – Maintainability – Section 96 CPC – Appeal lies only against a decree and not against mere findings – Defendant in whose favour decree was passed could not maintain a separate appeal only to challenge adverse findings – Proper remedy was filing cross-objection under Order 41 Rule 22 CPC – Appeal filed by defendant against findings of Trial Court held not maintainable – Lower Appellate Court erred in entertaining such appeal and reversing findings [Paras 12–14].

Landlord and Tenant – Eviction – Default in Payment of Rent – Sections 12(1)(a) and 13, M.P. Accommodation Control Act – Tenant failed to deposit rent as determined by Court and remained in default for prolonged period without sufficient cause – Application for condonation of delay filed belatedly and without bona fide explanation – Held: Protection under Section 13(5) not available – Landlord entitled to decree of eviction on ground of default [Paras 23–29].

Professional Use vs. Commercial Activity – Advocate’s Office – Office of an advocate does not constitute a commercial activity when situated in a residential building – Legal profession is a professional activity based on personal skill and intelligence and not trade or commerce – Trial Court committed material illegality in treating advocate’s office as commercial use to deny eviction for residential requirement – Finding answered in negative [Paras 15–17].

Bona Fide Requirement – Residential Purpose – Section 12(1)(e), M.P. Accommodation Control Act – Plaintiff proved genuine residential requirement for study needs of his son – Merely because premises were used as an advocate’s office could not defeat landlord’s bona fide residential need – Trial Court erred in refusing decree despite proof of bona fide requirement [Paras 5, 15–17, 27].

Concurrent Findings – Interference in Second Appeal – Where lower appellate court’s judgment is founded on entertaining a non-maintainable appeal and erroneous legal assumptions, High Court justified in setting aside such judgment under Section 100 CPC – Substantial questions of law answered in favour of appellant [Paras 9–14, 26–30].

Eviction Decree – Execution – Expeditious Disposal – Decree for eviction granted under Sections 12(1)(a) and 12(1)(e) of the Act – Tenant directed to vacate within one month – Executing Court directed to conclude execution proceedings within six months, in line with Supreme Court guidelines [Paras 34–35].

Decision: Second Appeal allowed – Judgments and decrees of Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court set aside – Eviction decree passed in favour of plaintiff – Respondent directed to vacate suit premises within one month.

Bail – Second Bail Application – Murder of Wife by Strangulation – Section 103(1) BNS – Earlier Bail Withdrawn – Second Bail Filed Without Change in Circumstances – Rejection Justified – Applicant sought bail for the second time after having earlier withdrawn the first bail application during trial proceedings – No substantial change in circumstances shown – Held: Filing of second bail application without awaiting outcome of trial not justified [Paras 2–3, 16–17].

Criminal Trial – Hostile Witnesses – Evidentiary Value – Bail Stage Consideration – Complainant (PW-1) and daughter of the deceased (PW-2) turned hostile – Mere hostility of witnesses does not demolish prosecution case – Evidence of hostile witnesses can still be relied upon to the extent it supports prosecution – Reliance placed on State v. Sanjeev Nanda – Held: Turning hostile cannot be a ground for bail where prima facie case subsists [Paras 8–13].

Medical Evidence – Post-Mortem Report – Strangulation vs. Suicide – Horizontal ligature mark around neck with ante-mortem injuries – Presence of contusions on head and chest – Medical evidence rules out suicide by hanging – Strong indication of homicidal strangulation – Held: Defence theory of suicide not supported by medical evidence [Paras 6, 14, 16].

Witness Intimidation – Influence of Accused Even During Incarceration – Adverse Inference at Bail Stage – Videographed statement of minor daughter under Section 161 Cr.P.C. implicated applicant – Subsequent hostile testimony contained contradictions and false claims – Statement of PW-2 indicated pressure from accused father to secure release – Held: Prima facie inference of witness influence sufficient to deny bail [Paras 7, 14–16].

Circumstantial Evidence – False Defence of Theft – Inquest Report Contradicting Witness Version – PW-2 alleged theft of jewellery by intruders – Inquest report recorded jewellery intact on dead body – Defence version found false on face of record – Held: False explanation strengthens prosecution case at bail stage [Paras 10–11, 15].

Conduct of Accused – Abscondence After Incident – Non-Participation in Inquest – Applicant allegedly fled after incident – Not present during inquest proceedings – Conduct considered relevant while deciding bail – Held: Abscondence and conduct weigh against grant of bail [Paras 4–5, 16].

Decision: Second bail application rejected – Trial Court directed to conclude trial expeditiously and independently, without being influenced by observations made in bail order.

Criminal Law – Appeal Against Acquittal – Rash and Negligent Driving – Essential Ingredients – Sections 279/304A IPC – Prosecution must establish not only involvement of the vehicle and driver but also that the vehicle was driven in a rash or negligent manner – Occurrence of an accident or death by itself does not raise a presumption of rashness or negligence [Paras 38–40].

Evidence – Eye-Witness Testimony – Appreciation – Testimony of PW-2 (mother of deceased) claiming to be an eye-witness found unreliable in view of site plan showing that from her stated position she could not have seen the accident – Her version held inconsistent with physical facts on record [Paras 26–30].

Child Witness – Credibility – Corroboration by Site Plan – Testimony of PW-9 (sister of deceased child) found reliable and corroborated by site plan to the extent of occurrence of accident and involvement of bus – However, her evidence insufficient to establish rash or negligent driving [Paras 31–32, 39].

Proof of Identity of Driver – Section 133 Motor Vehicles Act – Evidence of school transport caretaker and reply to notice under Section 133 MV Act proved that respondent was driving the bus at the relevant time – Identity of driver established beyond doubt [Paras 33–36].

Road Accident – Standard of Care – Assessment of Rashness – Bus had stopped to drop a passenger and had moved only 20–25 feet before the accident – In such circumstances, inference of high speed or rash driving could not be drawn – Child was playing on the road and accident occurred near a T-point – Prosecution failed to prove culpable negligence [Paras 39–40].

Benefit of Doubt – Application – Where prosecution evidence fails to conclusively establish rashness or negligence, accused entitled to benefit of doubt – Trial Court rightly acquitted the respondent [Paras 40–41].

Decision: Criminal Appeal dismissed – Judgment of acquittal dated 30.05.2017 upheld – Respondent acquitted of offences under Sections 279/304A IPC.

Service Law – Seniority – Foresters – Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme – Petitioners originally appointed as Village Forest Workers (VFWs) and later redesignated and merged into Forester cadre w.e.f. 10.02.2009 under 2009 Amendment Rules – Private opposite parties appointed as Foresters under Odisha Civil Services (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990 and sent for Foresters’ training from 16.06.2008 – Seniority lists prepared by counting training period of RA appointees – Held: Appointment under RA Rules precedes training and is not contingent upon completion of training – Date of joining training constitutes entry into service [Paras 9.6–9.17, 10].

Rehabilitation Assistance – Nature of appointment – RA Rules are a welfare and compassionate measure intended to provide immediate succour to family of deceased Government servant – Appointment under RA Rules is an exception to normal recruitment – Such appointees hold substantive posts subject to training and probation – Held: Training is not sine qua non for appointment as Forester under RA Rules [Paras 9.1–9.9].

Seniority – Rule 13 of RA Rules – Interpretation – Rule 13 mandates that persons appointed under RA Rules shall be placed below persons recruited and appointed in the same year – Private opposite parties treated as appointed in 2008 on joining training – Petitioners merged into cadre only in 2009 – Held: Petitioners cannot claim seniority over RA appointees of earlier year [Paras 8.1–8.2, 10.17].

Training Period – Whether counts for seniority – Evidence showed RA appointees were relieved from divisions, joined training school, and were paid salary and allowances during training – Appointment already made before training – No rule excluding training period from service – Held: Training period rightly counted for seniority [Paras 7.3, 9.14–9.17].

Executive Instructions – Supersession – Effect – Government Letter dated 13.04.2017 fixing seniority from date of joining training later superseded, but subsequently reaffirmed by Letter dated 27.05.2019 in conformity with Rule 13 of RA Rules – Actions taken bona fide on basis of extant instructions and promotions already granted – Held: No ground to unsettle settled seniority [Paras 10.1–10.14].

Delay and laches – Challenge to seniority list – Seniority list dated 08.11.2016 not challenged within reasonable time – Belated challenge after publication of revised list impermissible – Settled seniority should not be reopened after lapse of time – Held: Petitioners disentitled to relief on ground of delay [Paras 10.3–10.8, 12.2].

Judicial Review – Limits – Court will not interfere with fixation of seniority unless contrary to statutory rules or vitiated by arbitrariness – Seniority fixed in consonance with RA Rules having overriding effect under Rule 15 – Held: No illegality or arbitrariness established [Paras 10.16–10.18, 12].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – Fixation of seniority of Foresters appointed under Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme upheld – Seniority lists dated 08.11.2016 and 24.06.2017 sustained – No order as to costs – Pending applications disposed of.

Review Jurisdiction – Scope and Limitations – Error Apparent on Face of Record – Review under Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC maintainable only on discovery of new evidence, error apparent on face of record or analogous grounds – Review not an appeal in disguise – Re-appreciation of facts or re-argument on merits impermissible – Settled principles reiterated [Paras 5–6].

Order IX Rule 13 CPC – Limitation – COVID-19 Extension Orders – Plea Raised for First Time in Review – Ex-parte decree dated 11.02.2020 – Application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC filed on 27.01.2022 – Benefit of Supreme Court’s suo motu extension of limitation during COVID-19 not pleaded before Trial Court or in appeal – Ground raised for first time in review – Held: Not an error apparent on face of record – Review cannot be used to introduce new grounds not urged earlier [Paras 7–7.4].

Order IX Rule 13 CPC – Knowledge of Proceedings – False Plea of Lack of Notice – Record showed repeated appearances of police officials even after suit transferred to District Court – Notices issued and appearances recorded post ex-parte order – Petitioners also served with caveat after decree – Plea that knowledge arose only on receipt of execution notice found false – Findings based on admitted and undisputed material – No error apparent [Paras 8–8.6].

Governmental Delay – Public Authorities – Liberal Approach – Not Automatically Applicable – Plea of institutional delay and systemic lapses not raised in appeal – No case of breakdown of communication or administrative delay pleaded earlier – Mere claim of impression that no further steps were required after filing written statement rejected – Reliance on Sheo Raj Singh (2023) SCC misplaced – No ground for review [Paras 9–9.1].

Review vs Appeal – Finality of Judgments – Review cannot be invoked to fill lacunae, improve pleadings or raise entirely new arguments – Findings in impugned appellate judgment based on pleadings and record suffer from no infirmity – No patent error demonstrated [Paras 6.1–6.3, 10].

Decision: Review petition dismissed – No error apparent on face of record – Judgment dated 28.11.2025 dismissing FAO No. 53/2023 upheld – No order as to costs.

Civil Law – Ownership of Immovable Property – Licensee versus Owner – Respondent claimed exclusive ownership of suit property on basis of perpetual lease deed and conveyance deed – Appellant claimed ownership as HUF property and by oral partition – Allotment card of 1950 conferred only tenancy rights and not ownership – Proprietary rights accrued only on execution of perpetual lease deed in 1971 and conveyance deed in 1999 – Other legal heirs relinquished their shares in favour of respondent – Held: Respondent proved absolute ownership; appellant failed to establish HUF or joint family property [Paras 18–26, 41–45].

Hindu Law – Hindu Undivided Family – Burden of Proof – Mere existence of joint family or migration together does not raise presumption of HUF property – Burden lies on person asserting joint family property to prove nucleus and acquisition from joint family funds – Appellant led only bald averments without documentary evidence – Held: Suit property not proved to be HUF property [Paras 42–44].

Contract Law – License Agreement – Revocability – Agreement dated 24.09.1996 permitted appellant to occupy front portion of property during his lifetime – Agreement expressly recognised respondent as owner and excluded rights of appellant’s legal heirs – No interest in property created – Held: Agreement constituted a bare and revocable license under Section 52 of Easements Act [Paras 27–28, 52–59, 62–63].

Will – Nature and Effect – Will dated 24.09.1996 executed by respondent in favour of appellant admitted by appellant – Will revoked in 2009 – Will operates only after death of testator – Testator alive and beneficiary predeceased – Held: No rights accrued to appellant under Will; admission of Will amounts to admission of respondent’s ownership [Paras 29–31, 35–36, 50–51].

Admissions – Estoppel – Appellant and his son admitted execution and contents of Agreement and Will acknowledging respondent as owner – Earlier suit filed by appellant based on same documents claiming only possessory rights – Held: Appellant estopped from disputing respondent’s ownership [Paras 30–37].

Res Judicata – Amendment Application – Rejection of amendment application in earlier suit seeking declaration of ownership does not operate as res judicata – No adjudication on merits regarding ownership in earlier proceedings – Held: Trial Court erred in applying res judicata, but finding did not affect final conclusion on merits [Paras 38–40].

Limitation – Suit for Possession by Licensor – Cause of action arose upon cancellation of Will in 2009 and revocation of license by notice dated 03.05.2010 – Suit filed in 2010 within limitation – Article 59 and Section 65 of Limitation Act not applicable – Held: Suit not barred by limitation [Paras 65–69, 71].

Displaced Persons Law – Section 29 of 1954 Act – Applicability – Protection under Section 29 applies only to evacuee properties or notified classes – Suit property not evacuee property – Appellant neither tenant nor allottee under Act – Held: Section 29 inapplicable [Para 70].

Evidence – Interested Witnesses – Testimony of respondent’s siblings relied upon by appellant suffered from contradictions and admitted strained relations – Evidence required heightened scrutiny – Held: Trial Court rightly discarded their testimony [Paras 45–49].

Mesne Profits – Proof Required – Respondent sought enhancement of mesne profits beyond Rs. 5,000 per month awarded by Trial Court – No evidence led regarding prevailing market rent of comparable properties – Held: Enhanced mesne profits cannot be granted without evidence; liberty granted to initiate separate proceedings [Paras 73–75].

Relief – Possession and Injunction – License validly revoked – Appellant in unauthorised occupation thereafter – Respondent entitled to possession, damages, interest and permanent injunction – Appeals dismissed [Paras 76–79].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Judgment and decree dated 16.05.2013 affirmed – Respondent held absolute owner – Appellant directed to hand over possession – Decretal amount with interest to be released to respondent – Liberty granted to seek mesne profits separately.

Bail – Murder Case – Conspiracy – Accused Not Present at Scene of Crime – Petitioner (Accused No.11) alleged to have only intimated the movement of the deceased to principal accused – No overt act of assault attributed to him – Petitioner not present at the place of occurrence – Role limited to prior intimation – Held: Case distinguishable from main assailants and comparable to co-accused granted bail [Paras 7–9].

Bail – Parity with Co-Accused – Accused Nos.8 and 9, who were present at the spot but not armed and had not assaulted the deceased, already granted bail – Petitioner’s role held to be similar or lesser in gravity – Ground of parity applicable – Bail cannot be denied when similarly placed co-accused are enlarged on bail [Para 9].

Bail – Prolonged Custody – Delay in Trial – Petitioner in judicial custody since 28.07.2021 (over 4½ years) – Charge sheet cites 111 witnesses – Only some witnesses including major eye-witnesses examined – About 80 witnesses yet to be examined – Trial likely to take considerable time – Delay not attributable to petitioner – Continued incarceration held unjustified [Paras 10–12].

Bail – Suppression of Earlier Bail Petition – Effect – Though petitioner had earlier bail petitions dismissed, subsequent circumstances including long incarceration and delay in trial constitute change in circumstances – Suppression alone not sufficient to deny bail when liberty under Article 21 is implicated [Paras 4, 6, 13].

Article 21 – Right to Speedy Trial – Prosecution failing to secure witnesses on scheduled dates – Adjournments granted for want of witnesses – Prolonged trial infringes right to personal liberty – Bail granted without expressing opinion on merits [Paras 10–13].

Reliance on Supreme Court Precedent – Principles laid down in Praveen Rathore v. State of Rajasthan, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1268 applied – Long incarceration and delayed trial justify grant of bail [Para 11].

Decision: Criminal Petition allowed – Petitioner granted bail subject to conditions including execution of bond, non-tampering of witnesses, regular appearance before trial court, and non-involvement in further offences.