Criminal Law - Cross-examination – Discretionary Recall Power – Denied for Delay and Abuse – Petition Dismissed – Petitioners sought to recall complainant witness under Section 311 CrPC, citing medical issues of previous counsel – Court found this unsubstantiated and held repeated non-appearance and adjournments amounted to abuse of process – Held: Recall not a matter of course; discretionary power to be used judiciously [Paras 5–10]. 
 
Trial Conduct – Repeated Defaults – No Diligent Effort to CrossExamine – Petitioners At Fault – Court noted that non-bailable warrants were repeatedly issued due to non-appearance, and trial had been prolonged by petitioners’ conduct – Held: Courts should not reward tactical delay or passive conduct by litigants seeking to derail proceedings [Paras 10–11]. 
 
Precedent – Discretion Under Section 311 CrPC – Applied Cautiously 
– Relying on Vijay Kumar, Ratanlal, Zahira Sheikh, Satbir Singh, and 
Swapan Kumar Chatterjee, Court reiterated that power under Section 311 CrPC should be exercised only when essential for justice, not to remedy negligence of parties or allow obstruction of proceedings [Paras 8–10]. 
 
Name Change of Complainant – No Fresh Right to Recall – Petitioners argued that change in complainant’s name during proceedings justified cross-examination – Court rejected this, holding it had no bearing on prior opportunities granted and exhausted [Para 10]. 
 
Final Decision – Petition Dismissed – Trial to Proceed Unimpeded – High Court found no infirmity in trial court’s refusal to recall witness – Petition and all pending applications dismissed [Paras 11–12]. 
 

Criminal Law – Quashing - Medical Negligence – Discharge Delays and Billing Discrepancy – No Offence Made Out - Petitioner, an advocate, alleged wrongful confinement and cheating by Max Hospital during cashless insurance surgery – Dispute arose over excess billing and delay in discharge – Court held that while harassment due to discharge process is real, it does not constitute a cognizable criminal offence – Held: Offences under Sections 406, 420, 342 IPC not made out [Paras 1-10, 34-43].

Cheating and Criminal Breach of Trust – No Mens Rea or Misappropriation Found – Petition Dismissed - Hospital received partial pre-authorisation and asked for balance as per procedure – Adjustment and refund followed insurance approval – Delay explained by procedural necessity – Held: No fraudulent intent or wrongful gain shown, thus Sections 420 and 406 IPC not attracted [Paras 36-41].

Wrongful Restraint – Delay in Discharge Due to Insurance Clearance – No Mens Rea - Though patient’s discharge was delayed till evening, it coincided with insurance payment approval – Delay not intentional or coercive – Held: No prima facie offence under Section 342 IPC [Paras 42-43].

Public Policy Observation – Need for Regulatory Framework – Court Expresses Concern - Court noted growing patient distress due to delayed insurance approvals and discharge bottlenecks – Emphasised the need for a regulatory framework involving IRDA and medical councils – However, clarified that systemic issues don’t imply criminal culpability [Para 43].

Decision – Petition Dismissed – Discharge of Respondents Upheld - The Court found no merit in challenging the discharge order passed by the ASJ – Summoning order rightly quashed – No interference warranted under Section 482 Cr.P.C. [Paras 44-45].
 

Family Law - Guardianship – Jurisdiction under Guardians and Wards Act – Territorial Jurisdiction Based on Minor’s Ordinary Residence – Dismissal of Revision - Wife filed guardianship petition claiming child under 5 years forcibly retained by husband’s family – Husband challenged maintainability on jurisdictional ground under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC – Held: Where child is under 5 years, presumed to reside with mother – Jurisdictional fact needs evidence – Not a pure question of law – Revision against rejection not maintainable [Paras 2–11].

Territorial Jurisdiction – Mixed Question of Law and Fact – Not Decidable under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC - Petitioner sought dismissal claiming minor resided outside Boudh district – Court held that ordinary residence is a factual issue needing inquiry – Cannot be decided solely on pleadings – Appropriate to be addressed during trial [Paras 7–10].

Applicable Precedents – Apex Court and High Court Decisions Considered – Kerala, Allahabad, and Supreme Court Rulings Applied - Court relied on Ruchi Majoo v. Sanjeev Majoo, S. Prabhu v. Rajani R, and Sarabjit v. Piara Lal – Emphasized that child’s ordinary residence requires factual determination – Rejected applicability of contrary ruling in Dillip Kumar Behera v. Puspanjali Behera to present case [Paras 6, 10].

Revision – Scope under Section 115 CPC – Interference Declined – Trial Court Order Not Perverse - Family Court's rejection of husband’s objection found reasonable and legally sound – No jurisdictional error or perversity warranting interference under Section 115 CPC – Revision dismissed [Paras 11–13].

Civil Law - Partition Suit – Temporary Injunction – Prima Facie Case Established – Injunction Confirmed - Plaintiff filed suit for partition and sought injunctions to restrain defendants from alienating and altering suit properties – Trial Court found plaintiff demonstrated prima facie right to claim share in ancestral property – Held: Alienation would dilute plaintiff’s right, hence, order of injunction restraining alienation rightly passed and upheld [Paras 11–12, 23].

Construction on Suit Land – Balance of Convenience – Injunction Lifted – Appeal Allowed - Defendants contended construction was on only one acre and would not affect plaintiff’s 1/3 share – Appellant No.5 undertook not to claim equity and to abide by suit outcome – Held: No material shown to prove construction would hinder identification of boundaries – Injunction against construction set aside [Paras 16–19, 25].

Partition Deed – Disputed Validity – Issue for Trial – Partition Alleged in 1978 – Plaintiff contended re-grant of lands occurred only in 1981, hence partition was not possible earlier – Held: Whether partition valid or not to be decided at trial – No prima facie bar to maintain partition suit [Paras 5–6, 15].

Appeal – Mixed Outcome – Partial Relief Granted – One Injunction Set Aside, Another Upheld - MFA No.8364/2024 allowed by setting aside injunction on construction – MFA No.1261/2025 dismissed, affirming injunction on alienation of properties [Para 20].
 

Contempt of Court – Disobedience of Final Judgment – Plea of Private Forest Land Rejected – Contempt Established - The Court held that the respondents wilfully disobeyed the final judgment in W.P.(C) No. 593 of 2017 and LPA No. 786 of 2018 (affirmed by the Supreme Court in SLP(C) No. 8108 of 2021) by issuing letters branding petitioner’s land as ‘private forest land’ – Such a plea was never raised in the earlier proceedings and cannot be permitted under the principle of constructive res judicata – Held: Conduct of respondents amounts to deliberate disobedience and obstruction of justice [Paras 1-3, 8, 21-23, 32-33, 41, 44-48, 55-56, 86-88].

Constructive Res Judicata – New Pleas Barred in Contempt – Doctrine Applied - The Court reiterated that new pleas such as classification as ‘private forest land’ not raised in earlier writ or LPA proceedings are barred – Raising such new grounds in contempt proceedings amounts to collateral attack on final judgments – Held: Attempt by respondent officials to overreach court orders is impermissible under law [Paras 44-48, 86].

Burden of Proof – Claim of Private Forest Land Unsupported by Evidence – Burden Not Discharged - Respondents relied on unauthenticated documents and failed to produce certified revenue records to substantiate claim of ‘private forest land’ – Certified copy of Khatian unavailable per RTI response – Held: No credible evidence to support forest land classification – Attempt amounts to misleading the court [Paras 63-70].

Contempt by Government Officials – Non-Parties Liable – Principles Explained – Agents Bound by Orders Against Government - Even though the forest officials were not parties to the original writ proceedings, as agents of the State, they are bound by its outcomes – Their actions in issuing advisory letters amounted to aiding and abetting contempt – Held: Officials can be held in contempt for obstructing justice [Paras 71-75].

Effect of Supreme Court Directions – Compliance Deferred – No Sentence Imposed for Eight Weeks – The Court, while holding the respondents guilty of contempt, deferred pronouncement of sentence for eight weeks in compliance with clause (iv) of the Supreme Court's order in SLP(C) No. 31127 of 2024 to enable respondents to approach the Apex Court [Paras 92-93].

Relief – Advisory Letters Declared Invalid – Letters Set Aside - In view of the established contempt, the letters issued by respondent Nos. 2 and 4 branding the land as forest land and restricting activities thereon were set aside – Court emphasized that contemnors cannot enjoy the fruits of contempt [Paras 91].
 

Taxation Law - Income Escaping Assessment – Validity of Reopening – Prima Facie Material Justifying Reassessment – Reopening of assessment for AY 2012-13 challenged on grounds that original assessment under Section 143(3) was already concluded and that reassessment notice was issued based solely on third-party information – Held: Department acted on tangible material received from DGIT regarding accommodation entries, and a preliminary enquiry was conducted before issuance of notice under Section 148 – Presence of prima facie belief satisfies statutory requirement for reopening [Paras 1–3, 10–11, 16].

Limitation – Four-Year Bar under Section 147 Proviso – Mixed Question of Fact and Law – Petitioner claimed full and true disclosure was made during original assessment and reopening beyond four years was barred – Held: Whether full and true disclosure was made is a mixed question of fact and law and cannot be conclusively decided in writ jurisdiction – Detailed factual enquiry required before competent authority [Paras 3, 12, 19].

Alternative Remedy – Maintainability of Writ Petition – Writ Petition Not Maintainable When Statutory Remedy Availed – Petitioner simultaneously filed appeal before appellate authority challenging reassessment order while writ was pending – Held: Petitioner cannot pursue dual remedies and writ petition is not maintainable under such circumstances [Paras 22–24].

Judicial Precedents – Reliance on SC and HC Rulings – Scope of Judicial Interference – Petitioner’s reliance on precedents like A. Raman & Co., Micro Marbles, and Kohinoor Hatcheries distinguished – Held: In present case, there existed prima facie material unlike in cited cases – Proper procedure under GKN Driveshafts followed – Writ jurisdiction limited to testing existence, not sufficiency, of material [Paras 5–9, 17–19].

Decision – Writ Petitions Dismissed – No Grounds Made Out – Court held that reassessment notice and order were not vitiated by procedural or jurisdictional errors and petitioner had alternative remedy through appeal – Petitioner granted liberty to pursue statutory remedies [Para 25].

Criminal Law – Adultery – Quashing of Summoning Order – Section 497 IPC Unconstitutional – Petitioner summoned for alleged adultery under Section 497 IPC after initial discharge by Magistrate – Held: Following Supreme Court's declaration of Section 497 as unconstitutional in Joseph Shine case, prosecution under said provision cannot be sustained – Complaint quashed as continuation of proceedings is impermissible under law [Paras 22–32].

Retrospective Effect – Application to Pending Proceedings – Supreme Court’s Interpretation Binding – Declaration of law by Supreme Court in constitutional matters applies retrospectively to pending cases – Held: High Courts have consistently quashed similar pending complaints after Joseph Shine judgment – Present complaint also hit by same principle and liable to be quashed [Paras 27–31].

Absence of Prima Facie Evidence – No Proof of Adulterous Act – Allegation based on assumption that petitioner and complainant’s wife stayed together overnight – Held: No oral or documentary evidence proving sexual intercourse – Mere presumption not sufficient for summoning – Ingredients of Section 497 IPC not established even on facts [Paras 7, 33].

Gender Equality – Constitutional Morality – Arbitrariness of Section 497 – Section treated woman as property and did not punish wife or allow her to file complaint – Held: Provision violated Articles 14, 15, and 21 and was rightly struck down for being manifestly arbitrary and patriarchal – High Court reiterates importance of privacy and individual autonomy in marital relationships [Paras 21–26].

Decision – Petition Allowed – Complaint and Summoning Order Set Aside – Summoning order dated 28.04.2018 under Section 497 IPC set aside – Complaint quashed – Petitioner discharged from all proceedings – Pending applications disposed of [Para 34].
 

Criminal Law – Quashing - Disproportionate Assets – Mere Relationship with Principal Accused – No Abetment Made Out – Proceedings Quashed - Petitioner, wife of the principal accused, was arrayed as abettor under Section 109 IPC based on ownership of some assets – Court held that mere spousal relationship or name-lending without evidence of active role or mens rea is not sufficient for abetment – No prima facie case made out [Paras 20–26, 31–32].

Speedy Trial – Delay of Over Two Decades – Article 21 Violation – Proceedings Quashed - Criminal case initiated in 2004 remained pending with no charge framed or trial initiated for over 20 years – Court held that continued prosecution violated petitioner’s right to speedy trial under Article 21 – Quashing necessary to prevent abuse of process [Paras 20, 22–24, 28, 30].

Vigilance Practice – Mechanical Implication of Spouses – Strongly Criticized - Court observed that spouses, often housewives, are routinely added as co-accused in DA cases without inquiry into their role or mens rea – Reiterated that such practice is arbitrary and contrary to criminal justice principles [Paras 25–27, 31].

Judicial Precedent – Smt. E. Swarnalata Case Followed – Quashing Warranted - Citing coordinate Bench decision in Smt. E. Swarnalata v. State of Odisha (Vigilance), 2024 (I) ILR-CUT-1465, Court reiterated that ownership of assets alone by a spouse does not establish abetment – Ratio applied squarely to petitioner’s case [Paras 25–26].

Final Decision – CRLMC Allowed – Proceedings Quashed Against Petitioner - Criminal proceeding in Vigilance PS Case No. 20/2004, T.R. No. 83/2007 quashed with respect to petitioner – Court directed expeditious trial against remaining accused [Paras 32–33].
 

PMLA Offence – Bail Rejection – Serious Economic Fraud – Bail Denied – Petitioner accused of defrauding over ₹800 crores from flat buyers through a fictitious housing project – Despite attachment of ₹161.5 crores, further investigation ongoing to trace remaining proceeds of crime – Held: Given gravity, conduct of petitioner, and ongoing investigation, bail cannot be granted [Paras 5–6, 15, 24–25].

Statutory Bail – Section 167(2) CrPC – Not Applicable – Complaint Filed Timely – Petitioner argued for statutory bail due to delayed filing of final report – Held: Complaint under PMLA filed on 05.11.2024 and taken cognizance on 04.12.2024, within permissible time – Hence, plea for statutory bail rejected [Paras 4.2, 8, 11].

Section 45 PMLA – Stringent Bail Conditions – Not Satisfied – Petitioner Failed Two-Part Test – Court found no reasonable grounds to believe petitioner is not guilty or unlikely to commit offence again – Held: Petitioner failed conditions under Section 45(1)(ii), bail barred [Paras 17–18, 25].

Non-Cooperation and Tampering – Forged Medical Certificate and Illegal Mobile Use – Misuse During Custody – Petitioner submitted forged medical documents and possessed mobile phone in judicial custody – Alleged further laundering through daughter-in-law while in jail – Held: Conduct undermines claim of bona fides and justifies continued custody [Paras 5.2, 5.5, 14, 21].

Further Investigation Post-Complaint – Permissible Under PMLA – Complaint Not Bar to Continued Probe – Held: Under Section 44(1)(ii) PMLA, complaint can be supplemented by further investigation – Justifies refusal of bail due to ongoing tracing of unaccounted proceeds of crime [Paras 23–24].

Final Decision – Bail Denied – Criminal Petition Dismissed – Taking into account the magnitude of the offence, petitioner’s conduct, and non-cooperation, Court held bail unjustified – Petition dismissed [Para 26].