Criminal Law – Quashing - Drugs and Cosmetics Act – Sale of Drugs Without Valid License – Petitioner (Accused No.2), a licensed drug distributor, alleged to have supplied allopathic drugs to Accused No.1, a non-registered practitioner running a clinic without drug license – Proceedings initiated under Sections 18(a)(vi) and 27(d) of the Act of 1940 – Court held that such supply violated the license conditions of the petitioner – Held: Offences prima facie made out – Petition dismissed [Paras 3, 7].

Limitation – Section 468 CrPC – Complaint alleged to be barred as maximum punishment for Accused No.2 is two years – Court held that offences against co-accused (Accused No.1) are punishable up to five years – As per Section 468(3) CrPC, limitation is computed with reference to most severe offence in joint trial – Petition not barred by limitation [Paras 4, 8].

Authority of Complainant – Drug Inspector’s Locus Standi – Petitioner contended that complainant was not notified as Inspector for Gadag Circle under Section 21(1) of the Act – Court held: Once duly notified as Inspector for Shivamogga Circle, subsequent transfer covered under Section 21(2) – No fresh Gazette Notification required for each transfer – Narrow interpretation rejected as impractical and contrary to object of Act – Held: Inspector was competent to file complaint [Paras 9-16].

Cognizance and Trial – Role of Magistrate – Petitioner argued Magistrate lacked jurisdiction to entertain complaint under Section 32 – Court held: Sessions Court alone competent to try offences under Chapter IV of the Act – However, cognizance must be taken by Magistrate and committed under Section 193 CrPC – Held: Complaint properly committed to Sessions Court under Section 209 – No illegality [Paras 17-20].

Special Laws and Cognizance – Comparison with SC/ST Act and PC Act – Court contrasted express cognizance provisions under other special statutes – Noted absence of similar provision in Drugs and Cosmetics Act – Reinforced need for committal procedure via Magistrate – Petitioner's argument rejected [Paras 11-15].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Proceedings against petitioner under Sections 18(a)(vi) and 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 upheld – Complaint held valid in law – Committal to Sessions Court proper – No ground for quashing.

Criminal Law – Gangsters Act – Proceedings Based on Acquitted Base Case – Applicant sought quashing of proceedings under Section 3(1) of the Gangsters Act based on a solitary FIR in which he was later acquitted – Held: Once the accused is acquitted in the base case forming the foundation of gang chart, continuation of prosecution under the Gangsters Act becomes unsustainable – Gangster proceedings quashed as per ratio in Farhana v. State of U.P., 2024 INSC 118 and other High Court precedents [Paras 3, 5-6].

Judicial Precedent – Applicability of Supreme Court Ruling – Court relied on binding precedent of Farhana (Supreme Court) to hold that exoneration in the primary case bars continued prosecution under the Gangsters Act – Also followed prior rulings of Allahabad High Court in Salim @ Piyaoo, Jai Prakash, and Sartaj cases [Para 5].

Criminal Procedure – Quashing of Proceedings – Court quashed the charge sheet, cognizance/summoning order, and entire trial proceedings in Gangsters Act case – Clarified that authorities remain free to initiate fresh proceedings based on any other future or independent cases [Paras 6-8].

Decision: Application allowed – Charge-sheet dated 10.03.2023, cognizance order dated 05.04.2023, and entire proceedings in Session Case No. 249 of 2023 under Gangsters Act quashed as against applicant – Liberty reserved for authorities to initiate action in future based on other grounds or cases [Paras 6-8].

Criminal Law  – Quashing of FIR and Charge Sheet – Section 195 Cr.P.C. – Proceedings Without Court’s Concurrence Illegal – FIR registered by CBI against petitioner A.G. Ponmanickavel, a former IGP of Idol Wing and Court-appointed Special Officer, based on complaints by R2 (Kader Batcha), who himself was accused in prior idol theft cases – Allegations pertain to fabrication of evidence, intimidation of witnesses, and creation of false records in judicial proceedings – Held: Offences alleged fall under Sections 193, 195A, 196, 211 IPC (now corresponding BNS provisions), which are covered under the bar of Section 195 Cr.P.C. – No complaint from competent court nor prior sanction obtained – Prosecution is without jurisdiction – FIR and charge sheet quashed as they violate mandatory statutory procedure [Paras 28, 31–38, 52, 70, 73, 79, 93, 112–114].

CBI Investigation – Legality of Action Contrary to High Court Orders – Idol Wing Investigation – High Court in W.P. Nos. 20392 & 20963 of 2018 had appointed the petitioner as Special Officer post-superannuation, affirming his service until conclusion of idol theft cases – Specific direction issued that no action or enquiry against petitioner or his team shall be taken without prior concurrence of the Court – CBI proceeded to register FIR, conduct preliminary enquiry, and file charge sheet without seeking court’s approval – Held: Investigation conducted in violation of binding judicial order – Entire process including FIR and charge sheet is in contravention of court-monitored framework and liable to be quashed [Paras 17, 55, 58, 105].

FIR and Charge Sheet – Abuse of Process – False Allegations by Interested Party – Complaint initiated by R2, who was earlier implicated by the petitioner during his tenure as Idol Wing head – Allegations emerged after lapse of several years and during pendency of related proceedings in which R2 sought to reverse the course of prosecution – Held: The timing and nature of allegations raise serious suspicion – Prima facie appears as a counterblast to prior official actions taken by petitioner – FIR and charge sheet amount to malicious prosecution and abuse of legal process – Process of law cannot be used as tool of harassment [Paras 19, 76, 94–96, 98, 106–108].

Natural Justice – Right to Fair Trial – Preliminary Enquiry Report Withheld – Petitioner denied access to preliminary enquiry report filed by CBI before Magistrate – Magistrate rejected request citing pendency of investigation – No privilege or confidentiality claimed – Held: Refusal violates right to fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution – In special circumstances where FIR stems from prior court-directed proceedings, preliminary materials forming basis of FIR cannot be withheld – High Court erred in refusing to furnish the report – Accused must be provided meaningful opportunity to defend [Paras 60–63, 66].

Criminal Procedure – Section 340 Cr.P.C. – Court’s Exclusive Domain – Fabrication of Evidence – Alleged fabrication and falsification of evidence pertain to judicial proceedings – As per Section 195 r/w 340 Cr.P.C., court whose proceedings were allegedly misused must first form an opinion and file a complaint – Police or CBI cannot suo motu register FIR or investigate such offences – Held: Cognizance of alleged offences without prior action from the competent court is barred – Charge sheet filed in contravention of statutory safeguard and non-est in law [Paras 31–38, 52, 70, 73, 79].

Distinct and Integral Offences – Bar under Section 195 Cr.P.C. – CBI invoked Sections 167, 218, 506 IPC to argue these are separable from core offences attracting bar – Held: All allegations form part of same transaction involving alleged misuse of judicial process – Charges not distinct or severable – Bar under Section 195 Cr.P.C. applies in toto – Prosecution cannot split charges to circumvent statutory restriction [Paras 73, 79, 93, 106].

Judicial Precedents – Reiterated – Bar under Section 195 Cr.P.C. is jurisdictional and not merely procedural – Supreme Court has consistently held that where offences relate to fabricating evidence in judicial proceedings, FIR is incompetent without complaint by the court – Applied: Iqbal Singh Marwah, Sachida Nand Singh, Devendra Kumar, State of Punjab v. Raj Singh, Bhajan Lal, S.P. Velumani – Held: Present case falls squarely within protected domain of Section 195 – FIR and charge sheet quashed in entirety [Paras 44–48, 72, 106–107].

Prosecution Launched Without Fresh Material – Mala Fide Intent – No new independent material surfaced after 2018 Division Bench judgment affirming petitioner’s integrity – Petitioner's performance as Special Officer was court-monitored, and he had recovered over 1125 idols, including from foreign jurisdictions – Court held that any new allegation would be presumed to be motivated unless vetted by the court – CBI produced no such vetted material – Held: No prima facie case disclosed – Investigation appears driven by collateral motives [Paras 13–14, 34, 76, 107].

Decision: Crl.O.P. No. 4583 of 2025 allowed – FIR No. RC0502024S0013 dated 08.08.2024 and all proceedings pursuant thereto including charge sheet quashed – Held to be in violation of Section 195 Cr.P.C., judicial orders, and principles of natural justice – Crl.O.P. No. 2263 of 2025 rendered infructuous and closed [Para 115].

Civil Procedure – Delay in Filing Written Statement – Striking Off Defence – Recall Allowed – Petitioner’s defence struck off under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC for failure to file written statement – Delay attributed to counsel’s engagement in municipal election work – Held: In non-commercial disputes, timeline under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC is directory and not mandatory – Petitioner not to suffer for counsel’s lapse – One last opportunity granted to file written statement with costs of ₹5,000 [Paras 2–3, 7–13].

Court’s Discretion – Non-Commercial Suit – Timeline under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC – Reiterated that in non-commercial cases, courts retain discretion to condone delay – Supreme Court in Desh Raj v. Balkishan, (2020) 2 SCC 708 and Rafiq v. Munshilal, (1981) 2 SCC 788 applied – Held: Procedural laws must be applied to advance justice, not defeat it [Paras 3, 8, 11–13].

Wrong by Counsel – No Prejudice to Litigant – Litigant Should Not Suffer – Court emphasized settled principle that party should not be penalized for counsel’s mistake – Reliance placed on Ram Kumar Gupta v. Har Prasad, (2010) 1 SCC 391 and Ashok Kumar v. New India Assurance Co., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 587 [Paras 8–9].

Distinction from Commercial Disputes – Ratio of J.J. Merchant v. Shrinath Chaturvedi distinguished as inapplicable – Held: That judgment pertained to Consumer Protection Act where statutory timelines are mandatory – Not applicable to civil suits governed by unamended CPC [Para 10].

Decision: Revision petition allowed – Order striking off defence set aside – Petitioner permitted one last opportunity to file written statement on 03.10.2025 upon payment of ₹5,000 to High Court Employees Welfare Association – If hearing does not take place on 03.10.2025, one effective opportunity to be granted on adjourned date [Paras 13–16].

Civil Procedure – Condonation of Delay – COVID-19 Extension – Ex Parte Decree – Period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 excluded for limitation by Supreme Court’s Suo Motu orders – In case of expiry during that period, 90 days available from 01.03.2022 – Held: Application filed on 13.09.2022 was within the extended limitation – Finding of 341 days’ delay by Trial Court erroneous – Appellate Court rightly condoned the delay [Paras 15–22]

Service of Summons – Substituted Service – Not Deemed Due Service – Summons served by newspaper publication under Order 5 Rule 20 CPC – Explanation to Article 123 of Limitation Act clarifies such substituted service is not deemed valid for limitation purposes – Held: Appellate Court rightly held service not due and limitation began from knowledge of decree [Paras 23–27]

Evidence – Setting Aside Ex Parte Decree – Proof of Grounds under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC – No evidence adduced in Misc. Case to support plea of non-service – Appellate Court erred in setting aside ex parte decree without evidence – Held: After condonation of delay, Appellate Court should have remanded Misc. Case for adjudication on merits – Ex parte decree reinstated; Misc. Case remanded [Paras 34–36, 44]

Civil Procedure – Article 227 Jurisdiction – Revisional Interference – High Court exercised limited interference – Upheld condonation of delay but set aside improper setting aside of decree – Ordered remand for due adjudication of Misc. Case under Order 9 Rule 13 [Paras 43–44]

Decision: C.O. 924 of 2024 allowed in part – Order dated 19.02.2024 set aside only to the extent it set aside the ex parte decree – Delay condonation upheld – Misc. Case No. 126 of 2022 restored and remanded to Trial Court for adjudication on merits – No costs [Paras 44–45].

Writ Jurisdiction – Maintainability – Civil Suit Pending – Petitioner challenged the review order passed by Collector under Section 15 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, concerning mutation of lease deed – Review application was filed after 25 years – Petitioner had already filed a civil suit questioning the legality of the same order dated 26.02.2008 – Held: Since the civil suit is pending and challenges the same order, writ petition not maintainable – Non-disclosure of pending civil suit in writ petition amounts to suppression of material fact – Dismissal of writ petition will not affect pending civil suit [Paras 2-4, 6-7].

Res Judicata – Constructive Res Judicata – Applicability to Writ Petitions – Court relied upon State of Orissa v. Laxmi Narayan Das, (2023) 15 SCC 273 and M.J. Exporters (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, (2021) 13 SCC 543 – Held: Principles of constructive res judicata under Order 23 Rule 1 CPC apply to writ petitions – If same relief is sought through civil suit or earlier writ petition, fresh writ is barred unless permission to refile is taken or justified with full disclosure [Para 5].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed as not maintainable – Pending civil suit shall continue on its own merits.

Criminal Law – Cognizance – Omnibus Allegations – Appellants Nos.2 to 6 (family members of husband) challenged cognizance order passed by the SC/ST Special Court for offences under IPC, Dowry Prohibition Act and SC/ST Act – No specific allegations made against them except general claims of instigation and caste-based remarks – Held: Continuation of proceedings against them would be abuse of legal process – Cognizance quashed [Paras 10-12]

Domestic Violence – Matrimonial Dispute – Allegations of harassment and caste-based abuse by husband (Accused No.1) and in-laws – FIR and 161 CrPC statements revealed no particular incidents or evidence against in-laws – Court found accusations exaggerated and unsubstantiated against Accused Nos.2 to 6 – Held: Allegations against in-laws not sufficient to proceed to trial [Paras 11-12]

Section 3(2)(va), SC/ST Act – Scheduled Offences – Court held that offences alleged against Accused Nos.2 to 6 did not qualify as scheduled offences under the SC/ST Act – Cognizance taken without reasoning by trial judge – Proceedings quashed for these accused [Para 12]

Appeal Outcome – Criminal Appeal Nos.758, 757 and 759 allowed – Cognizance against Accused Nos.3 to 6 quashed – Appeal by Accused No.2 abated due to death – Appeal by Accused No.1 (Peeta Raman) dismissed as prima facie material existed for full trial [Paras 12-13]

Decision: Criminal Appeals allowed in part – Cognizance order dated 10.04.2024 quashed against Accused Nos.3 to 6 – Proceedings against Accused No.2 abated – Appeal of Accused No.1 dismissed – Trial to continue against him.

Criminal Law – NDPS Act – Remand Extension – Violation of Article 21 – Accused not produced physically or virtually during hearing of extension application under Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act – Held: Failure to ensure presence of the accused during such hearing constitutes gross illegality and violates fundamental right to fair procedure under Article 21 of the Constitution – Remand order set aside [Paras 10, 11, 16].

Procedural Safeguards – Section 52A NDPS Act – Mandatory Compliance – Samples drawn at the scene not certified by Magistrate – No inventory or sample certification filed within 30 days – Held: Non-compliance with Section 52A renders investigation procedurally infirm – Default bail allowed [Paras 3, 4, 13].

Right to Default Bail – Extension of Remand – Accused deprived of indefeasible right under Article 21 – Court held that failure to hear the accused at time of extension takes away right to default bail, which is intrinsically linked to personal liberty – Remand extended without informing or producing accused is not a procedural irregularity but a gross illegality [Paras 10, 11].

Search & Seizure – Section 50 NDPS Act – Requirements Not Fulfilled – Contraband not recovered in presence of Magistrate or gazetted officer – Held: Mandatory safeguards of Section 50 not followed – Cited Apex Court’s decision in Arif Khan case – Held: Such failure vitiates prosecution case [Paras 14, 15].

Storage of Contraband – Government Directions under Standing Order No. 1 of 1989 – Held: Proper storage, certification, and sampling under Section 52A and related orders are binding – Failure to comply undermines integrity of case [Para 12].

Delay in Filing Extension Petition – Guideline Breached – Application for remand extension filed on 165th day instead of 160th – Held: Procedural delay further reinforces right to bail – Follows Telangana High Court’s ruling in Suresh Shyamrao Pawar [Para 17].

Decision: Criminal Revision Allowed – Accused granted bail with conditions including surety, restricted movement, and cooperation with investigation – Remand extension order set aside as violative of constitutional and statutory rights [Paras 22–24].

Election Law – Election Petition – Rejection at threshold – Pleadings insufficient – Application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC allowed – Election Petition filed under Section 100 RP Act to challenge election of Respondent No.1 on five grounds: three alleging corrupt practices, one for improper acceptance of nomination, and one for improper refusal of votes – Court held that the petition lacked necessary pleadings and material particulars under Section 83(1)(a) and (b) – Absence of disclosure of names, dates, places in allegations of bribery and undue influence – No averment of material effect on election result in relation to improper acceptance of nomination or non-counting of votes – Held: Petition does not disclose cause of action and is liable to be rejected [Paras 1, 20–24, 51].

Corrupt Practices – Allegation of Bribery – Distribution of Sarees – Lack of particulars – Plea that sarees were distributed to voters with stickers bearing Respondent’s photo and party symbol – No names of distributors or connection to Respondent No.1 pleaded – Court held that without stating whether the distributor was candidate, election agent, or acted with consent, the plea fails statutory requirements – Allegation was vague and inferential – Not sufficient under Section 83(1)(b) RP Act [Paras 25–28, 69].

Corrupt Practices – Undue Influence – Threat to party worker – Not linked to electoral right – Threatening of one Manohar Patil, party worker of Petitioner, pleaded as corrupt practice under Section 123(2) RP Act – No averment that he was an elector or that his right to vote was interfered with – Court held this does not constitute a valid ground for corrupt practice – Also, inconsistency found between the complaint and pleading [Paras 29–32, 70].

Corrupt Practices – Fielding dummy candidates with similar names – No pleading of inducement with specifics – Allegation that Respondent Nos.2 and 3 with similar names were fielded to confuse voters – No pleading of who offered gratification, when, or how – SMS messages relied on were not connected to Respondent No.1 by specific averments – Respondent Nos.2 and 3 polled far fewer votes, and even if added to Petitioner’s total, would not change result – Held: No case made out under Section 100(1)(b) or (d) RP Act [Paras 33–39, 71–73].

Nomination Defect – Error in criminal case year – Not a substantial defect – Petitioner alleged that Respondent No.1 failed to disclose RCC No.318/2013 and instead mentioned 318/2012 – Court held it was a typographical error; full details of the case were otherwise disclosed – No material effect on election result pleaded – Held: Not a valid ground under Section 100(1)(d)(i) RP Act [Paras 40–43].

Votes Not Counted – Polling Station 217 – No impact on election result – Technical error led to non-counting of 1,014 votes from one polling station – Petitioner did not plead how this materially affected result, especially since the winning margin was 5,694 votes – Held: Ground under Section 100(1)(d)(iii) RP Act not made out [Paras 44–46].

Election Law – Requisites of valid Election Petition – Section 83 RP Act – Non-compliance fatal – Court reiterated settled law that strict compliance with Section 83 RP Act is mandatory – Absence of even a single material fact or particular is fatal – No amount of evidence can cure pleading defects – Petition can be rejected at threshold under Order VII Rule 11 CPC [Paras 47–51].

Election Petition – Amendment – Section 86(5) RP Act – Cannot be used to introduce new corrupt practice or fresh particulars – Petitioner filed amendment application after realising fatal defects – Proposed amendments introduced new allegations or particulars not originally pleaded – Held: Amendments impermissible under Section 86(5); amendment power is limited to amplification of already pleaded particulars, not introduction of new instances or corrupt practices [Paras 53–74].

Practice and Procedure – Belated amendment aimed to defeat rejection application – Not permissible – Amendment application filed one day prior to hearing of Order VII Rule 11 application – Court found it to be a tactical move – Held: Amendment not bonafide and prejudicial to Respondent – Petition liable to be rejected irrespective of proposed amendment [Paras 75].

Decision: Election Petition rejected – Application for amendment also rejected – Application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC allowed – Petition dismissed as not disclosing cause of action [Paras 76(i)–(iii)].