Bail – Fraudulent Availment of Input Tax Credit under CGST Act – Compliance with BNSS – Bail Order Set Aside – Accused allegedly availed fraudulent ITC of ₹8.27 Cr and ₹8.26 Cr respectively – Petitioner challenged bail granted by CJM, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, based on omission of Section 47 and 48 headings in Arrest Memo and Notice to Relatives – Held: Arresting authority substantially complied with BNSS mandates – Grounds of Arrest provided and acknowledged – Relative was served with arrest notice containing essential details – No demonstrable prejudice to accused – Bail order held legally unsustainable [Paras 3, 39–41, 49–50, 57–59, 61].

CGST Act – Section 132 Offence – Authorization to Arrest – Valid Arrest – Commissioner had “reasons to believe” based on prima facie material that accused fraudulently availed ineligible ITC – Arrest Authorization and Grounds of Arrest provided in writing – Offence cognizable and non-bailable – Arrest compliant with Section 132 and CBIC Guidelines dated 17.08.2022 – Admission of wrongdoing by accused noted – Held: Arrest justified [Paras 45–46, 49].

BNSS – Sections 47 and 48 – Compliance vs Technical Omission – Prejudice-Oriented Test Applied – Absence of headings in arrest and relative’s notices does not ipso facto vitiate arrest – Apex Court decisions in Vihaan Kumar and Sri Darshan reconciled – Prejudice test applied – Held: No failure of justice or denial of legal remedy – Arrest not illegal for want of headings when substance was disclosed [Paras 50–56].

Criminal Revision vs Bail Cancellation – Jurisdiction Distinguished – Petition filed to set aside bail order as perverse and illegal, not for cancellation based on post-bail conduct – Held: Courts can annul perverse or unsustainable bail orders under Section 528 BNSS – Judicial power properly invoked [Paras 33–35].

Judicial Review under Special Acts – Liberal Construction Discouraged – Court emphasized that liberal interpretation of procedural mandates under special fiscal statutes may undermine their purpose – Minor lapses not fatal where statutory safeguards are substantively met – Reiterated principles from Radhika Agarwal case [Paras 47–49].

Decision: Impugned order dated 07.06.2025 granting bail set aside – Bail bonds cancelled – Respondents at liberty to seek fresh bail before appropriate forum [Paras 63–65].

Criminal Procedure – Pre-Arrest Bail – Maintainability – Petition under Section 482 BNSS filed directly before High Court without first approaching Sessions Court – Petitioner sought anticipatory bail in a case involving alleged fraud and cheque dishonour related to ₹16.46 lakhs in unpaid dues for maize – Held: Though High Court has concurrent jurisdiction under Section 482 BNSS, direct approach to High Court without special or extraordinary circumstances is impermissible – Petition dismissed on maintainability ground with liberty to approach Sessions Court within two weeks – Interim protection from coercive steps granted [Paras 5, 9–11].

Anticipatory Bail – Requirement to Approach Sessions Court First – Apex Court in Mohammed Rasal.C v. State of Kerala reiterated structured process for pre-arrest bail to begin at Sessions Court to avoid High Court being flooded with first-instance applications – High Court emphasized importance of filtration mechanism and local prosecutorial assistance at district level – Petition rejected for bypassing Sessions Court without justification [Paras 5, 9–10].

Discretion under Section 482 BNSS – No Special Circumstances Shown – Petitioner failed to establish any special or extraordinary reason for invoking High Court’s inherent powers directly – Held: Mere apprehension of arrest or claim of being falsely implicated does not constitute special ground – Judicial discretion must be exercised cautiously [Para 10].

Interim Protection – Liberty Reserved – Despite dismissal, High Court protected petitioner from coercive action for two weeks to enable him to approach Sessions Court – Directed Sessions Judge to decide bail application on merits without being influenced by High Court’s present order [Para 11].

Decision: Criminal Petition dismissed as not maintainable – Petitioner granted liberty to file pre-arrest bail before Sessions Judge within two weeks – No coercive steps to be taken in interim – Sessions Court to consider afresh on merits.

Criminal Law – Dismissal for Default – Acquittal – Petitioner filed complaint under Sections 500, 195, 120B IPC against a developer alleging defamation and conspiracy – Complaint was dismissed for default on 22.07.2024 after petitioner failed to appear due to confusion in reading the next date as 07.08.2024 instead of 07.03.2024 from cause list – Application for restoration filed on 30.07.2024 was rejected by Magistrate on ground of lack of power to recall dismissal – Held: Magistrate rightly rejected restoration as he became functus officio – No provision in CrPC permits restoration after acquittal due to default [Paras 3–4, 10–16]

Acquittal – Consequences of Dismissal – Though Magistrate’s dismissal order did not expressly record “acquittal,” it amounts to deemed acquittal under Section 256 CrPC – Absence of appearance by complainant justified default dismissal – Complainant's remedy lies in appeal, not revision or restoration application – No illegality found in Magistrate’s refusal [Paras 13–16]

Inherent Powers – Scope under Section 482 CrPC / Article 227 – In view of specific remedy available under CrPC (appeal with leave), High Court’s inherent powers cannot be invoked for restoration – Held: Inherent powers are not to bypass express statutory scheme – Petition not maintainable [Paras 12–14]

Court’s Observations – Confusion arose due to mistaken entry of next date as 07.08.2024 in court records – Petitioner is at liberty to seek appropriate remedy in accordance with law – However, current revisional application dismissed as unsustainable [Paras 17–18]

Decision: Revisional Application Dismissed – No power of restoration after default dismissal under CrPC – Petitioner may pursue appropriate legal remedy

Criminal Law – Misappropriation by Public Servants – Quashment – Petitioners, employees of BEVCO, were prosecuted for misappropriating foreign liquor stock worth ₹27,92,523 during 01.04.2018 to 30.07.2018 – Contended that remittance of the loss amount in accordance with BEVCO’s circular dated 20.12.2017 absolved them of criminal liability – Held: Circular subsequently set aside by Division Bench in WA No. 642/2025 – Repayment made after detection of shortage and without interest – Does not erase the offence or eliminate criminality – Quashment denied [Paras 3–12]

Intent – Shortage of Foreign Liquor Stock – Scale of shortage to the tune of ₹27.92 lakhs held to indicate intentional misappropriation and not mere clerical or operational lapse – Petitioners’ argument that discrepancies were common in BEVCO outlets due to delay in audit and voluminous work not accepted – Court held the magnitude points to deliberate acts requiring trial [Paras 10–12]

Effect of Repayment – Criminal Liability – Repayment of misappropriated amount after misappropriation complete – Criminal liability under Prevention of Corruption Act and IPC not extinguished by post-facto repayment – Held: Criminal trial must proceed as remittance was not voluntary but consequence of detection [Paras 8–12]

Decision: Petition dismissed – Interim stay vacated – Criminal proceedings in CC No. 2/2024 to continue before Special Judge, Muvattupuzha

Tenancy Law - Civil Procedure – Partnership Dispute – Order 30 Rule 8 CPC – Eviction Petition – Respondents filed eviction petition against M/s Indian Furniture Store through alleged partner Satish Grover – Petitioner filed application under Order 30 Rule 8 CPC read with Section 151 CPC, contending that his appearance be treated as under protest and Court must first determine whether he was a partner – Rent Controller, instead of deciding the application, directed petitioner to disclose partnership details on affidavit – Held: Impermissible – Rule 8 CPC envisages preliminary adjudication – Person disputing partnership cannot be compelled to furnish details before Court determines his status as partner – Impugned order set aside [Paras 5-7].

Civil Revision – Rent Controller’s Jurisdiction – Rent Controller must first adjudicate application under Order 30 Rule 8 CPC before proceeding with eviction petition – Only upon deciding petitioner’s status as partner can he be compelled to disclose partnership particulars – Impugned order contrary to the scheme of the Code – Civil revision allowed – Rent Controller directed to decide application under Order 30 Rule 8 CPC in accordance with law [Paras 8-9].

Decision: Civil Revision allowed – Impugned order dated 22.08.2025 set aside – Rent Controller directed to first decide application under Order 30 Rule 8 CPC and then proceed with eviction petition [Paras 8-10].

Motor Vehicles Act – Claim under Section 163-A – Borrower of Vehicle – Tortfeasor – Not Third Party – Claim Not Maintainable – Deceased, who died in a self-accident, had borrowed the vehicle from his brother and was driving it in a rash and negligent manner – Held: Once the deceased stepped into the shoes of the owner, he ceased to be a third party – Claim under Section 163-A is not maintainable against insurer by borrower/tortfeasor – Tribunal erred in awarding ₹3,93,500 as compensation – Award set aside [Paras 13–19].

Insurance Law – Liability of Insurer – Borrower Driving Vehicle – No Coverage – Deceased was neither a paid driver nor a third party – Policy did not cover owner’s relatives or gratuitous users – Supreme Court in Ramkhiladi v. United India Insurance Co. [(2020) 2 SCC 550] relied upon – Held: No liability on insurer for self-inflicted accident by borrower of vehicle – Deceased, being tortfeasor, not entitled to compensation [Paras 15–16].

Motor Accident Claim – Tribunal's Failure to Determine Negligence – Perverse Award – Tribunal failed to determine culpability despite clear evidence (FIR and claimant’s admission) that deceased was driving negligently – Award granted without proper reasoning or findings on responsibility – Held: Award unsustainable in law and liable to be set aside [Paras 17–19].

Appellate Review – Error in Applying Multiplier – Irrelevant in Present Case – Though appellant argued Tribunal applied incorrect multiplier (16 instead of 15), Court found issue moot since claim itself was not maintainable [Para 10].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Award of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in MCOP No.696 of 2012 dated 03/12/2012 set aside – Claim petition dismissed – Appellant insurer entitled to recover any amount deposited before Tribunal by filing appropriate application – No costs – Connected miscellaneous petition closed [Paras 19–20].

Banking Law - SARFAESI – Possession of Secured Asset – Tahsildar’s Competence – ARC filed writ petition challenging Ext. P10 order passed by the Tahsildar on the complaint that property unconnected with loan transaction was taken possession of under SARFAESI proceedings – Held: Tahsildar has no authority to interfere in matters already adjudicated by the Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 14 SARFAESI – Such action amounts to overstepping jurisdiction [Paras 15–16]

SARFAESI – Review and Non-Impleadment – Ext. P10 order passed based on earlier writ direction where ARC was not impleaded – That writ judgment was reviewed and recalled (RP 1196/2019), and writ dismissed for suppression of material facts – Held: Ext. P10 is rendered non-operational to the extent it conflicts with judicial orders under SARFAESI and cannot survive post recall [Paras 8–10, 16]

Property Identification Dispute – Civil Suit Pending – Dispute between parties as to whether correct property was taken into possession under mortgage enforcement – Held: Dispute of identification is a civil matter pending before Civil Court in O.S. No. 1090/2019 – Trial court to independently adjudicate the dispute without being influenced by findings under SARFAESI [Paras 17–18]

Limited Quashment – Only that portion of Tahsildar’s order (Ext. P10) dealing with SARFAESI delivery proceedings set aside – Held: Tahsildar still empowered to act on allegations against Village Officer’s conduct under appropriate administrative powers, with notice to parties [Para 18]

Decision: Writ Petition Partly Allowed – Ext. P10 quashed only to the extent it interferes with orders of the Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 14 SARFAESI – Remaining issues left open for civil and administrative proceedings

Criminal Law – Murder – Dying Declaration – Victim named appellants Dilip Dey and Manoj Singh as shooters in statement recorded by police officer in presence of doctor and relatives – Statement corroborated by brothers of deceased (PWs 5 and 7) – Medical officer (PW9) confirmed victim was conscious – Objection to lack of medical certificate of mental fitness rejected – Court held dying declaration reliable and consistent with medical evidence [Paras 3, 6, 42–45, 49–53]

Criminal Law – Firearm Recovery – Weapon recovered on basis of disclosure by Manoj Singh under Section 27 Evidence Act – Seizure corroborated by police witnesses (PWs 20, 25) – Forensic expert (PW22) confirmed bullet retrieved from victim matched the recovered firearm – Held: Recovery legal and directly links appellant to the crime [Paras 34–36, 57–58]

Evidence – Hostile Witness – PW16 (friend of deceased) turned hostile but admitted being present, taking victim to hospital, and confirming victim’s consciousness – Statement of hostile witness corroborated by medical and family witnesses – Held: Partial reliability sufficient for corroboration of prosecution version [Paras 16, 28–30, 47–48]

Criminal Procedure – FIR based on Dying Declaration – Statement of victim formed basis of FIR – Recorded by police in presence of attending doctor and family members – FIR and injuries consistent with post-mortem report – Held: FIR valid, dying declaration admissible under Section 32 Evidence Act [Paras 49–51]

Forensic Evidence – Ballistics – Recovered firearm found to be in working condition – Expert confirmed bullet removed from body fired through same weapon – Court accepted ballistic report as conclusive link to accused [Paras 36, 57–58]

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Section 302/34 IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act affirmed – Sentence to run concurrently – Detention already undergone to be set off under Section 428 CrPC [Paras 59–61]

Hindu Marriage – Void Marriage – Second Marriage during subsistence of first – Conversion and Re-conversion – Compromise and Quashing of FIR – Woman, originally Muslim, married Hindu petitioner by Hindu rites while first marriage subsisted – Later divorce decree obtained – Held: Marriage void ab initio under Section 11 HMA as contravening Section 5(i); absence of common religion and existence of prior spouse invalidate the marriage – Compromise deed and quashing of FIR upheld – Recall application rejected; subsequent Family Court judgment cannot revive extinguished proceedings [Paras 11–19].

Marriage – Validity – Conversion – Hindu Marriage Act – Petitioner (Hindu) married respondent (formerly Muslim, converted to Islam, later allegedly reconverted to Hinduism) through Hindu rites on 28.06.2020 while her divorce from first husband (Dr. Zafar Sayeed) was pending – Decree of divorce granted only on 19.01.2021 – Held: Under Section 5(i) read with Section 11, Hindu Marriage Act, a valid Hindu marriage requires that both parties be Hindus and neither have a living spouse – Marriage solemnized in contravention is void ipso jure, i.e., non-existent in law from inception [Paras 11–13].

Void Marriage – Legal Effect – A void marriage confers no marital status or mutual rights and obligations – It is to be ignored as non-existent; declaration of nullity is not mandatory but advisable for record and legal clarity – Reliance placed on Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav v. Anantrao Shivram Adhav, (1988) 1 SCC 530; M.M. Malhotra v. Union of India, (2005) 8 SCC 351 [Paras 13–14].

Recall of Order – Compromise Decree – Subsequent Developments – Compromise deed dated 17.02.2024 verified and recorded; FIR under Sections 392, 354, 506 IPC quashed by order dated 09.01.2025 – Subsequent dismissal of petitioner’s Section 11 HMA petition by Family Court (06.05.2025) does not justify recall of High Court order – Judicial pronouncement by competent court is an independent event and cannot undo a compromise-based quashing order [Paras 6–9, 17–18].

Declaration of Marital Status – Judicial Responsibility – Determination of marital status affects the social and legal identity of parties; such declaration can only be made by a competent court in proper proceedings under Section 11 HMA – Courts must ensure full and effective adjudication of marital status [Para 15].

Scope under Article 226 – High Court, while hearing criminal writs, cannot adjudicate disputed factual issues relating to personal law status – Appropriate remedies lie before matrimonial courts [Para 12, 16].

Decision: Application for Recall dated 27.05.2025 dismissed – No ground to interfere with earlier order dated 09.01.2025 quashing FIR based on compromise – Parties at liberty to pursue remedies against Family Court order dated 06.05.2025 [Paras 17–19].