Bail - Rape Allegation – Consensual Relationship – Bail Granted - Alleged victim, a 25-year-old educated woman, claimed she was raped after intoxication and later coerced with a forged marriage – Court noted delays in FIR, consensual travel and cohabitation, and contradictions in victim's statements – Found prima facie indications of a soured relationship rather than criminal conduct – Bail granted [Paras 4–10, 30–32, 42].

False Promise to Marry – Not Always Rape – Legal Principle Affirmed - Court cited Supreme Court precedents (Deepak Gulati, Pramod Suryabhan Pawar, Sheikh Arif) emphasizing that consensual relationships, even if based on failed marriage promises, do not always amount to rape – Held: No evidence that the promise was false from inception [Paras 23–24, 34–35].

Delayed FIR – Adverse Inference – Relationship Timeline Considered - FIR filed nearly five months after the alleged initial offence, despite multiple interactions and trips with the applicant – Court noted the absence of immediate complaint undermined the rape narrative [Paras 12, 42].

Morality vs Criminality – Immorality Not Penal – Social Commentary - Court reflected on societal shifts and increasing misuse of penal provisions post emotional fallout – Held: Not all unethical conduct amounts to crime – Case viewed as fallout of failed personal relations, not rape [Paras 30–33].

Right to Liberty – Bail as Rule, Jail as Exception – No Flight Risk - Court reiterated constitutional protection under Article 21 – Found no risk of accused absconding or influencing witnesses – No prior criminal record except related case – Bail granted with conditions [Paras 37–41].

Final Decision – Bail Allowed – Conditions Imposed - Applicant released on personal bond and two sureties, with directions to appear on key trial dates – Breach of conditions to result in cancellation of bail [Paras 42–44].
 

Banking Law – Fraudulent Withdrawal – Liability of Bank – Plaintiff firm’s Fixed Deposits of Rs. 25 lakhs and Rs. 5 lakhs prematurely discharged within days of opening – Amounts fraudulently transferred to a current account falsely opened in plaintiff’s name by impersonation – Original FD receipts recovered from Bank custody – Trial Court decreed Rs. 39,67,922/- with interest and costs – Defendant Bank’s appeal dismissed – Held: Acts were committed in regular course of banking business by Branch Manager, thus Bank vicariously liable – Plaintiff not required to implead Branch Manager personally – Service rules of Bank do not bind customers – Suit for damages lies against the Bank [Paras 1, 18–20, 27, 31–36, 38].

Evidence Act – Handwriting Comparison – Trial Court compared signatures of Branch Manager across documents and found similarity – Challenge by Bank rejected – Held: Section 73 empowers court to compare handwriting on admitted documents – Court is the ‘expert of experts’ – No need to refer to handwriting expert in such case – No legal infirmity in Trial Judge’s approach [Paras 22–26].

Fraud – Standard of Proof in Civil Cases – Bank argued fraud must be proved beyond reasonable doubt – Rejected – Held: In civil proceedings, standard is ‘preponderance of probabilities’ – Evidence indicated gross negligence and collusion by Bank employees – Even if fraud not established beyond doubt, Bank’s conduct went beyond negligence and into realm of fraud [Paras 27, 30–34].

Vicarious Liability – Acts within Course of Employment – Branch Manager acted within scope of authority and regular banking functions – Held: Bank liable for fraud/acts of negligence committed by its officer during official duties – Reaffirmed that recourse against employee lies with Bank, not with customer – Citing Smt. Shyama Devi v. SBI inapplicable where act took place within bank premises and regular course [Paras 20, 34–35, 37–38].

Procedural Law – Non-Joinder of Necessary Party – Bank argued Branch Manager was necessary party – Rejected – Held: Dispute is between customer and Bank – Branch Manager acted as agent of Bank – No relief claimed against Manager personally – Suit maintainable against Bank alone [Paras 11, 36].

Appeal – Scope of Interference – Appellate Court found no error in Trial Court’s fact-finding or legal conclusions – Affirmed decree with minor modifications regarding disbursement of decretal amount and additional interest – Held: No ground for interference where judgment is well-reasoned and lawful [Paras 39–41].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Trial Court judgment and decree upheld – Bank directed to pay balance interest within 90 days failing which additional interest at 8% p.a. on such balance interest will apply – Bank Guarantee to be encashed and proceeds handed to plaintiff [Paras 41–44].

Education Law – Distance Education Degrees – Cut-off Dates Declared Invalid – Earlier judgment had prescribed 29.03.2010 (Deemed/Private Institutions) and 01.11.2012 (State Universities) as cut-off dates for recognition – Held: Such cut-off dates arbitrary, violate Article 21A and right to education – No evidence of irregularities at study centres or exams conducted – Academic qualifications obtained via distance mode upheld, subject to verification of affiliations and academic quality by UGC [Paras 32–34, 45–47].

Right to Education – Article 21A – Access to Distance Learning – Constitutional Protection – Held: Territorial restrictions imposed on examination/study centres of universities offering distance education defeat accessibility – Students cannot be denied educational and promotional opportunities due to administrative policies contrary to the core principles of remote education – Online and remote education valid where universities are duly recognized by UGC and maintain academic standards [Paras 31–33, 39–42].

UGC Guidelines – No Blanket Ban on Centres Outside Territorial Jurisdiction – Notifications Quashed – Held: Guidelines issued in 2010 and 2012 by DEC/UGC imposing jurisdictional limits on study centres held irrational – UGC failed to contest the writ petitions and did not appeal—Deemed to have acquiesced – Notifications (Annexures P-51 & P-53) quashed to extent they restrict operation of remote centres without UGC approval [Paras 21–30, 45].

Judicial Review – UGC’s Non-participation – Consequences – Held: In multiple LPAs, UGC was impleaded but failed to respond or contest the case—Its silence amounts to waiver and acquiescence to the directions issued – Argument of violation of natural justice rejected [Paras 15–18, 21].

Administrative Law – Degree Verification by Government Departments – Direction Issued – Held: While blanket cut-off dates quashed, recognition of degrees still subject to verification of institutional recognition, programme-wise recognition, and compliance with UGC norms—Verification to be done by government/UGC on case-to-case basis [Paras 44–46, 48].

Employment Law – Right to Consideration for Appointment/Promotion – Distance Degrees Not a Bar – Held: Unless degree is essential qualification and found invalid on verification, candidates cannot be denied regularization or promotion merely due to acquisition of qualification through distance mode – Distinction made between core and additional qualifications [Paras 40–43, 48–49].

Decision:
LPA-2003-2019 allowed – Cut-off dates and UGC notifications quashed
LPAs filed by State of Punjab disposed of – State directed to consider claims without relying on cut-off dates, subject to verification
CWP Nos. 2438 and 27015 of 2021 disposed of – Directions issued for consideration of appointment
LPA-1105-2021 allowed – Matter remanded for fresh decision without applying cut-off dates
LPA-450-2021 dismissed – Disputed factual issue; liberty granted to petitioner to seek civil remedies
Directions for UGC and Government – To verify institutional recognition, ensure academic standards, and provide proper invigilation in exams at centres outside university HQs [Paras 44–52].
 

Temple Management – Hereditary Archakship – Civil Court Decrees Binding – Petitioners Entitled to Perform Karaga – Petitioner established his hereditary rights through R.A. No.46/1983 and R.S.A. No.412/1984 – Held: Tahsildar’s repeated orders permitting rival claimant to perform Karaga on rotation basis are contrary to binding court decrees – Petitioners’ right to perform Karaga recognized and affirmed by High Court and upheld by Supreme Court – Orders permitting rotation quashed [Paras 6, 15–20].

Administrative Overreach – Tahsildar Exceeded Jurisdiction – Performance of Rituals Beyond Scope of Revenue Officer – Held: Tahsildar repeatedly disregarded judicial orders and passed whimsical decisions without authority – Right to perform religious rituals, if established, cannot be nullified by administrative expediency – Conduct of Tahsildar deprecated for generating litigation despite clear judicial directions [Paras 14, 17–19].

Succession of Ritual Duties – Right of Legal Heirs – Petitioner’s Sons Permitted – Due to advanced age of original petitioner, relief sought to allow his sons to perform Karaga – Held: Children of hereditary archak are rightful successors unless disqualified – Directed Tahsildar to permit second petitioner Ramesh to perform Karaga with responsibility and conditions – Performance of Karaga subject to future conduct [Paras 10, 16, 20(ii)].

Challenge by Rival Claimant – Claim of Vahinkula Seva Sangha Rejected – Respondent No.6 not in archak lineage – Held: Sangha’s claim has no legal basis – Performance by 6th respondent earlier was unauthorized and contrary to law – Writ petition filed by respondent No.6 dismissed – Recognition not sustainable without archak lineage or supporting judicial order [Paras 7, 12–13, 20(iii)].

Litigation History – Consistent Judicial Findings Favor Petitioners – Multiple rounds of litigation from 2011 to 2025 consistently upheld petitioners’ hereditary rights – Supreme Court dismissed SLP and directed fair hearing – Held: Earlier judgments cannot be diluted by administrative action – Reiterated finality of settled civil rights through decrees [Paras 8, 15, 18–19].

Decision:

W.P. No.13103 of 2022 allowed – Impugned orders quashed – W.P. No.9045 of 2025 partly allowed – Tahsildar directed to permit petitioner’s son Ramesh to perform Karaga, subject to conduct – W.P. No.7092 of 2025 filed by rival Sangha dismissed – Pending applications disposed [Para 20].

Criminal Procedure – Quashing FIR – Co-Accused’s Statement – Premature to Interfere – Applicant named in liquor seizure case solely based on co-accused’s statement – Held: Statement under Section 10 of Evidence Act relevant during investigation though inadmissible at trial – At FIR stage, admissibility not determinative – Court cannot scuttle investigation prematurely under Section 482 CrPC – No abuse of process made out [Paras 6–8, 11–12].

Inherent Powers – Scope of Section 482 CrPC – Interference in Ongoing Investigation Discouraged – Referring to Skoda Auto Volkswagen v. State of U.P., and Mohd. Malek Mondal v. Pranjal Bardalai – Held: High Courts must exercise restraint in quashing FIRs unless allegations are palpably absurd – Investigation not concluded, charge-sheet not filed – Petition dismissed as premature [Paras 10–12].

Evidence Law – Statement of Co-Accused – Not Substantive Evidence but Investigative Lead – Held: Co-accused statement inadmissible unless corroborated, yet it can serve as clue to launch investigation – Decision in Mansing Shakarlal Mina v. State of Gujarat affirmed – Final determination on evidentiary value lies at trial stage, not FIR stage [Paras 6–10].

Criminal Investigation – Prior Antecedents Considered – Applicant had 22 previous cases – Held: Criminal history reinforces need for thorough investigation before considering quashment – No basis for presuming malice or false implication at this juncture [Para 6].

Decision: Application under Section 482 CrPC dismissed – Interim relief vacated – Liberty granted to petitioner to seek remedy post-charge-sheet, if solely based on inadmissible evidence [Paras 12–14].

Service Law - Transfer – Equivalence of Post – Non-Cadre Transfer Held Illegal – Appellant transferred from post of Chief Medical & Health Officer (CM&HO), a cadre post, to Deputy Controller, which is not included in the amended cadre list of 2012 – Held: Transfer constitutes deputation to a non-cadre post without statutory backing – Reliance on outdated rules misled Single Judge – Transfer order quashed [Paras 15–18, 22].

Deputation – Consent Requirement – Transfer Beyond Cadre Requires Consent – Appellant’s posting to Deputy Controller post amounts to deputation – Held: Deputation necessitates voluntary consent, which was not obtained – Such transfer is invalid in absence of employee’s consent [Paras 19–21].

Stigma in Transfer – Allegations Unsubstantiated – Complaints Largely Closed or Found Motivated – Transfer said to be based on administrative grounds pending inquiries – Held: No credible administrative exigency made out – Transfer found to be indirectly punitive in nature [Paras 4–5, 14].

Judicial Review – Interference in Exceptional Cases – Transfer Impacts Career Prospects – Held: Although courts normally do not interfere in transfer matters, interference justified where service rights are affected and post transferred to is of lower rank and non-cadre – High Court intervention warranted [Paras 23–25].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Transfer Order Set Aside – Special appeal allowed, impugned transfer order and learned Single Judge’s decision set aside – Appellant directed to be reinstated as CM&HO, Udaipur with consequential pecuniary benefits [Paras 26–27].
 

Criminal Law – Discharge - Medical Negligence – Delay in Filing Complaint – Barred by Limitation – Cognizance Not Justified – Complaint filed four years after patient's death alleging medical negligence – Held: Offence under Section 304-A IPC carries a limitation of three years – No satisfactory explanation offered for delay – Trial Court’s assumption of jurisdiction under Section 473 CrPC flawed – Cognizance beyond limitation not sustainable without judicial justification [Paras 9–10].

Criminal Law – Absence of Prima Facie Case – Discharge Allowed – Charges under Sections 418, 420, 304(A), and 120(B) IPC – Held: No allegations of wrongful gain, inducement, or rash/negligent act by petitioner – No material to indicate criminal intent – Referral to another doctor after diagnostic tests does not amount to offence – Charge-sheet silent on petitioner’s role – Discharge warranted [Paras 7, 11–15].

Standard of Criminal Liability in Medical Negligence – No Recklessness or Gross Negligence Attributed – Citing Dr. Suresh Gupta and Jacob Mathew – Held: Mere adverse outcome in treatment not criminal offence – Criminal liability arises only on gross negligence or recklessness – In present case, no such finding exists – Petitioner may be liable in civil law, but not in criminal [Paras 16–17, 20].

Impact of Consumer Forum Orders – Not Binding on Criminal Court – Held: Proceedings before Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission operate on preponderance of evidence, not proof beyond reasonable doubt – Finding of negligence by forum has no bearing on criminal prosecution – Independent judicial scrutiny required for criminal liability [Paras 18–19].

Discharge Under Section 239 CrPC – Judicial Scrutiny Required – Citing Sanjay Kumar Rai – Held: Trial Court erred in mechanical dismissal of discharge petition – Court is not a post office – Required to evaluate material and assess legal sufficiency of allegations – High Court found no ground to proceed to trial [Para 21].

Decision: Criminal Revision Case allowed – Order of Trial Court dated 01/04/2024 set aside – Petitioner discharged from all offences in C.C. No.1304 of 2014 – Pending miscellaneous applications closed [Para 22].
 

Criminal L:aw – Quashing - Negotiable Instruments Act – Director’s Vicarious Liability – Section 141 N.I. Act – Complaint Quashed – Petitioner was arrayed as an accused being one of the directors of the company – Allegations in the complaint only made general averments against the petitioner, whereas specific role and responsibility of managing day-to-day affairs attributed only to the signatory and managing director – Held: Mere designation as director not sufficient to attract vicarious liability under Section 141 – Quashing of complaint proper [Paras 6-10]. 
 
Criminal Proceedings – Quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Absence of Specific Averments – Permissible – Complaint did not contain specific role or responsibility of the petitioner in conduct of business of the company – Petitioner neither signatory to the cheque nor shown as handling financial operations – Held: In view of settled legal principles, permitting trial against petitioner would amount to abuse of process – Complaint quashed qua petitioner [Paras 7-11]. 
 
Judicial Precedent – Reliance on Binding Authority – Vicarious Liability Principles – Applied – Court relied on Supreme Court decisions in National Small Industries Corporation v. Harmeet Singh Paintal, Susela Padmavathy Amma v. Bharti Airtel Ltd., and Gunmala Sales Pvt. Ltd. – Reiterated that specific and clear averments against directors are a sine qua non for fastening vicarious liability – General allegations insufficient [Paras 7-10]. 
 
Decision – Quashing Allowed – Criminal Complaint No. 8437 of 2016 pending before CJM, Mehsana quashed qua petitioner – Proceedings against other accused to continue – Trial to be concluded within six months [Para 11]. 
 

Cheque Dishonour – Section 138 of the NI Act - Limitation for Sending Demand Notice – Exclusion of Date of Intimation – Notice Held Within Time – The Trial Court acquitted the accused holding that the statutory notice under Section 138(b) was sent on the 31st day after intimation of dishonour – Held: The date of receipt of bank intimation must be excluded while computing the 30-day period – On applying the correct legal standard, the notice was issued within time – Trial Court’s view was contrary to binding precedent and hence liable to be set aside [Paras 17-19].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Material Alteration in Cheque – Signature of Accused Validates Correction – Conviction Restored – Trial Court found material alteration in cheque amounting to Rs. 11,70,000/- as fatal to complainant’s case – Held: Correction in amount was duly counter-signed by accused – No plausible explanation or defense was put forth by accused – No rebuttal evidence led – Mere admission by complainant insufficient to rebut presumption under Section 139 NI Act – Finding of material alteration erroneous in law [Paras 20-22].

Cheque Dishonour – Failure to Rebut Presumption – No Reply to Demand Notice – Conviction Warranted – Despite receiving statutory demand notice, the accused did not dispute the liability or issue a reply – No evidence of lack of financial capacity or alternate explanation for issuance of cheque – Appellate Court found presumption under Section 139 unshaken and complainant's case proved – Judgment of acquittal reversed [Para 22].

Decision: Appeal against Acquittal – Principles for Appellate Interference – Trial Court Ignored Material Evidence – When the Trial Court’s findings are based on misapplication of law and disregard of material evidence, the Appellate Court may interfere – Present case warranted interference due to perverse reasoning on both limitation and cheque alteration issues – Judgment of acquittal set aside, appeal allowed [Paras 22-23].