Partition - Injunction – Concurrent Findings Set Aside – Right of Passage Disputed – High Court reversed concurrent findings of both courts below that had granted injunction to plaintiffs based on oral partition and site plan – Held: Dimensions in site plan not aligned with memorandum of oral partition, showing excess area in plaintiffs’ possession – Plaintiffs’ claim factually inaccurate – Suit for injunction not maintainable on flawed factual foundation [Paras 11-13].

Memorandum of Partition – Admissibility of Unregistered Document – Admitted for Evidentiary Purpose – Memorandum of oral partition (Ex.P2) held admissible as it did not itself effect partition but recorded a past oral agreement – No registration required under Registration Act for such memorandums – Lower courts rightly relied on it for evidentiary purposes [Paras 11, 11.1].

Non-joinder of Parties – Not Fatal – Co-sharers not Necessary in Injunction Suit Post Partition – Plea of non-joinder of necessary parties rejected – Court held that in injunction suits post-partition, only those interfering with possession are necessary parties – No illegality in non-impleadment of other co-sharers [Para 11.1].

Measurement Discrepancy – Site Plan v. Partition Deed – Courts Below Erred – Plaintiffs’ own documents revealed a mismatch in measurements between site plan (Ex.P1) and memorandum of partition (Ex.P2) – Alleged encroachment by defendants not substantiated – High Court held oral testimonies cannot override documentary evidence – Trial court findings termed perverse [Paras 12-13.2].

Final Decision – Appeal Allowed – Lower Court Decrees Vacated – High Court allowed appeal filed by defendants, set aside judgments of both Trial and First Appellate Court – Suit for injunction dismissed – All pending applications also disposed of [Para 13.2-14].

Sexual Assault by BSF Personnel – Conviction by GSFC under POCSO – Challenge to disciplinary proceedings and sentence of dismissal with imprisonment – Held: No procedural violation warranting interference – Petition dismissed – Sections 46 BSF Act, 10 & 29 POCSO Act applied [Paras 12-42].

Court-Martial Proceedings – Scope of Judicial Review – Article 226 of the Constitution – Interference with findings of GSFC can only occur in cases of perversity, illegality or gross violation of natural justice – Court does not sit in appeal over factual findings of GSFC – Findings of guilt and sentence of rigorous imprisonment and dismissal upheld as legally sustainable – No exceptional circumstances found to invoke constitutional jurisdiction – Petition rightly dismissed [Paras 33-34, 41].

Preliminary Inquiry – Rule 45B(1)(c) BSF Rules – Non-compliance with opportunity to cross-examine witnesses during Recording of Evidence (RoE) not fatal – Petitioner was afforded full opportunity to cross-examine witnesses at trial stage before GSFC – Relying on SC judgment in Union of India v Dev Singh – Irregularities at pre-trial stage do not vitiate proceedings if trial itself is fair and compliant with procedural law [Paras 12-15, 35].

POSH Act – Inapplicability in BSF Disciplinary Proceedings – Complaint mechanism under POSH Act not invoked by child victim or her guardians – Victim was minor girl under training and not an employee at workplace – BSF’s decision to proceed under its internal disciplinary mechanism under BSF Act not found to be improper – No prejudice shown by petitioner due to non-referral to Internal Committee – Rights under POSH Act not enforceable at the instance of accused [Paras 16-18, 26-27, 36].

Punishment – Combined Sentence of Dismissal and Imprisonment – Validity under BSF Act – No statutory bar to combining dismissal from service under Section 48(1)(c) with imprisonment – Section 50 permits such combination and Section 51 reinforces this position – Petitioner’s plea of illegality in sentencing rejected – GSFC acted within its authority under law [Paras 23, 37].

Evidence – Testimony of Minor Victim – Reliable and sufficient – Victim’s version remained consistent and credible – Direct testimony of victim not hearsay and not contradicted in cross-examination – Non-examination of hostel roommate and mother not fatal – No adverse inference warranted under Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act – Conviction supported by direct and corroborative evidence – Minor inconsistencies do not affect core credibility – Presumption under Section 29 of POCSO applies once foundational facts established – Victim’s statement sufficient for sustaining conviction [Paras 21-22, 38-40].

Procedural Compliance – No FIR or Medical Examination – Not mandatory under BSF disciplinary framework – Proceedings under BSF Act can commence without registration of FIR – Medical examination not essential where victim’s testimony is credible and offence does not involve penetrative sexual assault – Defence’s reliance on procedural lapses misplaced – GSFC proceedings in conformity with statutory provisions [Paras 19-20, 30].

Reliefs Sought – Reinstatement and Quashing of Sentence – Dismissed – Petitioner failed to establish violation of mandatory rules or miscarriage of justice – GSFC trial conducted lawfully – Direct evidence established guilt – No ground for interference in conviction or sentence – Plea of leniency also rejected considering seriousness of offence and minor age of victim [Paras 24-25, 41-42].

Criminal Law - Possession Dispute – Section 145 CrPC – Magistrate’s Order Restored – Dispute over possession of land between developer and private parties – Magistrate, relying on documents and overt acts, held applicants were in settled possession as on 22.04.2017 and unlawfully dispossessed by police action – Sessions Court set aside order applying strict evidentiary standards – Supreme Court/High Court reiterated preventive nature of Section 145 CrPC, held Sessions Court exceeded revisional powers – Magistrate’s order restored; applicants entitled to possession through Court Receiver [Paras 23–64].

Criminal Procedure – Section 145 CrPC – Scope and Purpose – Proceedings preventive and summary in nature – Object is to maintain law and order by protecting actual possession, not to adjudicate ownership or title – Magistrate must decide who was in possession on relevant date or whether forcible dispossession occurred within two months prior – Strict rules of Evidence Act inapplicable [Paras 23–27].

Possession – Proof through Acts of Control – Applicants established possession by chain of documents: Deed of Assignment-cum-Surrender (10.12.2016), letter of possession (11.04.2017), registered conveyances, bank payments with TDS deduction, and corroboration by witnesses – Further proved by overt acts: erection of cabins, fencing, iron boards, engagement of security guards, and payment of taxes/electricity bills – Held sufficient to establish settled possession [Paras 30–34].

Evidentiary Standards – Preventive Proceedings – Magistrate entitled to rely on probative material including unregistered documents when showing possession – Sessions Court erred in discarding documents on technical grounds of registration and by applying strict rules of proof as in civil trial – Misapplied principle of Bareilly Electricity Supply Co. – [Paras 37–44, 50–52].

Forcible Dispossession – Police Action – Evidence showed applicants’ structures and boards at site on 22.04.2017 – Panchanama and removal of cabins/fencing by police indicated dispossession – Magistrate correctly held applicants in possession and unlawfully ousted – [Paras 34–36].

Preliminary Order – Requirement under Section 145 – Absence of separate preliminary order not fatal where High Court itself directed inquiry under Section 145, later confirmed by Supreme Court – Substantive compliance sufficient [Paras 53–58].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Limits – Sessions Court exceeded jurisdiction by reappreciating entire evidence and substituting findings of fact – Interference only permissible for jurisdictional or glaring legal errors – Magistrate’s findings based on probative material restored [Paras 59–61].

Decision – Revision Allowed – Order of Sessions Court dated 04.08.2022 set aside – Order of Magistrate dated 21.12.2019 restored – Court Receiver directed to hand over physical possession to applicants after charges paid, with police assistance if necessary [Paras 62–64].

Civil Appeal – Money suit on promissory note – Presumption under Section 118 NI Act upheld – Defendant failed to rebut presumption – Appeal dismissed, trial court decree confirmed.

Promissory Note – Execution and Consideration – Ex.A.1 promissory note signed, thumb-marked, and stamped by defendant – Attesting witness (P.W.2) and scribe (P.W.3) supported plaintiff’s case – Defendant admitted signature but failed to prove absence of consideration – Presumption under Section 118(a) NI Act stands unrebutted – Plaintiff proved lending of ₹6,77,500 under Ex.A.1 [Paras 17–19, 25–28].

Pleadings – Capacity to Lend – Defendant’s plea of plaintiff’s incapacity to lend rejected – No pleading in written statement nor evidence adduced – Mere assertion at appellate stage not maintainable [Para 20].

Burden of Proof – Principle reiterated – Plaintiff discharged initial burden by proving execution; onus shifted to defendant to disprove consideration – Defendant failed to bring forth probable circumstances to rebut presumption [Paras 21–24].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Decree in O.S. No. 74 of 2008 dated 09.02.2011 confirmed – Interim orders vacated, pending petitions closed – No costs [Paras 29–30].

Civil Procedure – Permanent Injunction – Ownership and Possession Dispute – Regular Second Appeal against concurrent findings of fact – Plaintiffs claimed ownership of plots 57, 58, 59 through sale deeds and sought injunction against defendants’ alleged attempt to carve passage – Trial Court dismissed suit, First Appellate Court partly decreed only portion BCEX based on defendants’ admission – High Court upheld concurrent findings – Held: Plaintiffs failed to establish title and possession over entire claimed land – No interference warranted under Section 100 CPC [Paras 3–7, 13–20].

Evidence – Parchi Allotments and Site Plans – Plaintiffs relied on allotment parchis and private site plan (Ex.P-2) without demarcation – Court held parchis showed only area, no boundaries/dimensions – Failure to link claimed land to purchased plots weakened case – Local Commissioner’s site plan (Ex.D-7) prepared in presence of parties accepted as reliable – Plaintiffs’ plan rejected [Paras 9–14].

Admissions – Effect of Witness Statements – Plaintiffs’ own witnesses admitted existence of street and boundary walls between properties – Appellate Court relied on such admissions to hold defendants’ possession lawful – Such admissions corroborated Local Commissioner’s findings – Appeal dismissed [Paras 15–16].

Scope of Second Appeal – Concurrent Findings of Fact – High Court reiterated limited scope of interference under Section 100 CPC – Findings based on reliable evidence including Local Commissioner’s report and witness admissions – No perversity or substantial question of law arose – Appeal dismissed [Paras 18–20].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Judgment of First Appellate Court dated 16.11.1999 affirmed – Permanent injunction limited to portion BCEX – Plaintiffs’ claim over rest of land rejected – No order as to costs [Para 20].

Loan Fraud – Discharge Petitions – Criminal Conspiracy and Abuse of Official Position – Discharge Rejected – Prima facie material supports framing of charges under IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act [Paras 5-7, 14-16, 21-22, 33-35].

Discharge Petition – Criminal Conspiracy – Bank Loan Fraud – Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act – Discharge Denied – The 2nd and 5th accused challenged dismissal of their discharge petitions in a case involving fraudulent loans sanctioned through conspiracy with bank officials to cheat State Bank of Travancore – The Court held that there was prima facie material including witness statements, cheques, and banking transactions indicating the accused’s role in the conspiracy – The discharge petitions were rightly dismissed [Paras 5-7, 14-16, 21-22].

Retrospective Application – Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 – Earlier Offences Under Section 13(1)(d) Continue – Held: The amended provisions do not apply retrospectively to offences committed before 26.07.2018 – Section 6 of the General Clauses Act applies – Prosecution of prior offences under unamended Act valid [Paras 18-24, 27-30].

Mens Rea – Criminal Misconduct Under Section 13(1)(d)(iii) – Not Always Required – Legislative History Indicates Amendment Aimed at Excluding Acts Without Public Interest – But Pre-Amendment Offences Remain Punishable – Court rejected contention that amended provision should apply to pending proceedings [Paras 28-32].

Circumstantial Evidence – Prima Facie Material Sufficient to Frame Charges – In Conspiracy and Economic Offences, Direct Evidence Often Absent – Reliance Placed on Bank Documents, Witness Statements, and Transaction Trails – Court held that sufficiency of material warrants trial [Paras 14, 16, 20, 22].

Decision:

The Court dismissed both criminal revision petitions, upheld the Special Court’s refusal to discharge the 2nd and 5th accused, and held that the amended provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, do not affect pending prosecutions for offences committed prior to 26.07.2018 – Proceedings to continue under the unamended provisions [Paras 33-35].

Motor Accident Claim – Appeal by Insurer – Award Sustained – Allegation of contributory negligence by deceased found baseless – Valid driving license not proved by Insurance Company – No breach of policy conditions established – Tribunal's award upheld [Paras 5–13].

Evidence – Driving Licence – Onus on Insurance Company – Held: Insurance Company failed to prove that driver held no valid driving licence – No investigation done or witness summoned to substantiate defence under Section 149(2) – Plea rightly rejected by Tribunal [Paras 6–10].

Contributory Negligence – No Cogent Evidence – Mere oral allegations without FIR or investigation report not sufficient – Tribunal rightly held that accident occurred solely due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle – No basis to interfere [Para 11].

Appeal Procedure – Deficiency in Appellate Grounds – Appellate court notes absence of specific evidence or legal error in Trial Court findings – No perversity or illegality demonstrated – Appeal found meritless [Paras 12–13].

Final Decision – FAO Dismissed – Award of compensation affirmed – No interference warranted – Insurance Company failed to discharge burden under law [Para 13].

Interim Injunction – Suit for Specific Performance – Material Misstatement – Injunction Set Aside – The plaintiff/respondent filed a suit seeking specific performance of a property sale agreement and obtained interim injunction restraining alienation of the property – Petitioner challenged the orders under Article 227, alleging misrepresentation in pleadings regarding extension of time for performance – The plaintiff admitted in evidence that he had sent the message extending the date, contrary to the claim in the plaint that it was sent by the defendant – Held: Interim orders based on misstatement of material facts cannot be sustained – Interim injunction quashed – Orders of the trial and appellate courts set aside [Paras 11–11.5].

Anticipatory Bail – Forged Court Order – BNSS S.215 and Territorial Jurisdiction – Application Rejected – Applicant sought pre-arrest bail in FIR alleging fabrication of a JMFC Pune order used to secure advantage in prior proceedings – Held: Vimantal PS could register/investigate despite territorial objections; S.215 BNSS inapplicable as the forged “order” was never part of JMFC court record (not custodia legis); distinct causes of action permit parallel FIRs – Gravity of offence and potential impact on investigation militate against anticipatory bail [Paras 9–11, 12–15, 17–18].

Territorial Jurisdiction – FIR registration and investigation not confined at threshold to strict territorial bounds – Police cannot refuse to register; if post-investigation another station has jurisdiction, FIR may be forwarded – Applied Satvinder Kaur – Objection to Vimantal PS rejected [Para 9–10].

BNSS S.215 (akin to CrPC S.195) – When bar applies – Offences “in relation to” documents produced/given in evidence in court (custodia legis) – Here, the so-called JMFC “order” was not on JMFC record; it was a fabricated document later shown in High Court – Bar inapplicable – Iqbal Singh Marwah followed [Para 11].

Multiplicity of FIRs – Registry-lodged FIR at Azad Maidan PS (production before High Court) and Vimantal PS FIR (preparation/use intended to derail C.R. 142/2022) – Overlapping facts but distinct causes of action – Separate investigation permissible; possible amalgamation later left open – Objection that “same offence – two FIRs” rejected [Paras 12–13].

Evidentiary Context – JMFC Pune’s order on Exh. 88 clarifying no such order dated 13/12/2024 exists; margin on final-report page was blank – Indicates fabrication; forged text suggested acceptance of S.169 CrPC report to cancel bonds – Demonstrates intent to terminate proceedings in C.R. 142/2022 [Paras 7(v)–(vi), 7(i)–(iii)].

Gravity and Custodial Interrogation – Forgery of court order strikes at administration of justice; anticipatory bail is exceptional – Risk of hampering investigation/tampering with evidence – Supreme Court guidance in Nikita Jagganath Shetty applied – Custodial interrogation warranted [Paras 14–15].

Decision – Anticipatory Bail Application rejected; interim application(s), if any, disposed of as infructuous [Paras 17–19].