Criminal Law – Bail Application – Conspiracy and Murder – Rejection – Appellants accused of providing finance and dangerous weapons to co-accused for eliminating the deceased (Santhosh Kumar @ Kanuma) – Charged under BNS, Arms Act, and SC/ST Act – Trial court rejected bail application filed under Section 483 of BNSS – High Court affirmed the rejection, noting that providing logistics and finance for murder is as grave as direct involvement – Held: Prima facie materials exist to attract the commission of the alleged offence; bail rejected due to the heinous nature of the crime and likelihood of witness tampering [Paras 1-8].

Criminal Conspiracy – Role of Accused – Financial Aid and Weapon Supply – Charge sheet (Column 17) detailed the specific roles of the accused in a conspiracy to murder the deceased due to prior enmity – Appellants (Accused 12, 13, 14, 16, 18, 19, 20) allegedly provided funds and weapons (long knives/machhu) – Court observed that the materials prima facie establish participation in the conspiracy – The role of funding and arming the perpetrators is grave and disentitles the accused to bail [Paras 6-7, 14].

Bail Jurisprudence – Parity Principle – Non-Applicability – Co-ordinate Bench had granted bail to Accused No. 17 and Accused No. 15 in separate petitions – Appellants sought release on grounds of parity – Court held that despite the release of co-accused, the specific roles of the present appellants in facilitating the crime warranted detention – Parity cannot be the sole ground when prima facie material points to involvement in a heinous offence punishable with death or life imprisonment [Para 8].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Order of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Davanagere confirmed – Bail rejected.

Criminal Law – Quashing of Proceedings – POCSO and IPC Charges – Applicant No. 1 accused of kidnapping and sexual offences against a minor under IPC and POCSO Act – Victim’s statements under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC indicated consensual relationship and denial of sexual intercourse – Medical examination showed no injury – Victim declared major as per medical opinion – Marriage between applicant and victim solemnized with birth of a child – Parties living peacefully for several years – Mediation resulted in formal compromise – Held: In view of subsequent developments and precedent from Apex Court, continuation of trial would be futile and detrimental to settled family life [Paras 3–8, 15–16, 21–23] –

Juvenile Victim – Determination of Age – Victim initially treated as minor under POCSO Act – Medical examination dated 02.02.2017 assessed victim’s age as 18 years – Court held that POCSO charges could not sustain in light of victim’s age, her own statement, and later marriage [Paras 4–5] –

Compromise – Effect on Heinous Offences – Though offences under POCSO Act are serious and generally not compoundable – Supreme Court in multiple cases (e.g., K. Dhandapani, Mahesh Mukund Patel, Dasari Srikant) quashed similar cases in light of marital relationship and long-settled family – Court noted criminality, if any, now stands washed off – Continuation of prosecution would only disrupt settled family unit and result in abuse of process [Paras 14–20] –

Judicial Precedents – Binding Value of Subsequent Marriage – Cited and followed Supreme Court decisions in K. Dhandapani, Mafat Lal, Shriram Urav, Mahesh Mukund Patel, Dasari Srikant – Held: Present case on identical footing – Prosecutrix now wife of accused with a child – Marriage not in dispute – Peaceful cohabitation supported by informant’s consent and mediation record [Paras 14, 16, 21] –

Decision: Application allowed – Proceedings in Sessions Trial No. 187 of 2017 quashed including Chargesheet dated 16.03.2017 and Summoning Order dated 23.03.2017 – No order as to costs [Paras 22–24].

Civil Law – Rejection of Plaint – Partition Suit – Cause of Action Disclosed – Appellant sought partition of ancestral and joint family properties – Trial court rejected plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC citing prior consent decree, limitation, and lack of co-ownership – Held: Plaint discloses cause of action – Questions of limitation, title, and effect of prior consent decree are mixed questions of fact and law requiring trial – Plaint cannot be rejected at threshold [Paras 13–16, 20, 25–27]

Civil Procedure – Consent Decree – Misrepresentation – Order XXIII Rule 3 – Bar under Rule 3A – Plaintiff claimed signatures on compromise were obtained by misrepresentation – Presence not recorded in decree – Plaintiff not recorded as party to earlier suit – Held: Whether plaintiff was party to decree or her rights extinguished by it is a triable issue – Bar under Rule 3A CPC applies only to parties to compromise decree – Not adjudicable at preliminary stage under Order VII Rule 11 [Paras 17, 21–22]

Limitation – Accrual of Cause of Action – Consent Decree and Subsequent Denial – Plaintiff claimed her rights were denied after mother’s death and refusal by brother to partition properties unless she relinquished claim over other property – Held: Accrual of cause of action is a disputed factual issue – Cannot be conclusively decided at Order VII Rule 11 stage – Limitation defence to be adjudicated during trial [Paras 21, 25]

Family Law – Coparcenary Property – Hindu Joint Family – Plaintiff's Right to Partition – Plaintiff, daughter, claimed right in ancestral and coparcenary property – Father supported her claim – Held: Whether HUF exists and plaintiff is entitled to share are triable issues – Mere absence of detail about HUF or co-ownership in title documents is not ground for rejecting plaint – Rejection of suit at threshold unwarranted [Paras 19–20]

Civil Procedure – Rejection of Plaint – Scope – Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Scope limited to plaint and annexed documents – Validity of consent decree, extent of partition rights, and alleged misrepresentation must be adjudicated at trial – Court cannot reject plaint based on defence pleadings or external documents – Rejection set aside and suit restored [Paras 13, 17, 26–29]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned judgment dated 07/05/2024 set aside – Plaintiff’s suit for partition (CS(OS) 90/2017) restored to original number – Parties directed to appear before Roster Bench on 02/12/2025.

Election Law – Rejection of Election Petition – Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Application for rejection of election petition on grounds of vague pleadings and lack of cause of action – Allegations included concealment of assets in Form 26, improper acceptance of nomination, and non-compliance with mandatory provisions regarding EVM/VVPAT use – Held: Petition discloses material facts and poses triable issues – Rejection under Order VII Rule 11 not warranted [Paras 1, 30–34].

Material Facts – Concealment of Assets – Petitioner alleged suppression of property and liabilities by the returned candidate in election affidavit – Revenue documents annexed – Held: Sufficient disclosure of material facts pleaded – Applicant's explanations and defences are matters of trial, not grounds for rejection at the threshold [Paras 2, 17, 30–31].

Nomination Challenge – Improper Rejection of Objection – Petitioner alleged her objection to the nomination was wrongly rejected by Returning Officer on erroneous grounds – Documents regarding objection annexed – Held: Pleadings raise substantial triable issue under Section 100(1)(d)(i) – Not liable to be struck down at threshold [Paras 17–18, 31].

EVM/VVPAT Irregularities – Non-compliance with Section 61A – Petitioner alleged absence of permanent identification on EVMs and denial of information under Rule 93 – Forensic examination sought – Held: Allegations sufficiently pleaded to warrant trial under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the RP Act [Paras 18, 32–33].

Verification and Form Compliance – Petition accompanied with Form 25 and verified per Section 83 – Held: No defect in verification or affidavit that renders petition liable to rejection [Para 19].

Cause of Action – Pleadings Disclose Triable Issues – Petition sets out basic and primary facts to challenge election under statutory grounds – Distinguished from cases where pleadings were vague or defective – Petition not liable to rejection at the threshold [Paras 29–34].

Decision: Application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC dismissed – Election Petition to proceed to trial.

Criminal Law – Culpable Homicide – Attempt to Commit – Section 308 IPC – Appellant convicted for assaulting victim with blunt weapons along with others, causing grievous injuries – Conviction upheld based on testimony of injured eyewitness and corroborative medical evidence – Appellant did not challenge conviction on merits – Appeal limited to sentence modification [Paras 3, 7–8].

Probation – Release on Good Conduct – Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act – Appellant aged 50 years, employed as a security guard, with peaceful conduct and no criminal history – Social Investigation Report found favourable – Incident occurred 24 years ago and sentence served partially – Held: Appellant deserves benefit of probation – Substantive sentence modified – Appellant directed to furnish bond for one year with conditions of good behaviour [Paras 9–13].

Judicial Discretion – Sentencing – Court emphasised reformative approach – Referenced Supreme Court precedents in Lakhvir Singh v. State of Punjab and Chellammal v. State, reiterating duty of courts to consider probation where conditions under Section 4(1) are met – Held: Courts must balance nature of offence with potential for reformation [Paras 11–12].

Decision: Conviction maintained – Sentence of imprisonment set aside – Appellant released on probation for one year with surety and bond of ₹10,000 – Fine maintained – Appeal partly allowed [Para 13].

Banking Law – Debit Freezing of Accounts – Suspicious Transactions – No Law Enforcement Requisition – Banks froze petitioners' accounts based on internal suspicion of large-value transactions inconsistent with declared income profiles – No directions received from law enforcement or court for account freezing – Held: Though RBI directions do not explicitly authorize debit freezing without law enforcement requisition, such power is implied in light of Section 35A of the Banking Regulation Act and duties under PMLA – Banks can temporarily freeze accounts for a reasonable period (up to 3 months) to prevent dissipation of suspected illicit funds and allow time for investigation [Paras 1, 14–16, 25–26].

Cybercrime – Preventive Banking Measures – Role of RBI and Banks – Need for SOP – Rapid rise in financial cyber fraud and misuse of bank accounts for illegal transactions noted – Court found RBI’s current circulars and directions inadequate in addressing freezing protocol – RBI criticized for casual affidavit disclaiming responsibility – Directed to frame Standard Operating Procedure defining scope and procedure for account freezing by banks in cases of suspected cybercrime [Paras 14, 24, 27(2)].

Constitutional Law – Right to Property – Article 300A – Petitioners challenged prolonged freezing of accounts (over one year) as violation of property rights – Though freezing without requisition prima facie unlawful, petitioners failed to provide credible explanation for high-volume transactions not matching declared income – Held: In absence of satisfactory justification, bank action not arbitrary – Court issued future guidelines but declined to grant immediate relief [Paras 5–6, 15–16, 20–21].

Mandated Eight-Point Freezing Protocol:

Banks can impose a debit freeze without prior notice if there is reasonable suspicion of illegal transactions.

On the same day, the bank must send a communication to the account holder via SMS and registered post, clearly stating the reason for suspicion.

The bank must also inform the jurisdictional cybercrime police and other relevant authorities under RBI guidelines and ensure receipt of such communication.

The account holder has the right to respond with a written explanation to the bank. Upon receiving it, the bank must evaluate it within one week and communicate its decision.

If no explanation is received, or if the bank finds it unsatisfactory, the freeze can continue only for a maximum of three months, starting from the date of communication to law enforcement authorities.

If, within this three-month window, the bank receives no formal direction from the police, cybercrime cell, or court, it must lift the freeze.

After lifting the freeze, the bank may allow the account to function normally or demand its closure, depending on continued risk.

The account holder has a legal remedy and can challenge the bank’s decision if the explanation is rejected.

RBI Guidelines – KYC/AML Circulars – Interpretation of “Appropriate Action” – Circulars cited (Master Direction on KYC, 2016 and others) mandate monitoring of suspicious transactions and reporting to FIU-IND but do not expressly empower banks to freeze accounts – Court interpreted “appropriate action” under Clause 59 to include temporary freezing where justified, in absence of better-defined guidance – However, freezing must follow safeguards including prompt notice to customer and notification to police/cybercrime units [Paras 18–20, 26–27].

Administrative Law – Court-Issued Guidelines in Policy Vacuum – In absence of statutory framework or RBI SOP on freezing accounts for suspicious activity, High Court issued eight-point interim guideline authorizing debit freeze by banks for up to three months, subject to procedural safeguards, until RBI prescribes formal directions [Para 27].

Decision: Writ petitions disposed – Banks directed to follow eight-point guideline laid down by the Court regarding freezing of suspicious accounts – RBI directed to formulate a Standard Operating Procedure on freezing of accounts in cases of suspected financial cybercrime – Petitioners not granted immediate relief as they failed to satisfactorily explain high-value transactions [Paras 27–28].

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 138 – Dishonour of Cheque – Conviction – Revisional Jurisdiction – Petitioners convicted for dishonour of cheque amounting to Rs. 25,00,000/- issued as partial refund for unfulfilled property sale agreement – Defence pleaded coercion in obtaining the cheque and refund agreement, and denied receipt of original consideration – Held: Mere lodging of a police complaint by the accused alleging coercion, without further corroborative evidence or legal steps to challenge the agreement, is insufficient to displace statutory presumption – Existence of signed Refund Agreement acknowledging liability of Rs. 1,10,00,000/- weakens defence – Failure to produce financial records to disprove receipt of consideration renders the defence of "no liability" improbable – Concurrent findings of guilt by Trial Court and Revisional Court upheld [Paras 16-19, 24].

Evidence – Statutory Presumption – Rebuttal – Minor Discrepancies – Petitioners argued that the Complainant failed to specify the exact place of signing/handing over the cheque during cross-examination – Held: Once the issuance of the cheque and signature are admitted, technical omissions regarding the place of execution do not constitute material contradictions – Such minor discrepancies cannot defeat the prosecution case when the accused fails to prove their defence affirmatively [Paras 20-21].

Decision: Revisional application dismissed – Judgment and order of conviction and sentence affirmed – Petitioner nos. 2 and 3 directed to surrender within 15 days to serve the sentence – Stay prayer rejected.

Property Law – Partition Suit – Effect of Previous Litigation – Interpretation of Decree – Appellants (Plaintiffs) sought partition of joint property claiming half share – Respondent (Defendant) contended that Appellants lost rights due to failure to pay Rs. 5,300/- as ordered in a previous Second Appeal (S.A. No. 641 of 1988) – First Appellate Court dismissed the partition suit on grounds of non-compliance with the previous decree – High Court held that the previous decree only created a charge on the property for the amount due and did not extinguish the Appellants' title – The previous judgment clarified that title would not pass without a registered relinquishment deed, which was never executed – Held: First Appellate Court misconstrued the clauses of the earlier decree; the remedy for Respondent was execution/auction, not denial of partition – Plaintiffs entitled to partition [Paras 15-18, 20].

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 100 – Second Appeal – Scope of Interference – Oral Agreement – Respondent claimed an oral agreement existed wherein Appellants agreed to sell their share for Rs. 1,00,000/- – No evidence produced to substantiate the oral agreement – High Court found that the First Appellate Court erred by reversing the Trial Court’s decree without proper appreciation of evidence – High Court noted that Appellants had eventually deposited the requisite amount with the Trial Court – Findings of the First Appellate Court were vitiated by misinterpretation of documentary evidence (Ex. A-1) – Interference under Section 100 CPC justified when findings are perverse or based on misconstruction of documents [Paras 14, 19-20].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court set aside – Judgment and decree of the Trial Court (decreeing the suit for partition) restored – Each party to bear their own costs.

Service Law – Displacement Quota – Employment – G.O.Ms.No.98 – Delay in Application – Writ petitioner, son of displaced person from Dachuru village, filed application for employment 10 years after displacement – Rejection of claim by authorities citing limitation of one year under G.O.Ms.No.98 – Held: One-year limitation cannot be strictly enforced in light of settled precedents and State policy – Authorities directed to include petitioner in the first seniority list based on eligibility – Petitioner entitled to appointment as per turn under displacement quota [Paras 4, 8(I), 10, 11].

Administrative Law – Seniority List – Violation of Natural Justice – Second seniority list of 106 displaced persons was set aside by the learned single Judge without impleading affected parties – Held: Order is unsustainable being passed in violation of principles of natural justice – Affected candidates were not heard – Order set aside – Government Memo restoring second seniority list reinstated – Beneficiaries of the second list directed to be provided employment as per their turn [Paras 6, 8(III), 10(i)].

Displacement & Rehabilitation – Seniority Classification – Two-tier seniority system maintained for displaced persons based on actual submergence and displacement – Dachuru village formed part of the first list where water impoundment and displacement occurred in 2005 – Petitioner wrongly sought inclusion in second list instead of first – Court clarified distinction between lists and corrected placement accordingly [Paras 5, 8(II), 11].

Precedent – Relaxation of Time Limit – High Court reaffirmed position laid down in earlier judgment State of Andhra Pradesh v. Rajola Jagannadha Reddy, W.A. No. 356 of 2023 – One-year application time under G.O.Ms.No.98 is not mandatory – Policy aims at livelihood protection and must be interpreted liberally for displaced families [Paras 8(I)(c)-(d)].

Decision:

Writ Appeal No. 315 of 2024 allowed – Order of single Judge dated 05.01.2023 set aside – Government Memo dated 26.12.2014 approving second seniority list restored – Authorities directed to provide employment to appellants as per their turn under G.O.Ms.No.98 [Para 10(i)-(ii)].

Writ Appeal No. 1289 of 2023 disposed of – Authorities directed to include writ petitioner’s name in the first seniority list, not the second – Employment to be provided as per eligibility and turn under displacement quota [Para 11].