Criminal Law – Discharge – Allegation of Fraudulent Property Valuation – 5th accused challenged rejection of discharge plea, contending that his property valuation was genuine and that disparity with subsequent valuations was not sufficient to impute criminal intent – Held: Significant discrepancy in valuations shown by independent valuers and bank-commissioned reports raises triable issues – Discharge cannot be granted at the threshold when prima facie case exists and evidence requires examination at trial [Paras 4, 5, 8, 9, 13].

Prevention of Corruption Act – Section 13(1)(d) – Conspiracy and Abuse of Position – Accused bank officials allegedly colluded with petitioner valuer to overvalue properties and facilitate fraudulent loan sanctions – Held: Overvaluation forming basis for unlawful gain and wrongful loss is sufficient for attracting provisions of the PC Act – Issue of conspiracy and abuse of office must be tested during trial and not at discharge stage [Paras 3, 4, 9].

Evidentiary Value of Valuation Reports – Competency and Scientific Validity – Petitioner relied on earlier decisions to argue that unless valuation methodology is proven scientific, criminal liability cannot follow – Held: Comparative valuation is not conclusive at discharge stage – Whether overvaluation was deliberate and fraudulent is a factual issue requiring trial – Court disagreed with earlier precedents to the extent they discouraged trial on valuation-based fraud allegations [Paras 7, 9, 13].

Judicial Interference at Pre-trial Stage – Parameters for Discharge – When prosecution materials disclose plausible involvement in criminal conspiracy and financial fraud, High Court cannot usurp trial function by evaluating credibility or sufficiency of evidence – Held: Discharge rightly denied by Special Court and revision dismissed – Trial to proceed expeditiously [Paras 9, 13, 14].

Decision: Criminal revision petition dismissed – Discharge rightly refused by Special Court – Trial to be completed within three months – Observations made in order to have no bearing on merits during trial.

Administrative Law – Re-engagement of Self Help Group – Disengagement Order Quashed – Petitioner (Maa Santoshi WSHG) was earlier disengaged without being given a hearing – High Court quashed the disengagement and directed fresh inquiry – Inquiry Committee found the Petitioner compliant and recommended re-engagement – Director deferred action citing subsisting contract with another WSHG – Held: Petitioner to be re-engaged post-expiry of contract period with current service provider, subject to compliance with formalities and government guidelines [Paras 2, 5, 9, 12, 14]

Contract Law – No Vested Right from Interim Arrangements – Maa Chandi WSHG received 7 Gram Panchayats only as a stop-gap measure following disengagement of the Petitioner – Court held that this did not amount to a vested or permanent right – Right to supply THR restricted to duration of contract expiring 31.12.2025 [Paras 10–12]

Natural Justice – Principles Violated in Initial Disengagement – Disengagement of Maa Santoshi WSHG was without notice or hearing – Court found this contrary to natural justice and ordered fresh inquiry – Based on favourable report, re-engagement found justified [Paras 4, 7, 9(v), 10, 14]

Eligibility Criteria – Requirement of Valid Food License – Possession of a food license is mandatory under the scheme guidelines – Court noted Petitioner claims to hold a valid license till 2026 – Re-engagement conditional upon compliance with all formalities including valid license [Paras 8, 13–14]

Decision: Writ Petitions disposed of – Maa Santoshi WSHG directed to be re-engaged only after the expiry of current contract on 31.12.2025 – All interim orders stand vacated [Paras 14–15]

Criminal Law – Quashing - Cheating – Specific Performance Transaction – Dishonest Intention at Inception – Quash Rejected – Respondent No.3 alleged payment of ₹14 crores to petitioner for purchase of Jubilee Hills property based on representation that original owner would execute sale deed in her favour – Petitioner instead got property registered in name of his own company and later mortgaged it to APSFC without disclosure – High Court held allegations prima facie disclose dishonest intention from inception attracting Sections 415 & 420 IPC – Pendency of civil suits does not bar criminal prosecution where ingredients of offence are made out – Quashing under Section 482 CrPC declined [Paras 6–12, 17–22].

Civil vs. Criminal Proceedings – Mere Civil Dispute Not Ground for Quashing – Distinction Maintained – Court held that pendency of O.S. No.947/2015 and other civil suits involving same property does not dilute criminal allegations – Civil and criminal remedies can proceed simultaneously – Criminal law not to be stifled merely due to civil profile of transaction – Allegations in complaint and material collected during investigation distinct from civil pleadings [Paras 7–11, 19–20].

Vicarious Liability – Company Not Arraigned – No Bar – Dishonest Conduct Personally Attributed – Petitioner argued that property stood in name of M/s Sandhya Hotels Pvt. Ltd. and company not arrayed as accused—High Court held that complaint specifically attributes deceitful conduct and inducement personally to petitioner – Nature of allegations go beyond vicarious liability and disclose direct involvement – Principles in S.K. Alagh and Sunil Bharti Mittal inapplicable [Paras 12–14, 17].

Quashing – Stage of Trial – Defence Evidence Not Considerable – Trial already commenced with PW-1 examined – Disputed questions of fact (including cancellation deed and admissions in civil suit evidence) require full trial – Accused cannot rely on defence material in Section 482 proceedings – Court restricted to complaint, charge-sheet and prosecution material only [Paras 16, 18].

Abuse of Process – Test Not Satisfied – Cheating Allegations Specific and Consistent – Court held case not falling under rarest category warranting interference under Section 482 CrPC – Complaint, witness statements and charge-sheet disclose clear criminality beyond mere breach of contract – No abuse of process demonstrated [Paras 21–22].

Decision: Criminal Petition dismissed – Proceedings in C.C. No.307/2016 to continue – However, petitioner’s personal appearance before trial court dispensed with except when specifically required – Trial Court directed to proceed uninfluenced by observations in the order.

Criminal Law – Quashing of Process – Extortion and Obscenity – Petitioners challenged the issuance of process under Sections 384 and 294 IPC – Magistrate had issued process after ordering a police inquiry under Section 202 CrPC – Revisional Court upheld the order – High Court held that the complaint did not establish essential ingredients of extortion such as intentional inducement to deliver property and actual delivery – Further held that mere abusive language without proof of obscenity or public annoyance does not attract Section 294 IPC – Orders issuing process under Sections 384 and 294 IPC quashed [Paras 8–11]

Criminal Law – Prima Facie Case – Sections 323 and 448 IPC – Allegations of physical assault and unlawful entry into complainant’s house during confrontation held sufficient to make out a prima facie case – Process upheld under Sections 323 and 448 IPC [Para 12]

Magistrate’s Duty – Issuance of Process – Court reiterated that before issuing process, the Magistrate must evaluate whether the complaint discloses the basic ingredients of alleged offences – Merely summarising allegations without judicial scrutiny amounts to non-application of mind – Revisional Court also failed to correct the error [Para 11]

Decision: Petition partly allowed – Orders issuing process under Sections 384 and 294 IPC quashed – Process upheld under Sections 323 and 448 IPC – Rule made absolute accordingly.

Constitutional Law – Right to Travel Abroad – Article 21 – Denial of No Objection Certificate to government employee on ground of pending disciplinary proceedings – Held: Right to travel abroad is a facet of personal liberty protected under Article 21 – Executive instruction dated 28.01.2014 cannot override fundamental rights – Rejection of NOC amounts to unconstitutional restriction on liberty – Impugned orders quashed [Paras 10–14, 18–19]

Service Law – Government Employee – Pending Departmental Proceedings – Presumption of Innocence – Mere pendency of disciplinary proceedings or vigilance cases cannot be treated as conclusive of guilt – Held: Presumption of innocence must prevail until proven guilty – Executive circular cannot justify refusal of NOC without due process of law [Paras 10, 15, 17]

Administrative Law – Executive Instructions vs. Enacted Law – Letter dated 28.01.2014 by State Government is not statutory law – Cannot be treated as lawful basis to restrict passport issuance – Any restriction on fundamental rights must be supported by enacted law – Held: Administrative circular lacks legal authority to infringe personal liberty [Paras 10, 14]

Passport Law – Passport Manual and NOC Requirement – Clauses 4.23 to 4.25 of Passport Manual, 2020 make NOC mandatory for government employees – However, such requirement must align with constitutional rights – Held: NOC cannot be denied arbitrarily, and the Manual must be read in conformity with fundamental rights under Article 21 [Paras 11–12]

Judicial Precedents – Maneka Gandhi Case – Right to go abroad is part of personal liberty – Denial must follow fair procedure established by law – Applied in present case to quash refusal of NOC based on non-statutory executive communication [Para 13]

Decision:

Writ Petition allowed – Impugned rejection orders dated 12.07.2022 and 21.03.2025 quashed – State directed to issue No Objection Certificate to petitioner within six weeks from date of judgment [Para 19]

Criminal Law – Abetment of Suicide – Conviction Set Aside – Section 306 IPC – Accused convicted for abetment of suicide based on allegations of continuous mental and physical harassment – Dying declaration inconsistent and general in nature – No proximate or specific act of instigation proved – Accused not relatives and not residing with the deceased – Trial court had acquitted them under Section 498A IPC – Held: Mere general allegations of harassment without proof of a direct or immediate provocation not sufficient to sustain conviction under Section 306 IPC [Paras 1, 3, 5.2, 12.14].

Mens Rea – Requirement under Section 306 IPC – No evidence to show that accused intended or consciously instigated the deceased to commit suicide – Children accused were shown to be at exams and not present at the time of incident – Accused No.1 was acting in official capacity as Talati in a prior unrelated land dispute – Held: Prosecution failed to establish mens rea or any act amounting to instigation or aiding suicide [Paras 3.9, 5.2, 12.12, 12.13].

Dying Declaration – Evidentiary Reliability – Contradictions – Dying declaration lacked medical endorsement – Deceased unable to read due to burn injuries – Statement implicated only one accused (Jayantibhai Talati), not consistent with trial of five accused – No corroboration by independent witnesses – Held: Statement not reliable for conviction [Paras 3.6, 9.1, 12.13].

Proximate Cause – Abetment Not Made Out – No evidence of specific act immediately preceding the suicide – Courts reiterated that continued harassment must culminate in a final inciting act to sustain conviction under Section 306 – Observations from Abhinav Mohan Delkar v. State of Maharashtra and Amalendu Pal v. State of West Bengal followed – Alleged harassment lacked intensity or proximity to amount to abetment [Paras 11, 12.1–12.10].

Acquittal – Appeal Allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 306 IPC set aside – No direct or indirect act of incitement or provocation established – Benefit of doubt extended – Accused acquitted of all charges [Paras 12.14, 13].

Criminal Law – Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Acquittal – Appellant filed complaint against accused for dishonour of cheque for Rs. 20 lakhs – Cheque returned with endorsement "Drawer’s Signature Differs" – Legal notice claimed to be sent, but original acknowledgment card not produced – Trial Court refused to mark photocopy and acquitted accused holding statutory notice not proved – High Court held non-service was not disputed by accused in cross-examination and disagreed with Trial Court's reasoning on notice –However, loan transaction of Rs. 40 lakhs alleged to be given without any written document – Complainant admitted in cross-examination that cheque was filled by her husband and that husband used to collect blank cheques from chit subscribers including accused – No mention in complaint or notice about authority to fill cheque – These admissions supported defence version that cheque was issued blank during chit dealings – Held: Accused’s version found probable – No perversity in acquittal – Appeal against acquittal dismissed [Paras 9–11].

Decision: Criminal appeal dismissed – Acquittal by Trial Court upheld – Findings held reasonable and not perverse.

Motor Accident Claims - Motor Vehicles Act – Driving Licence – LMV (Non-Transport) Holder Driving Transport Vehicle of GVW 7500 kg – Breach of Policy – Not Made Out – Supreme Court in Bajaj Allianz v. Rambha Devi applied; LMV licence under Section 10(2)(d) authorises driving transport vehicle with GVW not exceeding 7500 kg – No separate endorsement required under Section 10(2)(e) – Hence insurer cannot avoid liability – Finding of Tribunal affirmed [Paras 23–25].

Motor Accident Claims – Medical Reimbursement from Mediclaim Policy – Whether Deductible – Held: No – Benefits under private mediclaim are contractual and independent of statutory compensation under Section 168 – Full Bench in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Dolly Satish Gandhi followed – Mediclaim receipts (Rs.1,75,000) cannot be deducted from medical expenses – Tribunal right in allowing full medical expenditure of Rs.6,42,903 [Paras 11–13].

Compensation – Voluntary Retirement (VRS) and Pension – Whether Deductible – Held: No – VRS benefits/pension are not “income” for computation of loss of earning capacity – They arise from employer’s contractual obligations, not from earning ability – Supreme Court in Hanumantraju B. v. Akram Pasha applied; deduction of pension impermissible – Tribunal correct in treating income as Rs.77,000 per month post-accident [Paras 14–18].

Future Loss of Earning – Determination – Claimant aged 51 years – Tribunal adopting (i) net salary Rs.77,000, (ii) functional disability @ 40%, (iii) future prospects @ 15%, and (iv) multiplier 11 – Held: Proper and justified – Evidence showed claimant took VRS due to accident-induced incapacity – Witness from NMRL proved salary and VRS record – Tribunal's computation upheld [Paras 19–22].

Negligence – Reverse Driving Without Horn – No Cleaner – Claimant Standing Near Gate – Driver negligent – Police complaint, spot panchnama, and witness testimony support finding – Tribunal’s conclusion upheld [Paras 5–6].

Disability – Permanent Partial Disablement – 43% per Medical Board – Functional disability assessed at 40% – No dispute on injuries or evidence – Tribunal justified in applying functional disability to income [Paras 7–8].

Appeal – Scope – Reappreciation of Evidence – Appellate Court finds no perversity in findings regarding breach of policy, deductions, disability, or income – Appeal dismissed [Paras 23–25].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Award of Rs. 58,54,183 with 7.5% interest affirmed – Insurer directed to deposit remaining amount; Tribunal to disburse to claimant [Order].

Tenancy Law - Landlord-Tenant Relationship – Succession of Tenancy – H.P. Urban Rent Control Act – Devolution limited to spouse – Original tenant’s widow, Jawala Devi, alone entitled to tenancy under Explanation-I to Section 2(j) – After her death, tenancy did not devolve further under Explanation-II – Other defendants held to be unauthorized occupants [Paras 44-45]

Ownership – Title after Acquisition and De-notification – Title of plaintiffs revived after de-notification of acquisition – Eclipse on ownership due to acquisition does not extinguish title – Plaintiffs’ right to sue held valid – State’s temporary ownership during acquisition period irrelevant to demolition suit [Paras 27, 50]

Unauthorized Construction – Demolition – Two upper storeys constructed without plaintiffs’ permission or Municipal sanction – Based on technical report, map, and demolition order, construction held illegal and structurally unsafe – Mandatory injunction for demolition upheld [Paras 26, 28]

Additional Evidence – Order 41 Rule 27 CPC – Sale deeds and partition documents sought to be introduced by appellants were post-suit and irrelevant – No connection to suit premises or disputed construction – Applications rightly rejected by Court [Paras 31-36, 46]

Procedural Law – Maintainability – Non-joinder of State and Municipal Corporation not fatal – Suit maintainable against unauthorized occupants – Right to relief determined on date of suit, not affected by subsequent events like sale of property [Paras 20, 40, 47]

Remedies – Eviction and Civil Suit – Pendency or pursuit of eviction under Rent Control Act does not bar separate suit for demolition of unauthorized construction – Remedies held not mutually exclusive [Para 48]

Appeal – No Substantial Question of Law – First appellate court’s decree not found perverse – All substantial questions of law answered against appellants – Second appeal dismissed [Paras 24, 52-53]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Decree of mandatory injunction upheld – Applications for additional evidence dismissed – Plaintiffs held entitled to relief despite earlier acquisition and subsequent sale not affecting maintainability of suit.