Regular Bail – Allegations under BNS and POCSO – Bail Granted – Petitioners sought regular bail in connection with FIR alleging harassment of two minor girls aged 13 and 14 under Sections 126(2), 78(1), 79, 352 BNS and Section 12 of POCSO Act – Charge-sheet filed and investigation completed – Petitioners in custody for over four months with no prior criminal record – Held: Seriousness of allegations alone not sufficient to deny bail pre-trial – Bail granted with stringent conditions to ensure victim safety and fair trial [Paras 3, 6, 15-18].

Concurrent Jurisdiction – Section 439 CrPC – High Court's Power to Entertain Bail Petition – Argument that bail lies before High Court only upon change in circumstances after Sessions Court rejection held to be incorrect – Held: High Court’s jurisdiction under Section 439 CrPC is original and concurrent with Sessions Court – No bar on moving High Court after bail refusal by Sessions Court on same facts – Reliance placed on Devi Das Raghu Nath Naik v. State [Paras 13-14].

Victim Safety and Bail Conditions – Risk Mitigated by Stringent Terms – Petitioners directed not to contact victims or visit their village – Surrender of passports and mandatory disclosure of mobile and social media accounts ordered – Conditions imposed to ensure petitioners do not intimidate witnesses or abscond – Held: Such protective measures justify release despite seriousness of offence [Paras 16-18].

Final Decision – Bail Allowed – Petitioners ordered to be released on bail on furnishing personal bonds of ₹1,00,000 with one surety each – Held: Continued detention not justified in absence of antecedents and in light of completed investigation – Violation of bail terms would entitle prosecution to seek cancellation [Paras 18-20].

Criminal Writ - Maintainability under Article 227 – Challenge to Orders in Criminal Proceedings – Petition Held Maintainable – Objection to maintainability overruled as Article 227 permits interference in exceptional circumstances involving miscarriage of justice, even when alternate remedy under Section 482 CrPC exists – Petition entertained as interim relief had already been granted [Paras 15-19].

Civil vs. Criminal Proceedings – Simultaneous Proceedings Permissible – Criminal Trial Permitted to Continue – Pendency of civil suit for cancellation of will deed and mutation does not bar criminal prosecution where prima facie ingredients of offence under IPC are made out – Held: Mere pendency of civil proceedings not a ground to quash criminal case [Paras 20-24].

Discharge under Section 239 CrPC – Grounds for Discharge Absent – Charges Not Groundless – Petitioners failed to show that the charges were groundless as per standard laid down by Supreme Court – Material placed by prosecution sufficient to proceed to trial – Discharge rightly refused by Trial Court and upheld in Revision [Paras 28-31, 36].

Forgery and Misrepresentation – Prima Facie Offence Made Out – Allegations of Manipulating Family Register and Executing Forged Will – Petitioners claimed as wife and daughter of deceased despite contradictory records and absence of adoption/marriage proof – Held: Enough prima facie material to proceed under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, and 471 IPC [Paras 25, 32-35].

Decision – Petition Dismissed – Orders of Trial Court and Revisional Court upheld – No legal or procedural error found warranting interference – Criminal proceedings to continue [Paras 37-38].

Family Law - Marriage – Validity of Hindu Marriage – Section 7 of the HMA – Appeal dismissed – Husband sought declaration that marriage was void on ground that Saptapadi was not performed – Held: Section 7(1) allows solemnisation of marriage as per customary rites of either party, without mandating Saptapadi in all cases – Sub-section (2) applies only if Saptapadi forms part of customary rites – Thus, absence of Saptapadi does not by itself invalidate marriage [Paras 8-9].

Burden of Proof – Non-performance of Saptapadi – Appellant failed to discharge burden – Husband, despite alleging non-performance, did not examine priest, relatives, or witnesses – Mere non-production of marriage album by wife does not shift burden – Presumption of validity of marriage operates in law – Hence, plea of invalidity rejected [Paras 7, 10, 13].

Presumption of Marriage and Legitimacy – Evidence Act, Sections 50 and 114 – Strong presumption arises when parties cohabit as husband and wife and child is born – Such presumption cannot be lightly rebutted – Reliance placed on Ningu Vithu Bamane v. Sadashiv Ningu Bamane, 1986 SCC OnLine Bom 30, affirming presumption of marriage and legitimacy of children – Appellant failed to adduce strong and conclusive evidence to rebut presumption [Paras 10-11].

Decision – The Family Court’s dismissal of husband’s suit upheld – Appeal dismissed – Presumption of valid marriage stands, and no ground to declare marriage void [Paras 14].

Service Law – Writ - Paramilitary Discipline – Proportionality of Punishment – Section 11(1) CRPF Act – Dismissal Quashed – Petitioner, a long-serving constable, failed to report for second guard shift and did not immediately comply when roused – Misconduct held proved, but punishment of removal from service under a charge framed under Section 11(1) (minor misconduct) held shockingly disproportionate – Court applies doctrine of proportionality and holds that discipline is not synonymous with harshness – Orders of dismissal, appeal, revision and mercy rejection quashed [Paras 2-5].

Charge Framing – Duplication of Charges – Same Transaction Split into Two – Impermissible – Authorities split a single episode into “absence from duty” and “disobedience of orders,” both arising from the same factual nucleus – Such duplication unfairly magnifies the misconduct and vitiates the penalty analysis – Held: improper splitting underscores disproportionality in awarding removal [Para 4].

Judicial Review – Scope over Quantum of Punishment – Proportionality Standard – Though choice of punishment lies with disciplinary authority, courts will interfere where sentence is an “outrageous defiance of logic” – Reliance placed on Ranjit Thakur – Court reiterates that punishment must suit the offence and the offender – Removal for a single lapse here fails the proportionality test [Para 4].

Past Record – Use at Penalty Stage – Article 311(2) – Prior Adverse Material Must Be Disclosed – Past lapses already punished cannot be resurrected to aggravate penalty without putting the delinquent on notice – Following K. Manche Gowda and Bimal Kumar Pandit – Undisclosed reliance on past record taints the decision on punishment [Para 4].

Sensitive Duty (Magazine Guard) – Standard of Care vs. Human Factors – No Intoxication Proved – Context Considered – Petitioner was in barracks, earlier duty performed, stress due to mother’s serious illness noted – Absence not from station and magazine not left unguarded – These contextual factors must inform proportionality of penalty [Paras 2-4].

Decision – Writ Allowed – Impugned orders of dismissal, appellate, revisional and mercy rejection quashed – Misconduct stands, but penalty held excessive and unsustainable in law – Consequence: departmental dismissal orders annulled [Para 5].

Civil Law - Eviction Suit – Jurisdiction of Civil Court – Sections 5, 8, and 21 of the West Bengal Thika Tenancy Act, 2001 – Eviction Suit Dismissed – Plaintiffs sought eviction on grounds of default, nuisance, and reasonable requirement – Trial Court decreed eviction without considering statutory jurisdictional bar – Held: The civil court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction as the issue of Thika tenancy was pending and later conclusively decided by the Thika Controller – Civil Court's decree is a nullity – Suit liable to be dismissed for lack of inherent jurisdiction [Paras 21–26, 45–54, 68–72].

Striking Out of Defence – Section 7 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 – No Automatic Bar – Defence not struck out before final adjudication – Trial Court proceeded to decide all issues on merits – Held: In absence of prior order under Section 7(3), defence remains – Jurisdictional issues had to be decided before proceeding to trial – The failure vitiated the trial court’s decree [Paras 29–32, 42–44].

Landlord-Tenant Relationship – Disputed Relationship – Effect on Section 7 Compliance – Dispute raised on existence of tenancy – Held: A defendant who denies tenancy may not be required to comply with Section 7(1) or (2) as the provision applies to 'tenant', not 'defendant' – Court must decide landlord-tenant relationship before invoking Section 7(3) – View supported by binding Division Bench judgment in Synthetic Plywood Industries case – Ratio unchanged under 1997 Act [Paras 36–41].

Additional Evidence – Order XLI Rule 27 CPC – Thika Controller's Order Considered – Appeal Allowed – During appeal, certified order of Thika Controller adjudicating defendant as Thika Tenant was produced – Held: Court can look into such evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 – The order reinforces bar under 2001 Act and nullifies civil court’s jurisdiction [Paras 62–67].

Applicability of Thika Tenancy Act, 1981 vs. 2001 – Section 27 of 2001 Act – 2001 Act Applies – Plaintiffs claimed rights accrued under 1981 Act – Held: 1981 Act did not confer right of eviction – Such rights flow from tenancy laws like 1997 Act – Section 27 only protects existing liabilities or privileges – Since eviction suit filed in 2013, 2001 Act applies [Paras 57–61].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Civil Court Decree Set Aside – Eviction Suit Dismissed – The trial court acted without jurisdiction – Remand order of First Appellate Court also erroneous and academic – Decree and remand order set aside and eviction suit dismissed outright for want of jurisdiction [Paras 70–73].

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR and Criminal Proceedings – Prima Facie Case Made Out – Petition Dismissed – The petitioner, a former UD Clerk in Kerala Water Authority, sought to quash proceedings in C.C. No. 9/2022 alleging inordinate delay and absence of prima facie material – Allegations involved misappropriation of ₹24,755 by forging cheque counterfoils and falsifying accounts – Court held that the delay was not in registration of crime but due to judicial and procedural circumstances – Further investigation revealed sufficient material – Petition dismissed and trial ordered to be completed within 4 months [Paras 1, 5, 11, 16-17].

Delay – No Ground for Quashment – Right to Speedy Trial Not Violated – Though the petitioner contended that proceedings were pending for over 27 years, the crime was originally registered in 1999 and pursued without unjustified delay – Apex Court precedent in Sirajul v. State of U.P., (2015) 9 SCC 201, discussed but held not applicable – Held: Delay not attributable to prosecution – Petitioner's Article 21 rights not violated [Paras 7, 11-13].

Prima Facie Case – Misappropriation and Forgery – Evidence Sufficient for Trial – Investigation revealed that cheques for ₹9,290 and ₹15,465 were encashed by impersonating the contractor’s signature – Counterfoils bore forged signatures – FSL reports confirmed forgery – Witnesses and records supported prosecution case – Held: A prima facie case is clearly made out against the petitioner – Trial is required [Paras 9-10, 16-17].

Public Servant – Abuse of Position – Section 13(1)(c) and (d), PC Act – Petitioner as custodian of cheques and cash book allegedly prepared false entries and misused uncrossed bearer cheques issued in contractor's name – Entries in cash book corroborated by multiple witnesses – Held: Allegations disclose commission of offences under IPC and PC Act – Petition cannot be quashed at pre-trial stage [Paras 5, 10, 17].

Petition Dismissed – Special Judge Directed to Expedite Trial – Interim stay vacated – Trial Court directed to conclude proceedings within four months – Copy of order to be forwarded for compliance [Paras 17-19].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Cheque Dishonour – Section 138 – Appeal Against Acquittal Dismissed – The appellant/complainant alleged that the accused issued four cheques towards repayment of a loan of ₹1,80,000/-, all of which were dishonoured due to insufficient funds – Trial court acquitted the accused citing lack of proof regarding execution and issuance of the cheques – High Court upheld the acquittal, noting that the complainant failed to specify dates of issuance and admitted both parties worked in the same bank, which supported the defence that cheques were misused – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1-2, 7-9, 14].

Presumption under Sections 118 and 139 – Rebuttal by Probable Defence – Presumption Not Absolute – Held: The statutory presumption under Sections 118 and 139 is rebuttable – The accused raised a probable defence that cheques were issued as security for overdraft, which the complainant misused – Cross-examination of PW1 cast serious doubt on the transaction – No evidence produced to rebut defence – Presumption held rebutted [Paras 10-11, 13-14].

Burden of Proof – Standard of Preponderance – Not Beyond Reasonable Doubt – Held: In a Section 138 prosecution, the accused can rebut the presumption through preponderance of probabilities – Accused not bound to enter the witness box – Probable defence can be inferred from complainant’s evidence and circumstances – Such burden successfully discharged in this case [Paras 10-11].

Credibility of Evidence – Failure to Prove Date of Execution – Issuance of Cheques Not Established – Held: Complainant’s failure to specify dates of issuance in complaint and affidavit proved fatal – Court found evidence vague and insufficient – Cross-examination reinforced defence version – Trial court’s findings not perverse – No interference warranted [Paras 7-9, 14].

Appeal Dismissed – No Interference in Acquittal – Trial Court’s Evaluation of Evidence Deemed Proper – Complainant failed to discharge initial burden – Acquittal stands affirmed – No costs awarded [Para 14].

Commercial Suit – Maintainability – Section 2(1)(c)(vii) of Commercial Courts Act – Decree Upheld – The appellant challenged the commercial nature of the dispute on ground that the rental amount was below threshold and not commercial – Held: The tenancy pertained to a commercial shop and dispute arose from lease of immovable property used in trade or commerce – Suit maintainable as a commercial dispute [Paras 14–16].

Landlord-Tenant Relationship – Attornment by Tenant – Section 109 of Transfer of Property Act – Relationship Established – Appellant argued absence of attornment with new owner – Held: Attornment not necessary – Transferee steps into shoes of original lessor by operation of law – Registered sale deed sufficient to establish ownership and right to seek eviction – Reliance placed on Supreme Court judgment in Gopi @ Govardhannath v. Ballabh Vyas, (2022) 19 SCC 204 [Paras 18–22].

Applicability of Rent Control Act – Rent Less than ₹3500 – Burden Not Discharged – Appellant Claimed Protection under DRC Act – Held: Mere assertion of low rent insufficient – Burden to prove rent on tenant – Contradictory versions given under oath – No proof from income tax, bank statements, or rent receipts – Court found monthly rent exceeded ₹3500 based on plaintiff's evidence and tenant's admissions [Paras 25–29].

Framing of Issues – Clubbing of Issues – Procedural Irregularity – Held: Clubbing of issues without distinct treatment contrary to Order XIV CPC – While not fatal to judgment, such practice is improper and should be avoided in future [Paras 30–31].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Trial Court Judgment Affirmed – Finding no merit in contentions raised, the appeal was dismissed confirming the decree for possession, arrears, mesne profits, and injunction against tenant [Para 33].

Civil Law - Impleadment in Specific Performance Suit – Order 1 Rule 10 and Order 43 Rule 1 of the CPC -  Appeal against Addition of Third Party – Appeal Allowed – The appellant challenged an order of the Single Judge allowing the impleadment of her brother-in-law (Respondent No. 4) in a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell – Held: A third party not privy to the contract and claiming independent title cannot be impleaded – Such impleadment would enlarge the scope of the suit into a title dispute – Appeal allowed and impleadment set aside [Paras 1–3, 16–26].

Appealability – Order Not Enumerated Under Order XLIII CPC – Maintainability Under Section 10 of Delhi High Court Act – Upheld – The respondent objected to the maintainability of the appeal under Order XLIII CPC and Commercial Courts Act – Held: Even if not appealable under Order XLIII, the impugned order qualifies as a “judgment” under Section 10 of DHC Act as it affects valuable rights and changes the character of the suit – Appeal maintainable [Paras 10–15].

Impleadment Test – Necessary and Proper Party – Order I Rule 10 CPC – Not Satisfied – Court reiterated that only those parties whose presence is necessary to adjudicate the issues in the suit can be impleaded – Respondent No. 4, claiming co-ownership but not being a party to the contract, failed the test – His dispute lies in a separate title suit, not in a specific performance suit [Paras 17–20, 24–25].

Binding Precedents – Supreme Court Judgments in Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal and Anil Kumar Singh v. Shivnath Mishra – Applied – The Court relied on established law that in a suit for specific performance, a stranger to the contract cannot be added merely because of a claimed interest in the property – Doing so alters the nature of the suit and is impermissible [Paras 19–21].

Distinguished Cases – Sumtibai and Rajesh Kumar Arora – Not Applicable – Respondent No. 4 cited judgments where impleadment was permitted – Held: These cases were fact-specific and do not dilute the general bar on impleading third parties in specific performance suits – Those decisions did not form ratio applicable to present case [Paras 22–23].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Impugned Order Set Aside – Respondent No. 4’s impleadment struck off – Liberty granted to pursue independent remedy – Suit to proceed without alteration of scope [Paras 27–28].