Bail - NDPS – Charge Sheet Without FSL Report – Bail Granted - The petitioner was arrested for possession of 300 grams of MDMA and remained in custody for nearly a year – The prosecution filed a charge sheet without an accompanying Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report – The Court held that in cases under the NDPS Act, a chemical analysis report is an integral part of the investigation, and without it, the charge sheet is incomplete – Held: Since the Supreme Court is considering the issue of charge sheets being filed without FSL reports, and in similar cases bail has been granted, the petitioner is entitled to bail [Paras 6-7].

Long Pre-Trial Detention – No Trial Commenced – Bail Cannot Be Denied Indefinitely - The petitioner was in custody since 29.03.2023 and was granted interim bail on 13.03.2024 – The trial had not yet commenced – The Court held that prolonged pre-trial detention without progress in trial proceedings violates the petitioner’s rights – Held: The interim bail order was made absolute, and the petitioner was directed to attend trial proceedings regularly [Paras 5-6].

Conditions for Bail – Compliance with Court Directives Required - The High Court imposed conditions, including surrendering the passport, refraining from influencing witnesses, and appearing before the trial court on scheduled dates – Held: Violation of any condition would result in the cancellation of bail [Para 7].

Decision – Bail Granted – Interim Order Made Absolute - The Court made the interim bail granted on 13.03.2024 absolute and directed the petitioner to comply with all bail conditions, keeping the legal issue of FSL reports open for future determination [Para 7].
 

Criminal Law - Dismissal of Complaint – No Prima Facie Case – Allegations Patently Absurd and Inherently Improbable - The petitioner alleged an elaborate conspiracy involving multiple accused, claiming she was shot 25 times but survived due to homeopathic medicine – The Magistrate dismissed the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C., finding the allegations ex-facie improbable – The Sessions Court upheld this decision, noting that no prudent person could believe such claims – Held: The High Court found no error in the lower courts' reasoning, affirming that an inherently absurd and unbelievable complaint cannot form the basis for summoning the accused [Paras 7-12].

Power of Magistrate to Dismiss Complaint – No Duty to Issue Summons if No Prima Facie Case Exists - The petitioner contended that the Magistrate was obligated to issue summons despite the nature of her allegations – The High Court rejected this argument, citing Supreme Court precedent that allows dismissal of complaints where allegations are patently absurd or improbable – Held: A Magistrate is not bound to issue summons if the complaint lacks substance, as doing so would amount to an abuse of process [Paras 13-14].

Inherent Powers of High Court – No Interference Where Lower Courts Have Rightly Exercised Discretion - The High Court emphasized that interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is warranted only in cases of miscarriage of justice – Held: Where both the Magistrate and Sessions Court have correctly exercised discretion to dismiss a frivolous complaint, the High Court will not interfere [Paras 15-16].

Decision – Petition Dismissed – No Grounds for Interference - The High Court upheld the dismissal of the complaint and rejected the Section 482 petition – Held: The petition was frivolous and no interference was required – Pending applications, if any, were also disposed of [Paras 17-18].
 

Service Law – Dismissal from Judicial Service – Challenge to Rejection of Representations – Doctrine of Laches - Delay in Seeking Writ Relief – Petitioners’ termination orders were passed in 2002, but the writ petition was filed in 2017 – Challenge to similar termination orders was previously dismissed by the Full Bench of the High Court in 2008, and a review was also dismissed in 2017 – Held: The petition is barred by laches as the delay of 16 years in approaching the Court remains unexplained, making the claim stale and unmaintainable [Paras 8-12].

Acquittal in Criminal Case – Effect on Disciplinary Action – Petitioners contended that their acquittal in the corruption case nullified the basis of their termination – Held: Mere acquittal does not automatically entitle a person to reinstatement, especially when the initial challenge to termination had already attained finality up to the Supreme Court – Once a judicial determination has been made, acquittal does not revive a concluded matter [Paras 16-18].

Finality of Judicial Decisions – Principle of Res Judicata – Petitioners’ claim of reinstatement was already adjudicated by the Full Bench of the High Court and later by the Supreme Court – Once a decision attains finality, reopening the issue is impermissible – Held: Petition dismissed as not maintainable [Paras 17-18].

Civil Law - Eviction – Default in Payment of Rent – Section 12(1)(a) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 – Eviction Decreed – The plaintiffs/landlords filed a suit for eviction on the ground of non-payment of rent, alleging that the tenant was in arrears since 01.09.1982 – The tenant disputed the rate of rent and claimed an agreement for adjustment of house tax against rent – The Trial Court fixed provisional rent at Rs.12/- per month under Section 13(1) of the Act, which the tenant failed to deposit – The suit was dismissed by the Trial Court and affirmed by the First Appellate Court – Held: The tenant's failure to deposit rent as per the court’s provisional order amounted to default, making him liable for eviction – Courts below committed an error in ignoring the mandatory compliance under Section 13(1) – Substantial question of law answered in favor of the landlords – Eviction decree granted with a two-month period to vacate [Paras 12-17].

Criminal Evidence Law - Electronic Evidence – Right to Cloned Copy – Natural Justice – Cloned Copy Directed to Be Provided - Petitioners challenged denial of a cloned copy of hard disk relied upon for prosecution evidence – Court held that denial would violate right to fair trial – Directed trial court to provide cloned copy at petitioners’ expense to ensure effective cross-examination and defence [Paras 20–28].

Recall of Witness – Section 311 CrPC – Not a Ground to Deny Evidence Access - Prosecution had recalled PW-7 under Section 311 CrPC to introduce digital evidence – Court held that recall cannot bypass obligation to provide access to digital material if used against accused [Paras 11–13, 22].

Section 207 CrPC – Post-Supply Inspection Rights Retained – Cloned Copy Still Justified - Even assuming documents were supplied during charge, Court held that accused retains right to request copies at later stages, especially if trial is prolonged or records misplaced – Supply of cloned copy not barred [Paras 21, 26].

Precedent – P. Gopal Krishnan v. State of Kerala Applied – Cloned Copy of Electronic Records Mandatory - Citing Supreme Court ruling, Court emphasized that hard disks are electronic records and must be cloned and provided unless privacy issues exist – No such concern in this case [Paras 23–24].

No Delay Attributable to Accused – Prosecution Caused Trial Protraction - Court noted it was the prosecution that delayed the trial through multiple recall applications – Accused not found to be abusing process or causing delay – Cloned copy necessary for fair cross-examination [Para 22].

Final Decision – Application Allowed – Cloned Copy Ordered – Cross-examination Deferred - Trial court directed to clone and provide hard disk copy through authorized IT experts – Cross-examination of PW-7 deferred until then to protect fair trial rights [Paras 27–30].

Criminal Law – Conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC – No Premeditation – Sentence Reduced – Appellant convicted for causing the death of his 85-year-old mother during a drunken altercation—Trial court imposed 7 years RI—High Court held: There was no premeditation, and the act occurred in a sudden quarrel—Considering the appellant’s clean record and lack of intent to cause death, sentence reduced to 5 years RI [Paras 29-34].

Sentencing Principles – Proportionality and Reformative Justice – Consideration of Mitigating Factors – High Court observed that the appellant had no prior criminal record, the act was not preplanned, and he had shown remorse—Held: Prolonged incarceration would cause hardship to dependents—Sentence reduced while upholding conviction [Paras 31-33].

Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC – Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder – Applicability in Sudden Fight Cases – Court relied on Sukhbir Singh v. State of Haryana and Gurmukh Singh v. State of Haryana—Held: Offense falls within Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC—No undue advantage or cruelty—Proper sentencing must balance deterrence and rehabilitation [Paras 15-18].

Evidentiary Considerations – Witness Testimonies and Medical Reports – Corroboration of Facts – Statements of key prosecution witnesses, including the deceased’s son (PW-1), confirmed that the appellant had a history of alcohol abuse and engaged in frequent altercations—Medical report supported the prosecution’s claim that injuries were caused by a blunt object—Held: Evidence sufficiently established knowledge but not intention to cause death, justifying conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC instead of Section 302 IPC [Paras 21-25].

Decision – Appeal partly allowed – Conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC upheld – Sentence reduced from 7 years RI to 5 years RI – Accused to be credited for time already served – Directed to undergo counseling and engage in social welfare upon release [Paras 32-34].
 

Service Law – Departmental Proceedings based on Same Allegations as Criminal Trial – Proceedings vitiated – The petitioner, a bank employee, was earlier acquitted honourably in a criminal trial arising out of alleged issuance of fraudulent CRIS certificates – Later, departmental proceedings were initiated on identical facts with the same witnesses – Held: Departmental punishment unsustainable in view of acquittal and settled law that parallel departmental proceedings cannot be sustained on identical allegations when the accused has been honourably acquitted [Paras 1-5, 17-28].

Criminal Trial – Acquittal on Merits – Not a Case of Mere Benefit of Doubt – The Trial Court found prosecution witnesses unreliable, disbelieved the case of the bank, and recorded a finding that the petitioner was made a scapegoat – Department cannot re-litigate the matter through disciplinary proceedings – Findings of acquittal were substantive and not technical [Paras 11-14, 25].

Departmental Proceedings – Same Witnesses and Evidence as in Criminal Case – Departmental witnesses were the same as prosecution witnesses who had already been disbelieved in criminal trial – Proceedings hit by the principles laid down in G.M. Tank vs. State of Gujarat, (2006) 5 SCC 446 – Supreme Court ruling squarely applicable [Paras 19-23].

Judicial Review – Limited Scope – Court recognized that ordinarily judicial review in service matters is limited to illegality, perversity, or violation of natural justice – However, when departmental action is contrary to settled law and ignores acquittal on merits, intervention is justified – Reliance placed on G.M. Tank, Capt. Paul Anthony, and Ram Lal cases [Paras 25-29].

Decision – Petition Allowed – Impugned orders dated 19.12.2002 and 04.08.2003 quashed – Petitioner entitled to all consequential service and pensionary benefits – Bank directed to implement the order within 3 months and pay arrears within a further period of 2 months, failing which 6% interest shall apply [Para 30].

Delay in Pronouncement of Judgment – Prejudice to Litigants – Order Set Aside - The Single Judge heard arguments on 18/05/2022 but pronounced the order only on 05/06/2023 – The appellants contended that the delay violated judicial discipline and deprived them of the opportunity to seek timely relief – The High Court held that while mere delay does not invalidate an order, in this case, the delay led to procedural unfairness – Held: The inordinate delay of over a year caused prejudice to the appellants, warranting setting aside the impugned order [Paras 12-18].

Injunction in Commercial Disputes – Failure to Consider Prima Facie Case, Balance of Convenience, and Irreparable Injury – Order Unsustainable - The learned Single Judge granted an injunction without assessing the fundamental requirements of interim relief – The High Court found that the order was cryptic and did not discuss whether the plaintiffs had a prima facie case or whether the balance of convenience favored them – Held: Injunction orders must be reasoned, and failure to consider the three essential elements renders the order unsustainable [Paras 24-26].

Pledged Shares and Right to Sell – Restriction on Alienation Until Fresh Consideration - The plaintiffs sought a declaration that no valid pledge existed over certain shares and requested an injunction preventing their sale – The High Court noted that prior to the interim order, 16,00,000 shares had already been sold – Held: Pending fresh adjudication, the remaining pledged shares shall not be alienated, transferred, or disposed of [Paras 25-27].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – Injunction Order Quashed – Matter Remanded for Fresh Consideration - The High Court quashed the order dated 05/06/2023 and remanded the matter to the learned Single Judge for fresh adjudication of the injunction application within six weeks – Held: The injunction application must be decided expeditiously, without being influenced by prior orders, and all contentions remain open [Paras 26-28].
 

Senior Citizens Act – Implied Condition of Care – Cancellation of Settlement

Deed Upheld – The appellant challenged the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) canceling a Settlement Deed executed by a senior citizen in favor of her son, on the ground that the son and daughter-in-law had failed to maintain the senior citizen – The Court held that Section 23(1) of the Senior Citizens Act allows for cancellation of such deeds even if no express condition of maintenance is mentioned – Held: Love and affection serve as an implied condition, and failure to provide care justifies annulment of the deed [Paras 30-35].

Legislative Intent – Welfare of Senior Citizens – Beneficial Interpretation Required – The Court emphasized that the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 is a welfare legislation, enacted to ensure financial security and protection for elderly individuals – Citing Urmila Dixit v. Sunil Sharan Dixit [2025 SCC OnLine SC 2], the Court held that provisions of the Act must be interpreted liberally to protect senior citizens from neglect and exploitation – Held: The primary intent of the Act is to safeguard the dignity and security of senior citizens, and courts must adopt a purposive approach in applying Section 23(1) [Paras 22-28].

Judicial Precedents – Recognition of Implied Condition in Property Transfers –

The Court referred to multiple judgments, including S. Vanitha v. Deputy

Commissioner, Bengaluru [2021 15 SCC 730] and Sudesh Chhikara v. Ramti Devi [2022 SCC OnLine SC 1684], which recognize that even in the absence of an express condition, a property transfer by a senior citizen carries an implied expectation of care – Held: The senior citizen’s right to revoke the Settlement Deed was validly exercised under the provisions of the Act [Paras 36-39].

Scope of Section 23(1) – No Mandatory Requirement of Express Condition in Deed – The appellant contended that since the Settlement Deed did not explicitly state a condition of maintenance, its cancellation was unlawful – The Court rejected this argument, holding that the existence of a familial relationship itself creates an expectation of care, and failure to fulfill this expectation constitutes grounds for cancellation – Held: The Tribunal has the power to annul a deed based on evidence of neglect, even in the absence of an express clause in the deed [Paras 40-42].

Decision: Appeal dismissed. The cancellation of the Settlement Deed by the Revenue Divisional Officer was upheld, and the senior citizen’s right to revoke the deed was affirmed.