Criminal Law - Superdari – NDPS Act – Interim Custody of Truck – Section 52A NDPS – Offending Vehicle Seized with Contraband – Truck seized carrying 3213.6 kg of poppy straw—Trial Court granted interim custody under Sections 451 and 457 CrPC—Held: In light of amended Section 52A NDPS and Supreme Court rulings, vehicle used in commission of offence should not be released to accused-owner pending trial [Paras 1–3, 6–9].

Criminal Law – Owner Also Accused – Reverse Burden Not Discharged – No Interim Custody – Owner of vehicle arrayed as accused—Court found it implausible that such large quantity of contraband could be transported without owner’s knowledge—Held: In first two scenarios outlined in Biswajit Dey v. State of M.P., vehicle should not be released until accused discharges reverse burden of proof [Paras 6–7].

Judicial Precedents – Dinesh Kumar Verma Case – Custody Order Reversed – Relied on Union of India v. Dinesh Kumar Verma, (2005) 9 SCC 330—Held: High Court not justified in releasing vehicle when owner is also accused—Directed surrender of vehicle back to trial court [Paras 3, 8].

Procedure – Supurdaginama Discharged – Fresh Documentation to be Recorded – Trial Court directed to complete photography and videography of vehicle and related documents upon surrender—Previously deposited bond/surety to be discharged post compliance [Para 10].

Decision – Petition allowed – Interim custody of vehicle quashed – Respondent directed to surrender truck before trial court within 30 days – Trial Court to follow due documentation procedure upon surrender – Supurdaginama bond to be released thereafter [Paras 9–11].

Service Law – Lokayukta Enquiry – Preliminary Memorandum Issued by Deputy Registrar – Not Invalid – Petitioner challenged departmental enquiry alleging procedural illegality under Section 9(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, contending only Lokayukta/Upa-Lokayukta could issue preliminary notice—Held: Though issued by Deputy Registrar, it was under Upa-Lokayukta’s direction—Lack of direct challenge to 2018 memorandum fatal to plea—Writ dismissed [Paras 7–11, 45–47].

Property Mutation – Gift Deed Dispute – Civil Nature – Not a Bar to Disciplinary Proceedings – Petitioner accused of tampering with municipal property register to change site number and facilitate transfer to husband—Civil suit regarding ownership pending—Held: Pendency of civil suit does not bar disciplinary action based on misuse of official position—Departmental proceedings independent of title dispute [Paras 3–6, 12–13, 27–28].

Government Procedure – Compliance with Transaction of Business Rules – Substantial Compliance Sufficient – Petitioner argued entrustment and show cause notice violated Rules 18 & 19 by not being issued in Governor’s name—Held: Entrustment order was issued “by order and in the name of the Governor” and signed by competent authority—Substantial compliance upheld—Challenge meritless [Paras 17–18, 34–36].

Delay and Participation – Acquiescence to Proceedings Bars Belated Challenge – Petitioner participated in departmental enquiry without protest, sought time for reply to show cause notice—Held: Challenge to process belated and barred by acquiescence—Court declined to interfere at final stage [Paras 9, 46–48].

Natural Justice – Sufficient Opportunity Given – No Prejudice Demonstrated – Petitioner failed to demonstrate breach of natural justice or denial of opportunity—Court found full participation in proceedings—Held: No grounds to interfere under Articles 226 or 227 [Paras 42–44].

Decision – Writ petition dismissed – Departmental enquiry upheld – Show cause notice and entrustment order found valid – No costs awarded [Final Para].

Anticipatory Bail – Sections 318(4), 319(2), 336(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 61(2) of the  BNS - Fraudulent Sale Deed – NRI Property – Active Complicity Alleged – Petitioners sought anticipatory bail in a case involving impersonation and fraudulent execution of sale deed of NRI-owned land—High Court found petitioners actively facilitated fraud by verifying identity of impersonator and assisting with registration formalities—Held: Active role of petitioners and gravity of offence militates against grant of bail [Paras 1–7].

Real Estate Fraud – Identity Theft – Impersonation of NRI – Alleged impersonation of NRI Deep Singh to execute sale deed for 14 kanals of land valued in crores for ₹30.20 lakhs using uncashed cheques—Petitioners including nambardar and advocate verified identity of impersonator using forged Aadhar and PAN cards—Held: Pattern of land grabbing targeting NRI owners noted—Bail rightly denied [Paras 3–6].

Custodial Interrogation – Need to Uncover Wider Conspiracy – Court noted necessity of custodial interrogation to trace involvement of other accused, including revenue and registry staff—Referred to statements and CCTV footage implicating petitioners and co-accused—Held: Further investigation demands custodial presence [Paras 6–7].

Systemic Abuse – Undervaluation and Public Trust – Court's Caution – Highlighted larger trend of NRI property frauds through forged documents and sham transactions—Court emphasized such frauds corrode institutional credibility and public trust—Held: Judicial discretion must be exercised cautiously to uphold real estate integrity and social conscience [Paras 6–7].

Decision – Anticipatory bail petitions dismissed – Court directed Deputy Commissioner to proceed with disciplinary action against petitioner Bagel Singh and file compliance report – Petitioners found to be part of orchestrated fraudulent scheme [Para 7].

Civil Suit – Recovery Based on Ledger – Acknowledgment of Debt – Plaintiff claimed ₹1,06,569/- including principal and interest for unpaid amounts related to apple crop material—Defendant signed ledger acknowledging ₹77,504/-—Held: Concurrent findings by trial and appellate courts supported by evidence—Signature on ledger not disputed during cross-examination—Appeal dismissed [Paras 1–3, 5–8].

Pleading and Evidence – Signature Not Denied – Inference of Admission – Defendant alleged signatures obtained under pretext of cooperative bank resolution, but never denied signing the ledger—No explanation for non-response to legal notice—Held: Conduct of defendant indicated tacit admission—Courts rightly accepted plaintiff’s claim [Paras 4–7].

Substantial Question of Law – Concurrent Findings – No Perversity – Appellate court affirmed decree of ₹77,504/- with 6% interest—High Court found no illegality or perversity—Held: No interference warranted under Section 100 CPC—Substantial question answered against appellant [Paras 9–11].

Money Lending Act – No Bar on Recovery – Defendant pleaded that plaintiff lacked license under Money Lending Act—Held: Not substantiated—Claim was based on goods and services exchanged, not a money lending transaction per se—No bar to decree [Para 3].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree of trial and first appellate court affirmed – No costs awarded – Decree to be prepared accordingly [Para 11].

Civil Revision – Leave under Section 80(2) CPC – Grant of Leave Valid – The trial court allowed plaintiffs to institute suit prior to completion of the two-month notice period, citing urgency to prevent tampering with artefacts at a protected monument – Held: Government defendants did not object to the waiver; private revisionist (Masjid Committee) had no locus standi to challenge it – Leave granted lawfully under Section 80(2) CPC [Paras 29–60].

Commission for Local Investigation – Appointment Justified – Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC – Advocate Commissioner was appointed by the trial court to inspect the site and submit a report with photography and videography – Held: Proper compliance with procedural rules was made, and no lis was decided – Mere collection of evidence at preliminary stage not prejudicial – Challenge to Commission not sustainable [Paras 61–85].

Protected Monument – Access under 1958 Act – Suit Not Barred by 1991 Act – Plaintiffs sought right of access to a structure notified in 1920 as protected monument – Held: Relief sought was limited to public access under Section 18 of AMASR Act, 1958; no prayer to convert religious character – Provisions of 1991 Act not applicable [Paras 86–122].

Decision – Civil Revision Dismissed – Trial court orders granting leave to file suit under Section 80(2) CPC and appointing Advocate Commissioner upheld – Suit not barred under Place of Worship Act – No interference warranted under revisional jurisdiction – Interim order vacated – Suit to proceed [Paras 123–127].

Family Law – Bar on Fresh Suit – Order 13 Rule 1(4) CPC – Divorce Petition Dismissed – Wife initially filed a suit under Section 12 HMA for declaration of marriage as null and void—Withdrew it in Lok Adalat without seeking liberty to file fresh suit—Subsequently filed divorce petition under Section 13(1) HMA on same facts—Held: As per Order XXIII Rule 1(4), withdrawal without permission precludes subsequent suit—Second suit not maintainable [Paras 7–17].

Res Judicata and Abuse of Process – Same Cause of Action – Subsequent Suit Barred – High Court found that both suits were based on identical facts including alleged fraudulent marriage—No cruelty or desertion could be pleaded afresh—Respondent suppressed material facts and attempted to revive barred claims—Bar under Order XXIII applies [Paras 8–11, 15–17].

Judicial Precedents – Cited Delhi and Andhra High Court Rulings – Court relied on precedents including Devarapu Narasimharao v. Yerrbothula Peda Venkaiah and M/s Shoes East Ltd. v. Jainender Jain—Held: Fresh suit on same facts without liberty violates legal procedure—Earlier withdrawal kills cause of action [Paras 13–14].

Application Under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC – Rejection of Divorce Suit Directed – Trial Court erred in dismissing husband's application seeking rejection of plaint—High Court allowed application under Order 7 Rule 11 r/w Section 151 CPC—Divorce petition dismissed as barred by law [Paras 17–18].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Family Court’s order dated 08.04.2024 set aside – Application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC allowed – Divorce suit filed by respondent dismissed as barred by Order XXIII Rule 1(4) CPC [Para 18].

Civil Procedure – Dismiss in Default – Order 9 Rule 8 CPC – Meaning of ‘Hearing’ – Suit dismissed on 08.12.2003 due to non-appearance of plaintiffs though the date was fixed only for defendants to file written statement – Held: Such a date is not a ‘date of hearing’ as per CPC – Dismissal for default under Order IX Rule 8 improper – Orders of trial and appellate court set aside [Paras 9-13].

Restoration of Suit – Order 9 Rule 9 CPC – No Evidence Required Where Absence Explained – Plaintiffs filed application for restoration within limitation citing illness and non-appearance of counsel – Defendants filed no counter affidavit – Trial court erred in rejecting application without recording evidence – Held: Sufficient cause shown; application ought to have been allowed [Paras 4-5, 14-15].

Judicial Delay – Prolonged Litigation over Procedural Defect – Delay of Over 13 Years – Courts below unnecessarily prolonged decision on simple restoration plea – Trial court committed procedural illegality by dismissing restoration application summarily – Appellate court also erred in affirmation – Held: Restoration directed without remand [Para 14].

Case Law Applied – Date of Hearing – Filing of Written Statement Not Equivalent to Hearing – Relied on Satish Saggar v. MPIDC, 1999 (2) MPLJ 644; Ramchandra v. Sagarmal, 1988 (2) MPWN 234; Roop Narayan v. Shambhoo Lal, 2001 SCC OnLine Raj 955 – Held: Date fixed for filing WS not “hearing” under Order IX – No need for plaintiff’s presence [Paras 10-13].

Decision – Civil revision allowed – Orders of trial and appellate courts set aside – Application under Order IX Rule 9 CPC allowed – Suit restored to original number – Trial court directed to proceed in accordance with law from relevant stage [Paras 15-17].

Anticipatory Bail – Sections 318(4), 316(2), 61(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNS) - Economic Offence – Prima Facie Conspiracy to Defraud – Bail Denied – Applicant accused of conspiring with two others to induce ₹82 lakhs from a restaurateur under pretense of bribing BMC officials for title transfer—Held: Prima facie material including WhatsApp chats, bank transfers, and voice recordings show active involvement—No protection under anticipatory bail warranted [Paras 1–7, 11–12, 14–16].

Repeated Modus Operandi – Similar FIRs on Record – Judicial Concern Over Pattern – Six criminal cases involving similar offenses (Sections 420, 467 IPC) pending against applicant—Court viewed pattern as habitual and a threat to public interest—Held: Grant of bail would impede investigation and risk repetition [Paras 12, 16].

Medical Grounds – Applicant’s Mother's Cancer – Found to Be Exaggerated – Applicant cited urgency due to mother's illness—Court found overwriting in medical reports and contradictions about timing of recommended surgery—Rejected plea as lacking credibility [Paras 9, 13].

Interference with Witness – Voice Recording with Victim's Daughter – Transcript of voice call showed applicant demanding bribe from complainant’s daughter—Held: Attempt to influence witness proved—Ground to deny bail [Para 14].

Custodial Interrogation – Necessary Despite No Third-Degree Risk – Citing CBI v. Anil Sharma and Sumitha Pradeep v. Arun Kumar C.K., Court reiterated custodial interrogation’s significance in white-collar crimes—Held: Even if torture not alleged, custodial interrogation aids in truth discovery and cannot be bypassed [Para 17].

Decision – Anticipatory Bail Application rejected – Interim relief also denied – Applicant found non-cooperative, untruthful, and likely to influence witnesses – No interference permitted in ongoing investigation [Paras 17–19].

Service Law – Teacher’s Transfer – Quashing of Transfer Order – Appellant initially appointed as Teacher Grade-III without subject specification – Claimed eligibility and experience in Social Science based on optional subjects studied during graduation – Transfer order dated 09.01.2025 posted her as Teacher Level-II in English, a subject she had only as a compulsory paper, not optional – Held: Transfer order arbitrary and punitive in nature as appellant lacked requisite qualification to teach English – Transfer violative of statutory rules and guidelines issued by Education Department – Quashed [Paras 1–18].

Qualification Criteria – Subject-wise Eligibility – Appellant’s graduation subjects included History and Economics (optional), not English – Guidelines dated 16.02.2016 clarified that subject eligibility must be based on optional subjects, not compulsory – Advertisement dated 16.12.2022 and Rule 266 of Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 reiterated same principle – Appellant validly qualified to teach Social Science, not English [Paras 2–5, 9, 13–16].

Judicial Review – Scope in Transfer Matters – Though limited, interference justified where transfer is mala fide, without jurisdiction or punitive – Present transfer considered punitive and passed with legal malice, as it assigned teaching responsibility outside appellant’s qualification domain – Likely to cause adverse civil consequences and violate students’ right under Article 21-A – Held: Transfer cannot be justified under guise of administrative exigency [Para 12].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Impugned judgment dated 04.02.2025 and transfer order dated 09.01.2025 quashed – Respondents directed to repost appellant where she may teach Social Science per her qualifications [Paras 17–18].