Criminal Law – Assault – Acquittal Reversed – Respondents alleged to have assaulted complainant and his wife with broken glass bottle – Trial Court acquitted accused under Section 324/34 IPC holding prosecution evidence unreliable – High Court finds complainant’s testimony consistent and corroborated by medical evidence and arrest memos – Held: Testimony of PW1 supported by MLCs proves infliction of simple injuries beyond reasonable doubt – Acquittal order set aside – Conviction recorded under Section 323/34 IPC [Paras 5, 18–27, 30–31].

Appreciation of Evidence – Testimony of Injured Witness – Complainant’s version of events remained consistent with FIR and deposition – Minor inconsistencies regarding site plan and signatures on police documents do not justify rejection of entire testimony – Failure to examine second injured or IO not fatal as primary evidence sufficient – Trial Court erred in disbelieving complainant in toto [Paras 20–27].

Weapon – Dangerous Weapon – Section 324 IPC – Burden of Proof – Complainant claimed injuries caused by broken bottle – Medical report showed sharp injuries to complainant and blunt injuries to wife – No glass shards recovered – Held: In absence of recovery or clarity about nature of glass, prosecution failed to prove use of dangerous weapon – Conviction sustainable only under Section 323 IPC [Para 28].

Decision: Impugned judgment dated 11.09.2018 set aside – Respondents convicted under Section 323/34 IPC.

Criminal Law – Bail – Financial and Document Forgery Allegations – Petitioner accused of fraudulently obtaining large sums of money and property from informant by exploiting spiritual influence – FIR alleges transfer of land through forged gift deed and adoption deed – Charge sheet filed under BNS – Petitioner in custody since May 2025 – High Court noted pendency of related civil suit seeking cancellation of adoption deed – Held: Dispute predominantly civil with criminal elements – Continued detention not warranted as investigation complete and no custodial interrogation required [Paras 1–6, 9]

Bail – Triple Test – Flight Risk – Tampering with Evidence – High Court found that with charge sheet filed and evidence primarily documentary, risk of witness tampering minimal – Flight risk to be mitigated through surrender of passport – Petitioner’s previous cases noted, but found distinguishable and insufficient to deny bail – Liberty cannot be curtailed solely on allegations without trial – Bail granted subject to strict conditions [Paras 7–8]

Criminal Law – Civil and Criminal Proceedings – Parallel Proceedings – Acknowledged that a civil suit was filed by informant prior to the FIR challenging adoption deed – FIR silent on civil suit – Court noted that both parties had prior relationship and transactions, which support existence of civil dispute – Held: Bail appropriate as allegations and defences are to be tested during trial, not at bail stage [Paras 5–6]

Decision: Bail Application Allowed – Petitioner Sambit Ray admitted to bail on execution of bail bond of Rs. 5,00,000 with two solvent sureties – Conditions imposed include surrender of passport, cooperation with investigation, regular appearance before trial court, and prohibition on leaving the country without permission – Court reserves liberty for cancellation of bail in case of violation of conditions.

Civil Law – Interim Injunction – Violation of Status Quo Order – Plaintiffs filed suit for declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction with application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC – Trial Court granted injunction on 30.12.2019 directing parties to maintain status quo – Local Commissioner’s report confirmed ongoing construction by defendants in breach of order – Appellate Court partially allowed defendants’ appeal permitting them to complete construction on existing structure citing equity and investment – Held: Appellate Court erred in rewarding violation of trial court’s injunction by allowing construction completion – Such use of Local Commissioner’s report to justify continued breach undermines sanctity of interim orders – Appellate Court’s order modified – Respondents restrained from further construction, alienation, or creation of charge over suit land during pendency of suit – Trial Court’s interim directions restored [Paras 2-9].

Decision: Petitions allowed – Order of Appellate Court modified – Parties directed to maintain status quo regarding possession and nature of suit land – Respondents restrained from further construction, alienation, or creating any charge over the property without leave of the Trial Court.

Civil Law – Agreement to Sell – Refund of Earnest Money – Specific Performance Not Pressed – Plaintiff claimed refund of Rs.46.38 lakhs as part of Rs.85.78 lakhs allegedly paid under agreement to sell dated 04.12.2007 – Both Trial Court and First Appellate Court rejected claim as agreement did not mention payment of any earnest money and lacked clarity on sale consideration – Held: Plaintiff failed to establish payment of any specific amount towards earnest money through cogent evidence – No refund could be granted in absence of proof of consideration or admission by seller [Paras 4, 7].

Civil Procedure – Limitation of Challenge – Scope of Appeal – Before First Appellate Court, plaintiff did not press for specific performance and restricted challenge to refund claim only – First Appellate Court rightly limited its findings to Issue No.3 regarding refund – No error found in courts below in rejecting plaintiff’s restricted claim [Paras 4, 7].

Second Appeal – Substantial Question of Law – Concurrent Findings – Both courts below rejected plaintiff’s case on facts and evidence – No substantial question of law arising from concurrent findings – Held: Second appeal not maintainable under Section 100 CPC where no perversity or legal infirmity shown [Paras 8-9].

Decision:   Appeal dismissed – No merit found – No substantial question of law arises.

Service Law – Refixation of Pay – Retrospective Promotion – Re-option for Pay Revisions – Retired Administrative Assistant granted retrospective promotion to Upper Division Clerk w.e.f. 01.11.1971 – Re-option request for 1973, 1978 and 1983 pay revisions rejected as delayed – Tribunal found re-option inadmissible due to absence of retrospective revision in pay scale – However, directed State to implement earlier order granting notional re-fixation of pay (Annexure A2) – Held: Tribunal justified in directing implementation of order already sanctioned but not acted upon [Paras 2, 3, 4, 13, 14]

Constitution of India – Article 227 – Scope of Supervisory Jurisdiction – High Court cannot sit in appeal over findings of Tribunal unless order is perverse, patently unreasonable or violates basic principles of justice – Tribunal’s direction found consistent with settled legal principles and not warranting interference – Petition dismissed [Paras 7–12, 14]

Decision: Original Petition dismissed – Tribunal’s direction to implement Annexure A2 upheld – No grounds for interference under Article 227.

Matrimonial Law – Divorce – Mental Cruelty – Vague Allegations and Police Cases – Divorce Denied – Appellants, two brothers, filed separate divorce petitions under Section 13(1)(ia) of HMA alleging cruelty by their wives who are sisters – Alleged incidents included quarrels, assaults, poisoning, FIRs and refusal to attend last rites – All FIRs ended in acquittal or compounding – No medical or independent evidence produced – Held: Allegations were vague, general and unsupported – Mere registration of FIRs without conviction or supporting proof cannot constitute cruelty – Appeals dismissed [Paras 6–9, 18–29].

Cruelty – Evidentiary Threshold – Section 13(1)(ia) HMA – Proof Required – Family Court rightly held that allegations of cruelty must be specific and substantiated – No evidence of poisoning or Kalendra proceedings produced – FIR-based allegations unsupported by medical records or independent testimony – Respondents acquitted, and allegations found to be part of domestic discord – Held: Standard of proof is preponderance of probabilities, but even that not satisfied in present case [Paras 21–25].

Separation – Long Duration Alone Not Cruelty – No Irretrievable Breakdown Proven – Appellants relied on prolonged separation of over 13 years to seek divorce – Held: Long separation, in absence of intent to reconcile or abusive conduct by respondent, cannot per se constitute cruelty – Appellants themselves unwilling to resume cohabitation – Reliance on Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh and Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli found misplaced [Paras 27–28].

Burden of Proof – Non-Examination of Key Witness – Adverse Inference – Appellants failed to examine any independent witness or produce credible documentary evidence – Plaintiff Devender Kumar admitted in cross-examination unwillingness to live with respondent – Held: Mere allegations without proof cannot sustain divorce on grounds of cruelty [Paras 21–23, 26].

Decision: Divorce appeals dismissed – Family Court judgment upheld – No credible evidence of cruelty – Long separation without cohabitation not a standalone ground for divorce – Parties left to bear their own costs [Paras 29–30].

Motor Accident Claim – Delay in FIR – Explanation Accepted – Accident on 11.08.2010, FIR registered on 18.08.2010 – Delay explained as due to communication lapse between hospital and police – Supported by Medico Legal memo – Held: Explanation plausible – FIR and medical records sufficiently establish accident and manner of occurrence [Paras 15–17].

Negligence – Proof of Involvement of Vehicle – Though owner and driver initially disowned accident by letters (Ex.R1, R2), both admitted involvement during cross-examination – FIR, medical evidence, and testimony of motorcycle rider (PW-2) corroborate accident – Held: Auto driver negligent – Insurer liable to indemnify owner [Paras 17–18].

Causation – Contributory Factors – Medical evidence revealed deceased had chronic liver disease, obesity, smoking history – Death resulted from “complications of head injury” – Held: Though contributory factors existed, accident remained proximate cause of death – No deduction warranted solely on that basis [Para 18].

Non-joinder of Parties – Motorcycle Not Insured – Deceased was pillion rider – Motorcycle owner not impleaded – However, since offending auto caused accident, insurer’s liability unaffected [Para 19].

Compensation – Salary Components – Inclusion of Allowances – Deceased was Senior Manager at Motorola earning ₹1,96,173.35 per month – Held: HRA, LTA, Medical and Car Lease Allowances to be included in income – Special/Conveyance Allowance excluded as reimbursement – Income tax and professional tax deducted – Monthly income fixed at ₹1,60,000 [Paras 27–30].

Future Prospects and Multiplier – Deceased aged 37 years – 50% added towards future prospects – 1/4th deducted for personal expenses – Multiplier ‘15’ applied – Loss of dependency computed at ₹3.24 crore [Paras 31–33].

Medical Expenses – Medi-claim Policy – Reimbursement proved – Premium paid by employer through salary deduction – Only ₹200 per month deductible considered – No separate compensation allowed for reimbursed medical expenses [Paras 21–23].

Quantum – Modified Award – Tribunal’s award of ₹2.99 crore enhanced to ₹3.26 crore – Apportionment revised – Wife ₹1 crore, two minors ₹75 lakh each, parents ₹38.18 lakh each – Interest at 7.5% p.a. maintained – Insurer directed to deposit within 8 weeks [Paras 33–35].

Decision: Appeal by Insurance Company dismissed – Appeal by Claimants partly allowed – Compensation enhanced to ₹3.26 crore with 7.5% interest – Apportionment and deposit directions as per Court’s order.

Criminal Law – Anticipatory Bail – Companies Act Offences – Bail Granted – Chartered Accountants facing prosecution under Sections 143 r/w 147 and 448 of the Companies Act, 2013 and related provisions for allegedly auditing falsified financial statements of SRS Group companies and concealing related party transactions – Petitioners had not been arrested during investigation – Trial court had issued summons and later warrants, prompting petitions under Section 438 CrPC – High Court held there was no material to show petitioners received disproportionate payments or undue favors in lieu of favorable audit reports – No evidence of complicity in the loan fraud or siphoning of funds – Bail granted as custodial interrogation not required [Paras 1, 3, 24, 29, 30]

Companies Act – Section 212(6) – Twin Conditions for Bail – Applicability – Court held that in absence of prima facie material indicating conspiracy or intent to commit fraud, statutory rigors of Section 212(6) would not preclude grant of bail – Reverse burden clause under Section 212(6) must be triggered only after primary burden is discharged by the prosecution – Held: Petitioners satisfied both limbs of Section 212(6) – Not guilty of offence and unlikely to commit any offence while on bail [Paras 31-33]

Audit Practice – Professional Negligence vs. Criminal Conspiracy – Distinction Drawn – Allegations primarily relate to failure in following auditing standards and non-reporting of circular transactions and related party dealings – Court observed no direct evidence of quid pro quo, criminal intent, or conspiracy with SRS Group controllers – Case does not exceed beyond dereliction of duty – Held: Auditors’ acts, even if deficient, did not amount to criminal complicity in financial fraud [Paras 24, 28-30]

Bank Lending – Role of Auditors – Scope of Responsibility – Consortium of banks (led by SBI) granted large-scale loans to SRS Group – Court found that banks did not rely upon audited financial statements while sanctioning credit – Held: No causal link between auditors' conduct and grant of loans – Bail granted as no complicity established [Paras 26-27]

Decision:

Anticipatory bail granted to all petitioners – Conditions imposed to ensure presence before trial court – Court clarified that mere professional lapses without quid pro quo or mens rea do not satisfy threshold under Section 212(6) Companies Act, 2013.

Family Law – Property Dispute Between Father and Son – Ownership and Possession – Father filed suit seeking mandatory injunction against son to vacate portion of self-acquired residential house – Son claimed house was joint family property and he was a coparcener – Trial Court and First Appellate Court held that property was purchased by father and his brother from their personal income and was not HUF property – Defendant failed to produce any evidence of coparcenary or ownership – Held: Son residing in father’s house as a permissive occupant cannot claim legal right to remain in possession – Father has absolute right to revoke permission and seek possession [Paras 5.4, 5.5, 6, 14, 15].

Civil Procedure – Suit for Mandatory Injunction – Maintainability – Son argued that suit should have been for possession and not mandatory injunction – Held: When defendant is in permissive possession without legal title and plaintiff remains in joint possession, suit for mandatory injunction is maintainable – No bar in seeking injunction to recover possession from permissive occupier [Paras 19, 20, 23].

Licensee vs. Permissive Possession – Meaning and Scope – Use of term "licensee" in plaint not fatal – Courts held son was not a licensee in strict legal sense but a permissive occupant – Gratuitous permission by parent creates no vested right – Suit maintainable even in absence of formal licensor-licensee relationship – Distinguished permissive possession from contractual license [Paras 8–12].

Second Appeal – No Substantial Question of Law – Concurrent findings of fact by both courts below based on proper appreciation of evidence – Defendant failed to establish any legal right or raise a question of law – Held: No ground for interference under Section 100 CPC – Appeal devoid of merit [Paras 14, 17, 18].

Exemplary Costs – Abuse of Process – Prolonged litigation by son against father despite lack of legal claim – Court deprecated the conduct and imposed exemplary cost of Rs.1,00,000/- on appellant – Observed such litigation erodes family trust and burdens judiciary [Para 24, 25].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree of lower courts affirmed – Exemplary costs of Rs.1,00,000/- imposed on appellant to be paid to respondent.