Property Dispute – Claim of Encroachment Over Passage – No Title Proven – The appellant claimed ownership over a disputed passage in a residential area, alleging illegal encroachment by the defendant – The courts below found that the appellant had no title over the passage and failed to establish any ownership rights – Held: Mere assertion of right without documentary proof cannot sustain a claim for possession; suit rightly dismissed [Paras 6-8].

Limitation – Long Delay in Filing Suit – Claim Time-Barred – The appellant filed the suit in 2013, alleging encroachment in 2011, but evidence showed that the defendant had constructed his house on the disputed land in 1984 – The Court held that the appellant's claim was barred by limitation under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 – Held: Long delay and inaction negate the appellant’s claim; suit dismissed as time-barred [Paras 14-15].

Failure to Prove Cause of Action – Admission in Cross-Examination Weakens Case – The appellant admitted in cross-examination that he had no title over the disputed passage – Further, the local commission’s report contradicted the appellant’s claims – Held: No cause of action exists when the plaintiff lacks ownership over the disputed land [Paras 15-16].

No Substantial Question of Law – Second Appeal Dismissed – The Court reiterated that a second appeal under Section 100 CPC is maintainable only if a substantial question of law arises – Since the appellant merely challenged factual findings and failed to demonstrate any legal error, the appeal was dismissed at the admission stage – Held: No substantial question of law; second appeal dismissed [Paras 17-18].
 

Criminal Law - Quashing of FIR – Section 505(2) IPC – No Prima Facie Case – Allegation of false news report against the petitioner, a media network editor, for airing misleading information – The petitioner neither hosted nor participated in the broadcast – Held: No ingredient of Section 505(2) IPC met – FIR quashed [Paras 8-12].

Freedom of Press – Media Responsibility – Alleged false reporting by a news channel regarding traffic disruption due to Chief Minister’s convoy – Complaint filed by a political party member – Court held that the petitioner, as an Editor-in-Chief, cannot be held liable unless direct involvement is established – Protection of journalistic freedom upheld [Paras 10-12].

Misuse of Criminal Law – Malicious Prosecution – FIR filed against the petitioner due to political rivalry – No evidence of intent to promote enmity or hatred under Section 505(2) IPC – Court criticized misuse of criminal process and quashed FIR to prevent abuse of law [Paras 13-14].

Investigation and Mens Rea – Section 505(2) IPC – Requirement of intention to incite enmity or ill-will – Court held that even if the report was false, it did not meet the threshold for the offense – Mens rea not established – FIR quashed [Paras 11-12].

Application of Bhajan Lal Principles – FIR Quashing – Reference to Supreme Court guidelines in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal – FIR quashed as it lacked substance and was manifestly attended with malafide intent [Paras 13-14].

Decision: The writ petition was allowed. The FIR in Crime No. 35/2024 was quashed, and all proceedings against the petitioner were set aside.
 

Criminal Courts – No Inherent Power of Review – Exceptions Exist to Prevent Miscarriage of Justice – The petitioner contended that a criminal court lacks inherent power to review or recall its own orders, except in cases of clerical, typographical, or mathematical errors – The High Court reaffirmed this principle but held that exceptions exist where an order is passed due to misrepresentation, fraud, or unforeseen circumstances – Held: The Trial Court’s recall of the dismissal order was legally justified as it corrected an injustice caused by an erroneous police statement [Paras 6, 11-12].

Anticipatory Bail – Recall of Dismissal Order Justified Due to Police Misrepresentation – The private respondents’ initial bail application was dismissed based on an incorrect statement by a police official that they had not complied with investigation directions – The State later admitted the error in an affidavit, confirming that the respondents had in fact cooperated – The High Court held that when a judicial order is based on a factual mistake attributable to the police, the Trial Court is justified in reconsidering its decision – Held: Recall of the dismissal order and grant of bail was proper to prevent injustice [Paras 7-9].

Cancellation of Bail – Requires Cogent Grounds of Misuse – No Such Grounds Established – The petitioner sought cancellation of bail, arguing that the Trial Court’s exercise of jurisdiction was impermissible – The High Court reiterated that once bail is granted, it can only be cancelled if the accused violates bail conditions, tampers with evidence, or misuses liberty – In the absence of such allegations, mere legal objections to the grant of bail do not justify cancellation – Held: No compelling reason existed to revoke the anticipatory bail granted to the respondents [Paras 10, 14].

Bail Jurisprudence – Personal Liberty Should Not Be Curtailed Due to Administrative Errors – The High Court emphasized that personal liberty cannot be curtailed due to procedural lapses or administrative mistakes – The police’s incorrect statement led to an unjustified rejection of bail, necessitating its recall – Held: A strict view of recall powers should not override the broader principle of ensuring justice [Paras 12-13].

Decision – Petition Dismissed – Anticipatory Bail Upheld – The Court found that the Trial Court acted within its discretion to rectify a glaring factual mistake and prevent injustice – Since no misuse of bail was alleged, there was no valid ground for cancellation – Held: Petition dismissed, anticipatory bail of private respondents upheld [Paras 14].

Criminal Procedure – Application for Production of Documents – Section 91 Cr.P.C. – Rejection by Trial Court Held Illegal – The petitioner sought documents including station house diary, duty roster, police logbooks, and digital entries – Trial Court rejected the application stating that the accused could obtain them under the Right to Information Act – High Court held that an accused cannot be driven to secure documents through RTI when Section 91 of Cr.P.C. provides a direct remedy – Rejection order quashed – Petition allowed [Paras 3-6].

Criminal Law – Fair Trial – Right to Access Evidence – Held: The prosecution is obligated to produce relevant documents in the interest of justice – The accused has the right to request such documents through the trial process – Application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. granted – Prosecution directed to produce the requested documents at the appropriate stage of trial [Paras 6-7].

Decision – Petition allowed – Order of the Special Court rejecting the application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. set aside – Prosecution directed to produce the requested documents during trial [Para 7].

Civil Law - Permanent Injunction – Grant Without Finding of Possession – Order Set Aside – The lower appellate court maintained the trial court’s dismissal of the suit for cancellation of the sale deed but granted a permanent injunction in favor of the plaintiff-respondent – The High Court held that an injunction cannot be granted without recording a clear finding of possession – Held: Since the land in dispute was not identifiable, the relief of permanent injunction was unjustified and was set aside [Paras 6-9].

Suit for Cancellation of Sale Deed – No Challenge to Prior Transaction – Claim Not Sustainable – The plaintiff-respondent challenged the sale deed dated 12.11.2007 but failed to challenge an earlier sale deed of 20.01.2000 from the original co-owner – The courts found that once the first sale deed was accepted and acted upon, the subsequent sale was legally valid – Held: Without challenging the foundational transaction, the claim for cancellation of the later sale deed is untenable [Paras 11-12].

Possession – Failure to Establish Actual Occupation – Relief Cannot Be Granted – The lower appellate court granted an injunction based on a partition decree obtained by the plaintiff-respondent – The High Court held that such a decree did not automatically establish actual possession in the present case, especially when the land in dispute was unidentifiable – Held: Possession must be proven through evidence in the same proceedings; injunction relief set aside [Paras 13-14].

No Substantial Question of Law – Appeal Allowed in Part – The Court reiterated that a second appeal under Section 100 CPC is maintainable only if a substantial question of law arises – Since the lower appellate court granted relief contrary to its own findings on possession and identifiability of land, interference was justified – Held: Judgment granting permanent injunction set aside; remaining portion of the judgment upheld [Paras 18-19].

Decision: Second appeal allowed in part – The relief of permanent injunction granted by the lower appellate court was set aside – The remaining findings, including the dismissal of the suit for cancellation of the sale deed, remained intact – No order as to costs.

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR - Prohibition Law – Validity of FIR Based on Breath Analyzer Test – FIR Quashed – The petitioner was booked under Section 37 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, based solely on a breath analyzer test showing 41 mg/100 ml blood alcohol concentration – No confirmatory blood or urine test was conducted – The Court relied on Bachubhai Hassanalli Karyani v. State of Maharashtra, (1971) 3 SCC 930, which held that mere smell of alcohol and behavioural observations are insufficient to establish consumption – Held: In the absence of confirmatory medical tests, the breath analyzer test alone is inconclusive and cannot justify prosecution – FIR quashed [Paras 2-6, 12].

Mala Fide Action – Allegations of Professional Vendetta – Petitioner’s Claim Considered – The petitioner claimed that the FIR was a result of vendetta by the District Magistrate after he raised objections regarding financial irregularities – The Court noted that the petitioner’s claims of mala fide intent were not conclusively proven but found procedural lapses in the registration of the case – Held: While the allegations of vendetta were not a primary ground, the procedural irregularities warranted quashing of the FIR [Paras 7-9].

Fundamental Rights – Violation of Articles 14 and 21 – Arbitrary Prosecution – The petitioner argued that his arrest and suspension from government service were unconstitutional as they were based on arbitrary enforcement of law without substantive evidence – The Court found that the prosecution lacked conclusive proof and amounted to an arbitrary exercise of power – Held: The FIR and subsequent departmental action were unjustified, violating fundamental rights [Paras 10-11].

Petition Allowed – FIR Quashed – The High Court held that the registration of the case solely on the basis of a breath analyzer test, without confirmatory medical evidence, was legally unsustainable – Held: Excise PS Case No. 559 of 2024 (Special Case No. 572 of 2024) quashed, and writ petition allowed [Paras 12-13].
 

Commercial Law – Rejection of Plaint – Order VII, Rule 11, CPC – The petitioner filed an application under Order VII, Rule 11, CPC, contending that the suit was barred by territorial jurisdiction as per the agreement between the parties – The trial court rejected the application, holding that the plaint disclosed a cause of action and was not barred by any law – Held: The existence of a cause of action is a triable issue, and Order VII, Rule 11 cannot be invoked where controversial questions of fact are involved – No error in the trial court’s order [Paras 2.2, 5.2].

Commercial Courts Act – Maintainability of Civil Revision – Section 8 of the Commercial Courts Act – The respondent raised an objection regarding the maintainability of revision under Section 115, CPC, in light of Section 8 of the Commercial Courts Act, which bars civil revision petitions against interlocutory orders – Held: Since the suit pertains to a commercial dispute, revision under Section 115, CPC is barred – The appropriate remedy lies in appeal under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, if applicable [Paras 6, 14.1].

Jurisdiction – Effect of Exclusive Jurisdiction Clause – The petitioner argued that the agreement between the parties specified that disputes should be resolved in Cuttack courts, and thus, the Bhubaneswar Commercial Court lacked territorial jurisdiction – Held: The existence of an exclusive jurisdiction clause does not automatically oust the jurisdiction of other competent courts – If the plaint discloses a cause of action within Bhubaneswar, the court can proceed with the trial – Application under Order VII, Rule 11 rightly rejected [Paras 5.3, 6.1].

Effect of Commercial Courts Act on Revisionary Jurisdiction – Section 115, CPC read with Sections 8 and 13 of the Commercial Courts Act – The Commercial Courts Act overrides the general provisions of the CPC in matters of commercial disputes – Held: The bar under Section 8 is absolute, and revision petitions under Section 115, CPC are not maintainable against interlocutory orders of Commercial Courts – Appeal under Section 13 is the only available remedy [Paras 14, 14.6].

Interlocutory Orders – Scope of Judicial Review – The petitioner argued that the rejection of his Order VII, Rule 11 application was an erroneous exercise of jurisdiction, warranting interference under Section 115, CPC – Held: The impugned order does not fall within the scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 115, CPC – Any challenge to such interlocutory orders can only be raised in appeal against the final decree [Paras 10.1, 14.3].

Decision – Revision Petition Not Maintainable – The High Court dismissed the revision petition as barred under Section 8 of the Commercial Courts Act – Petitioners are not remediless but must pursue appropriate remedies under Section 13 of the Act – No costs awarded [Paras 16-17].
 

Writ Jurisdiction Against Private Banks – Function Test Applied – The respondent bank contended that it was a private entity and, therefore, not amenable to writ jurisdiction – The Court held that while a private scheduled bank may not be a state instrumentality, its obligation to allow depositors to withdraw their own funds is a public function governed by statutory regulations – Held: A writ under Article 226 is maintainable against a scheduled private bank when it arbitrarily denies a depositor access to its funds, violating banking regulations and depositors’ rights [Paras 19-22].

Freezing of Bank Account Without Legal Authority – Arbitrary Action – The petitioner company’s current account was frozen by the respondent bank based solely on a request from the director’s estranged wife, citing an ongoing matrimonial dispute – The Court noted that no competent authority had passed an order directing such action, nor was there any criminal investigation requiring account freezing – Held: A private dispute between shareholders or directors does not authorize a bank to unilaterally freeze a company’s account without a valid court or government order [Paras 26-29].

Bank’s Role as Custodian – Duty to Allow Withdrawals in Absence of Legal Restrictions – The Court emphasized that scheduled banks operate under strict regulatory supervision and act as custodians of depositors’ funds – The respondent bank’s refusal to allow withdrawals without legal justification violated its obligations under the Banking Regulation Act – Held: A scheduled bank cannot assume adjudicatory authority over disputes between depositors and third parties and must release funds unless legally restrained [Paras 28-30].

Matrimonial Dispute of Director – No Basis for Freezing Corporate Account – The respondent argued that the petitioner’s director was facing a criminal complaint and civil litigation from his estranged wife, who was a minority shareholder in the company – The Court held that such private disputes do not justify restricting the company’s access to its funds, especially when no legal proceedings had mandated such action – Held: The wife’s remedy lay before the civil court or National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), not through an extrajudicial request to the bank [Paras 31-32].

Decision: Writ petition allowed. The bank’s order dated 28.05.2024 freezing the petitioner’s account was quashed. The respondent bank was directed to allow the petitioner to operate its current account freely unless a competent legal authority imposes any lawful restrictions.

Murder Trial – Common Intention – Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 – Conviction Upheld – The appellants, along with other accused, forcefully entered the victim’s house at night, dragged him outside, and brutally assaulted him with iron rods, wooden sticks, and hammers – The assault continued at multiple locations, ultimately causing the victim’s death – Evidence from multiple eyewitnesses corroborated the sequence of events – Medical report confirmed homicidal injuries – Held: The appellants acted with common intention, making them liable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC [Paras 3-5, 46-47].

Non-Framing of Specific Charge – Section 464 CrPC – No Prejudice Caused – The appellant Badal Sarkar argued that since no specific charge under Section 302 IPC was framed against him, his conviction was illegal – The Court noted that the trial order sheet clearly indicated that all accused were charged under Section 302 IPC – The appellant was represented by counsel throughout the trial and fully participated in cross-examination – Held: The absence of a specific charge did not cause prejudice or failure of justice – Conviction sustained [Paras 25-35].

Acquittal of Co-Accused – Plea of Parity – Rejected – The appellants argued that since some similarly placed accused were acquitted, they should also be acquitted – The Court, relying on Supreme Court precedents, held that a wrongful acquittal does not justify setting aside a valid conviction – Independent evaluation of evidence revealed that the appellants had a more direct and active role in the crime – Held: The plea of parity was not applicable, and the conviction of the appellants was upheld [Paras 38-50].

Reliability of Eyewitness Testimony – Nighttime Identification – No Test Identification Parade Required – The appellants challenged the credibility of eyewitnesses on the ground of nighttime occurrence and lack of Test Identification Parade (TIP) – The Court held that the witnesses were familiar with the accused and had sufficient opportunity to recognize them – Testimony of PW1, PW2, and PW3 was consistent and corroborated by medical evidence – Held: TIP was not necessary, and the eyewitness testimony was reliable [Paras 65-67].

Delay in Recording Eyewitness Statements – Effect on Credibility – The appellants contended that a delay in recording the statements of eyewitnesses affected their credibility – The Court held that delay alone does not render testimony unreliable unless it is unexplained or unsupported by other evidence – The statements of PW1, PW2, and PW3 were recorded soon after the incident and corroborated by other witnesses – Held: No adverse inference could be drawn against the prosecution [Paras 69-72].

Non-Seizure of Weapons – No Adverse Inference Against Prosecution – The defense argued that the absence of seizure of weapons and fingerprints weakened the prosecution’s case – The Court held that in cases involving common household weapons like iron rods, sticks, and hammers, non-recovery was not fatal to the case – Medical evidence and eyewitness testimony sufficiently established the weapons used – Held: Conviction cannot be set aside due to non-seizure of weapons [Paras 73-75].

Medical Evidence – Cause of Death – No Inconsistency – The defense argued that the post-mortem report did not conclusively establish that the injuries were fatal – The Court found that the medical evidence clearly indicated multiple blunt force injuries leading to hemorrhage and cardio-respiratory failure – The injuries were consistent with the eyewitness accounts – Held: Medical evidence corroborated the prosecution’s case, and there was no basis to interfere with the conviction [Paras 56-60].

Assessment of Circumstantial Evidence – Collective Assault and Common Intention – Guilt Established – The Court examined the sequence of events, corroborated eyewitness testimonies, medical evidence, and the accused’s participation in unlawful assembly – The appellants had a clear common intention to cause death – Held: The cumulative effect of the evidence conclusively established the guilt of the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC [Paras 46-50, 62-64].