Criminal Procedure – Application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. – Maintainability – Prospective accused challenged the order of Magistrate directing registration of FIR and investigation under Sections 173(4) and 175(3) B.N.S.S. – Magistrate acted on complaint by retired SC community bank officer alleging conspiracy and forgery by bank officials to defame him – Held: Under Full Bench decision in Father Thomas v. State of UP, prospective accused has no locus to challenge pre-cognizance investigation order – Application dismissed as not maintainable [Paras 3, 8, 15, 21, 22].

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act – Allegation by SC complainant of false implication by fellow bank officers through forged complaint – Magistrate found prima facie case of criminal conspiracy and defamation – Directed police to register FIR and investigate – Held: No illegality in Magistrate’s order as procedure under Sections 173(4) and 175(3) B.N.S.S. duly followed [Paras 4, 5, 6, 13, 20].

Police Investigation – Direction under Section 173(4) B.N.S.S. – Magistrate satisfied prima facie cognizable offence made out – Considered police report, reply by bank officer, and supporting documents – Held: Application supported by affidavit; procedure under new B.N.S.S. complied – Direction to lodge FIR justified – No abuse of process [Paras 9, 10, 12, 13, 20].

Prospective Accused – Right to be Heard – No Locus at Pre-Cognizance Stage – Applicant had not been summoned or chargesheeted – Challenge to registration of FIR held impermissible – Reliance on Om Prakash Ambadkar held distinguishable as that case involved improper application of judicial mind, not locus of prospective accused – Father Thomas (FB) judgment binding [Paras 14, 15, 21].

Decision: Application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. by prospective accused dismissed as not maintainable – Magistrate’s direction for FIR registration and investigation upheld [Para 22].

Service Law – Withholding of Gratuity – Rule 2.2(b), 2.2(c) & 9.14 Punjab CSR – Criminal Case Unrelated to Official Duty – Petition Allowed – Petitioner retired in 2004, gratuity withheld due to criminal proceedings—convicted in 2013 but acquitted by High Court in 2018—State’s appeal pending in Supreme Court—Court held Rule 2.2(b) applies only to grave misconduct/negligence during service and related to official duties—four-year limitation in proviso to Rule 2.2(b) indicates departmental nexus—Offences unrelated to official duties fall outside its scope—Since employee was acquitted and later deceased, pendency of State’s appeal lost significance—Directed release of gratuity with 7.5% interest from filing of petition, failing which additional 2.5% interest from date of retirement to payment [Paras 8–18].

Anticipatory Bail – Misappropriation of Cooperative Society Funds – Sections 406, 409, 420, 465, 468, 471 IPC and Section 13(1) r/w 13(2) PC Act – Bail Refused – Petitioner, former Secretary of Kollam Cooperative Building Society, alleged to have collected deposits from third parties, issued forged receipts and certificates, and misappropriated ₹43,35,000/- – Issued 12 forged cheques by faking President’s signature – Annexure A11 letter to Chief Minister contained partial admission of involvement – Prosecution pointed out pending similar complaints and need for custodial interrogation to trace misappropriated funds – Held: Serious nature of offences, magnitude of amount, and possibility of influencing witnesses warranted denial of anticipatory bail [Paras 3, 9, 11, 16-18].

Medical Grounds for Bail – Disc Bulge Complaint – Not a Ground for Pre-Arrest Bail – Petitioner cited orthopaedic issues and MRI findings from 2022 as reason for leniency – Court held ailments were neither recent nor incapacitating, as petitioner worked in the society till May 2025 – Health grounds insufficient for anticipatory bail [Para 12].

Custodial Interrogation – Necessity in Economic Offences – Court emphasised that offences involving large-scale financial misappropriation in cooperative institutions require effective custodial questioning to trace funds and ensure successful prosecution – Anticipatory bail in such cases would impede investigation [Paras 16-18].

Decision:

Anticipatory bail application dismissed – Petitioner directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer forthwith – On failure to do so, IO authorised to arrest as per law [Final Para].

Criminal Law – Cognizance under BNSS – Section 223(1) BNSS – Mandatory Prior Notice to Accused – Procedural Safeguard – Complaint under Section 222 BNSS for defamation – Magistrate took cognizance and ordered pre-summoning evidence without prior notice – ASJ set aside cognizance for want of notice but upheld pre-summoning evidence – Held: Under BNSS, first proviso to Section 223(1) introduces significant change from CrPC by mandating opportunity of hearing to accused before cognizance – Magistrate must record complainant/witness statements, then issue notice before deciding on cognizance – ASJ rightly set aside cognizance but correctly held pre-summoning evidence valid at pre-cognizance stage – Petition dismissed [Paras 15, 20-24, 37-38].

Pre-Summoning Evidence – Permissibility before Cognizance – Sections 223 & 225 BNSS – Purpose of examining complainant/witnesses prior to cognizance is to test authenticity and filter frivolous complaints – Examination at this stage does not require accused’s presence – Cognizance arises only after such preliminary verification – No illegality in MM recording pre-summoning evidence prior to notice – ASJ’s view upheld [Paras 28-34].

Cognizance – Meaning and Stage – Defined as application of judicial mind to complaint to decide whether to proceed – Under BNSS, comes after preliminary examination and before summons – Change from CrPC is insertion of prior hearing requirement before cognizance – Provision intended as procedural safeguard, not to negate preliminary verification [Paras 16-19, 21-23, 37].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Order of ASJ upheld – Cognizance rightly set aside for want of prior notice, but pre-summoning evidence recording sustained as valid pre-cognizance process – No infirmity found in impugned order [Para 38].

Labour Law - Industrial Disputes – Unauthorized Absence – Validity of Dismissal – Tribunal’s Interference – Set Aside – Respondent workman, a permanent underground loader, remained absent without authorization from 28.02.1997 till conclusion of enquiry on 13.03.1999 – Disciplinary proceedings held ex parte after repeated notices – Tribunal held dismissal disproportionate and ordered reinstatement with 50% back wages – Held: Tribunal’s order unsustainable for lack of detailed reasons, failure to consider enquiry report, and erroneous finding of “absence of short period” contrary to record – Enquiry was conducted by competent authority, in compliance with prescribed procedure and principles of natural justice – There was sufficient evidence to establish misconduct – Interference by Tribunal unwarranted [Paras 24–29].

Judicial Review – Scope in Disciplinary Matters – High Court’s Limited Role – Court reiterated that under Articles 226/227, reappreciation of evidence is impermissible – Interference only if findings are perverse, unsupported by evidence, or proceedings violate natural justice – Applied principles from Abrar Ali, Heem Singh, and P. Gunasekaran – Found no procedural irregularity or perversity in disciplinary authority’s decision [Paras 18–21, 28].

Relief – Reference answered holding dismissal legal and justified – Employee entitled only to benefits permissible to a dismissed employee under law, including adjustment of any leave due – Writ petition allowed, award set aside [Paras 30–31].

Civil Procedure – Amendment of Pleadings – Order 6 Rule 17 CPC – Liberal approach reiterated – Amendment sought to add challenge to 1997 sale deed in suit for declaration of title and injunction – Petitioner contended amendment introduced time-barred claim, created new cause of action, and was moved only to delay proceedings after High Court’s direction for expeditious disposal – Held: Plaintiffs sought to base amendment on facts disclosed in written statement; amendment necessary for effective adjudication of real dispute; does not change basic nature and character of suit – Technical objections, including limitation, not a bar at amendment stage when facts on knowledge require trial – Trial court’s discretion to allow amendment upheld [Paras 7–11].

Limitation – Article 58, Limitation Act – Suit for declaration – Limitation of three years applies from date of knowledge – Court declined to presume prior knowledge of deed in absence of evidence – Whether claim barred to be determined at trial, not at amendment stage [Para 10].

Principles – Reiterated tests in Revajeetu Builders & Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons, (2009) 10 SCC 84, and Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd., 2022 (4) ICC 645 (SC) – Amendments necessary for real controversy to be allowed unless causing irremediable prejudice, withdrawing admissions, or raising ex facie time-barred claims – Courts to adopt liberal approach [Paras 7–8, 11].

Decision – Civil revision dismissed; order of Civil Judge (Jr. Division), 5th Court, Howrah, allowing amendment affirmed; no order as to costs [Paras 12–14].

Criminal Law - Section 304A, 315, 323, 506 of the IPC – Quashing - Medical Negligence – Delay in Caesarean – Failure to Act Timely – Prima Facie Offence Made Out – The applicant, a qualified gynaecologist, delayed surgery despite obtaining consent at 12 noon – Anaesthetist was called at 3:30 PM and operation performed at 5:30 PM – Foetus died due to “Prolonged Labour” – Held: Medical Board’s opinion disregarded as key documents like post mortem and multiple contradictory O.T. notes were not considered – Delay in medical response amounts to prima facie criminal negligence warranting trial [Paras 19–23, 34–42].

Criminal Liability of Doctors – Standards and Threshold – Role of Mens Rea and Gross Negligence – Held: Prosecution of a doctor requires proof of gross negligence or recklessness, not merely civil wrong – Where surgery is delayed without justification despite prior consent and medical urgency, it crosses the threshold of gross negligence – Observed: Requisite infrastructure lacking at nursing home, which adds to culpability – Jacob Mathew and Kusum Sharma principles applied [Paras 28–36].

Inherent Powers under Section 482 CrPC – Quashment of Proceedings – Not Permissible Where Prima Facie Case Exists – Applicant sought quashing of summoning order based on Medical Board report and defence evidence – Held: Where foundational facts are disputed and prima facie case is made out, quashing not warranted – Trial is proper forum to determine truth after evidence is adduced – High Court cannot evaluate defence evidence at pre-trial stage [Paras 43–45].

Decision: Application Dismissed – Proceedings to Continue – The Court dismissed the application under Section 482 CrPC holding that a prima facie case of criminal negligence is made out against the applicant – Found that timing of consent, delay in surgery, and non-consideration of key evidence by the Medical Board require full trial – Applicant free to raise all defences during trial – Observations in judgment not to influence outcome of trial [Paras 43–48].

Default Bail - UAPA – Extension of Custody – Section 43D(2) – Default Bail Refused – Appellant challenged extension orders of 24.02.2024 and 26.02.2024 and rejection of default bail on 11.03.2024 – Contended that trial court acted mechanically, without individualised assessment, and that investigation was substantially complete – Held: Public Prosecutor’s 90-page report detailed specific investigative steps, pending analysis of voluminous digital evidence, fund trail, absconding accused, and ISIS-linked activities – Trial court applied mind, recorded satisfaction on necessity, and complied with safeguards in Zeeshan Qamar – No mechanical extension – Appeal dismissed [Paras 32-34, 38].

National Security – Necessity of Continued Detention – Allegations of ISIS Membership – Material showed appellant’s involvement in recce of cities, handling of explosives, receipt of ISIS literature, and encrypted communications – Investigation linked to wider conspiracy with cross-border elements – Releasing appellant at crucial stage would impede investigation and risk evidence destruction – Custody extension justified [Paras 34-37].

Default Bail – Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. – UAPA Framework – Court reiterated that statutory right arises only if charge-sheet not filed within prescribed/extended period – Under UAPA, extension up to 180 days permissible on valid Public Prosecutor’s report – Trial court’s extension order within legal limits – Gravity of offence relevant to necessity assessment, though not to default bail entitlement – No violation of safeguards [Paras 27, 38-39].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Trial court orders upheld – Continued custody under Section 43D(2) UAPA lawful – Pending applications disposed [Para 39].

Criminal Law - Furlough Leave – Pending Criminal Case under NDPS Act – Conviction Required – Petition Allowed – The petitioner, a life convict under Sections 302 and 307 IPC, was denied furlough leave based on a pending case under the NDPS Act – Held: Rule 4(2)(e)(l) of Notification dated 02.12.2024 bars furlough for convicts under NDPS Act, but does not apply to undertrials – As petitioner is not yet convicted in the NDPS case, the bar is inapplicable – Rejection order held illegal and quashed [Paras 5–6].

Interpretation of Prison Rules – Definition of “Prisoner” – Notification of 2024 Clarified – Court held that Rule 2(f) and Rule 1(3) of Chapter I of the 2024 Notification define "prisoner" as a “convicted prisoner” and the Rules apply only to such convicts – Mere pendency of NDPS proceedings does not disentitle prisoner from furlough benefits – Respondent authority erred in law by applying rules to an undertrial context [Paras 6–7].

Adverse Police Report – Non-application of Mind – Vague Apprehensions Not Sufficient – The DIG relied on a police report claiming the petitioner’s release may endanger public peace – Held: Police report was based on speculative assertions without material support – No history of post-conviction misconduct or complaints – Authorities must apply mind and record specific, substantiated reasons to reject statutory benefits like furlough – Citing Sanjay Kisan Kadse v. State of Maharashtra, (2004) 1 Mah LJ 789, Court held vague police reports cannot override fundamental rights under Article 21 [Paras 8–9].

Decision: Petition Allowed – Furlough Leave Granted – The Court quashed the rejection order dated 31.01.2025 and directed release of the petitioner on furlough for 21 days subject to conditions imposed by authorities – Held: Application of Rule 4(2)(e)(l) to pending cases is erroneous – Adverse police report unsupported by facts – Authorities reminded of duty to avoid routine and mechanical denials of statutory rights [Paras 10–11].