Anticipatory Bail – Financial Scam – Co-operative Society – Pre-arrest bail granted with stringent conditions – Sneha MACS allegedly collected ₹6.32 crore from depositors, failed to repay – Accused No. 3, aged 71, retired bank officer, served as Director/CEO only from April 2022 to October 2024 – Majority of deposits mobilised before his tenure – Petitioner claimed to have invested ₹2 crore from own and family’s funds, making him also a victim – Investigation revealed no evidence of siphoning deposits for personal benefit – Petitioner cooperated with Investigation and Inquiry Officers; seizure of documents and material completed – Fixed residence and landed property; no risk of absconding – Health issues noted (kidney, thyroid, diabetes) – Court held custodial interrogation unwarranted; anticipatory bail granted subject to compliance with strict conditions [Paras 19–21].

Conditions Imposed – Personal bond of ₹50,000 with two sureties; weekly appearance before Station House Officer every Saturday 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. till charge sheet; no threats or inducement to witnesses; no travel outside district without SHO’s permission; surrender of passport or affidavit if none [Para 21].

Decision – Criminal petition allowed; pre-arrest bail granted subject to conditions [Para 21].

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].

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].

Contempt Petition – Disconnection of Water Supply – Alleged Violation of Supreme Court Judgment – Petition Dismissed with Costs – Petitioner alleged willful disobedience of Supreme Court order in Rajeeb Kalita v. Union of India by builder disconnecting water supply in retaliation for protest over non-provision of amenities – Court found the dispute to be a private civil matter with no cogent proof of willful disobedience – Held: Contempt jurisdiction not attracted – Petition dismissed with exemplary costs of ₹50,000/- to be deposited with Punjab & Haryana High Court Bar Association [Paras 6-7, 14-16].

Contempt Jurisdiction – Disconnection of Water Supply – Alleged Violation of Supreme Court Directions – Petition Held Not Maintainable – Petitioner alleged that builder disconnected water supply to her flat in retaliation for residents’ protest over non-provision of basic amenities – Claimed violation of Supreme Court judgment prohibiting stoppage of essential services – Court held that dispute is purely private and civil in nature between petitioner and builder, without evidence of willful disobedience of Apex Court order – Contempt jurisdiction cannot be invoked in such circumstances [Paras 6-7].

Frivolous Litigation – Abuse of Process – Filing Contempt Petition Despite Directions to Avail Civil Remedies – Petitioner persisted in pressing contempt petition despite being advised to approach proper civil forum – Court found petition to be vexatious, constituting gross abuse of judicial process – Relied on Supreme Court rulings in Dalip Singh v. State of U.P., Subrata Roy Sahara v. Union of India and K.C. Tharakan v. SBI – Emphasized need to deter unscrupulous litigants from forum shopping and repetitive meritless filings [Paras 8-12].

Costs – Exemplary Costs to Deter Abuse of Judicial Process – Court imposed costs of ₹50,000/- to be deposited with Punjab & Haryana High Court Bar Association for construction/renovation of Women Bar Room – Directed recovery as arrears of land revenue in case of default [Paras 14-16].

Criminal Law - Criminal Appeal against conviction under Section 302 IPC by A1 and under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC and 342 IPC by A2 – Appellants challenged their conviction and sentence arising out of a fatal incident stemming from a quarrel over Rs.400 – Held: The act of A1 did not amount to murder but culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC; conviction modified to Section 304(ii) IPC with sentence of five years RI – As to A2, prosecution failed to prove common intention to attract Section 34 IPC; her conviction under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC set aside – Conviction under Section 342 IPC alone upheld – Appeal partly allowed [Paras 15–27, 33–35].

Murder or Culpable Homicide – Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC – Conviction Converted – The fatal act arose from a sudden provocation during a quarrel over repayment of a small debt – A1 stabbed the deceased once following verbal abuse and without any prior enmity – Held: The act was done in heat of passion upon sudden quarrel without premeditation – Falls within Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC – Conviction under Section 302 IPC altered to Section 304(ii) IPC – Sentence reduced to 5 years RI [Paras 15–27].

Common Intention – Section 34 IPC – No Prior Meeting of Minds – A2 Acquitted – Prosecution failed to prove that A2 shared any common intention to commit murder – No evidence of pre-arranged plan or direct participation in the stabbing – Mere act of holding the deceased insufficient to attract Section 34 IPC – Conviction under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC set aside – A2 convicted only under Section 342 IPC [Paras 28–34].

Confession Statement – Use Under Section 25 of Indian Evidence Act – Though inadmissible for conviction, confession may be considered to evaluate the nature of the offence – Court relied on confession (Ex.P4) to determine absence of motive and establish provocation – Supported by precedent in Ganesan v. State and Murli Alias Denny v. State of Rajasthan – Court found the act was a sudden response to provocation [Paras 20–22].

Sentencing – Modification of Sentence from Life Imprisonment – Proportional Punishment – In absence of intent to kill, Court imposed proportionate sentence under Section 304(ii) IPC – Life sentence modified to five years of rigorous imprisonment with fine – A2 sentenced to one month RI under Section 342 IPC – Set-off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. granted [Paras 26–27, 35].

Principle of Joint Liability – Scope of Section 34 IPC – Mere Assistance Not Sufficient – Court reaffirmed that Section 34 IPC requires prior meeting of minds and participation in furtherance of common intention – No such evidence found against A2 – Conviction for murder vicariously through Section 34 IPC unsustainable [Paras 28–33].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – A1 convicted under Section 304(ii) IPC and sentenced to 5 years RI – A2 acquitted under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC, but conviction under Section 342 IPC confirmed – Directions issued for execution of remaining sentence – Bail cancelled [Para 35].

Criminal Appeal – Conviction under Section 302/149 and 147 IPC – Sentence Modified for Juvenility – Appeal filed against conviction and sentence of life imprisonment for murder committed by unlawful assembly – Appellants Chhedi and Madan claimed to be below 16 years of age at the time of offence – Court accepted school leaving certificate and municipal birth records – Trial court failed to apply provisions of U.P. Children Act, 1951 despite recording ages below 16 – Held: Conviction upheld but sentence modified to period already undergone in accordance with Section 27 and 33 of the 1951 Act [Paras 1-3, 7-11, 16-18, 37-41].

Juvenility – Determination of Age – Sections 2(4), 73 of U.P. Children Act – Age Certificates Accepted – Appellants produced uncontroverted age certificates – Their ages were 13 and 15 at the time of incident – Trial court failed to make necessary inquiry under Section 73 or apply correct legal test for sentencing juveniles – Held: Appellants to be treated as ‘child’ and ‘youthful offender’ under the Act [Paras 7-11, 15-18].

Sentencing of Juvenile – Section 27 and 33 of U.P. Children Act – Non-Compliance by Trial Court – Trial judge did not certify that children were unruly or of depraved character before sentencing to imprisonment – Court held that in absence of such certification and in light of law, appellants could not have been sentenced like adults – Held: Sentences set aside and reduced to period already undergone [Paras 12-14, 38-40].

Unlawful Assembly – Participation by Juveniles – Conviction Upheld – Evidence of PW-1, PW-3 and partly of PW-2 supported the prosecution story – Appellants were active participants – Madan gave brick blow on head; Chhedi inflicted lathi blows – Presence and specific role proved beyond doubt – Held: Conviction valid under Sections 302/149 and 147 IPC [Paras 19-36].

Hostile Witness – Partial Reliability – PW-2 Declared Hostile – Trial court relied on portions of his testimony confirming presence of accused and specific act of Madan – Court reaffirmed that hostile witnesses may still provide credible corroboration – Held: Statement partly reliable and properly appreciated [Paras 24-28].

Identification – Village Setting – Source of Light Acceptable – Defence raised doubts about identification due to night-time incident – Court accepted testimony of PW-1 and PW-3 supported by moonlight and lantern – Held: Identity of accused established – No requirement to seize lantern in rural setting where assailants were known neighbours [Paras 25-27].

Appeal – Partly Allowed – Conviction Maintained – Sentence Modified – Court affirmed conviction of juvenile appellants but modified sentence in accordance with U.P. Children Act – Held: Conviction sustained, sentence reduced to period already undergone [Paras 41].

Civil Law - Land Dispute – RDO Order Set Aside for Violation of Natural Justice – Remand Directed – In a batch of writ appeals and petitions concerning land in Survey Nos. 212/8 and 212/15 of Damineedu Village, the Court examined the legality of the Revenue Divisional Officer’s (RDO) order dated 09.06.2023, which was passed without notice to persons affected by an earlier Tahsildar order dated 24.05.2014 – The Court held that the RDO’s order suffered from a clear violation of natural justice and could not stand – However, the Tahsildar’s order was not held to be illegal or void and could be revived – Held: The RDO’s order is set aside and the matter remanded for fresh hearing after due notice to all affected parties – Revenue authority’s decision to remain subject to outcome of civil court and tribunal proceedings [Paras 14–22].

Violation of Natural Justice – RDO Order Passed Without Hearing Affected Parties – Illegal – The RDO failed to issue notice to several individuals who were found to be in possession of the land and whose rights were recorded by the Tahsildar in 2014 – Held: Order passed without hearing necessary parties is in breach of natural justice and liable to be set aside [Paras 14–16, 20].

Validity of Tahsildar’s 2014 Order – Not Void or Illegal – Capable of Revival – The Tahsildar had acted pursuant to earlier RDO directions dated 04.11.2013, issued notices, conducted enquiry, and passed orders recognising possession and making necessary entries – Held: The order cannot be considered illegal per se and may be revived – Court declined to interfere on merits at this stage [Paras 16–19].

Jurisdiction – Civil Courts and Tribunal to Determine Title – Revenue Authorities Limited to Mutation – The Court reiterated that title and ownership disputes must be adjudicated by civil courts or the Land Grabbing Tribunal – Revenue authorities' decisions are interim and subject to judicial determination – Held: Orders of Tahsildar and RDO do not confer or take away title [Paras 18, 21–22].

Pending Proceedings – Civil Suit Dismissed, Tribunal Case Pending – Earlier civil suit for declaration and injunction was dismissed for default – Land Grabbing Case No. 200 of 2022 pending – Held: RDO’s final decision will be subject to outcome of tribunal/civil court proceedings, which have overriding effect [Para 21].

Sub-Division and Mutation – 1981 Sub-Division Final – To Be Restored – The original sub-division entries made in 1981 were never challenged and must be restored as baseline – RDO directed to examine flow of title and possession afresh – Held: Fresh mutation and sub-division to be made per law after hearing all affected parties [Paras 18–22].

Decision – RDO’s Order Dated 09.06.2023 Set Aside – Appeal Remanded – Court held that impugned RDO order violated principles of natural justice and could not survive – Matter remanded for fresh decision with liberty to parties to approach appropriate forum for title adjudication – Writ appeals rendered infructuous and disposed of accordingly [Paras 20–22].

Civil Law - Specific Performance – Oral Agreement to Reconvey – Specific Performance Denied – Suit Dismissed – The plaintiffs sought enforcement of an alleged oral agreement to reconvey property allegedly transferred to the defendant to secure a business loan – The trial court disbelieved the oral agreement and upheld the sale deed as valid – Held: Oral agreement not proved and plea of reconveyance not substantiated – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1–4, 7–8, 17, 28].

Inconsistent Pleadings – Reliefs Mutually Contradictory – Suit Improperly Framed – Plaintiff simultaneously sought specific performance, cancellation of sale deed, declaration that it is void, and that it is sham – Held: Reliefs are inconsistent and mutually exclusive – Suit not maintainable as framed [Para 10].

Registered Sale Deed – Consideration Proven – Payments Established – Defendant produced bank records, fixed deposits and documents showing financial capacity and payments made to plaintiff and Preethy – Plaintiff’s alternate claim that payments were for charity was found to be false – Sale deed held valid and supported by consideration [Paras 14, 22–24].

Adverse Inference – Key Witness Withheld – Preethy Not Examined – Despite being central to transaction and added as co-plaintiff, Preethy failed to appear or testify – Held: Adverse inference to be drawn against plaintiffs for withholding material witness [Para 25].

Possession and Title – Defendant Shown in Possession – Mutation Completed – Defendant proved possession and mutation of title through documentary evidence and reliable witness – Plaintiff did not refute mutation or tax payment by defendant – Trial court's finding affirmed [Para 26].

Sham Transaction Allegation – Not Substantiated – Plaintiff's plea that sale deed was sham and without intent to transfer ownership rejected due to lack of proof and inconsistencies in case theory – Defendant’s version supported by surrounding circumstances and payments made [Paras 17–24].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Trial Court Judgment Affirmed – High Court upheld validity of sale deed, rejected plea of reconveyance, and dismissed appeal – Held: No grounds to interfere with findings of trial court – Appeal lacks merit [Paras 27–28].

Criminal Law - Quashing of Proceedings – Commercial Dispute Given Criminal Colour – Allegations Civil in Nature – Proceedings Quashed – Petitioners challenged the criminal case alleging offences under Sections 420/406/422/34 IPC on the basis that there was no fraudulent or dishonest inducement from the inception – Court held that failure to pay outstanding dues in a commercial transaction does not constitute cheating or criminal breach of trust – Held: Allegations do not disclose criminal intent or offence – Proceedings are abuse of process and are quashed under Section 482 CrPC [Paras 1–22].

Cheating – No Dishonest Intention from Inception – Ingredients Not Satisfied – The complaint failed to demonstrate that the petitioners had any fraudulent intention at the time of initiating the transaction – Held: Mere failure to repay or honour a commercial obligation does not imply cheating under Section 420 IPC – No deception or inducement shown at the beginning of transaction [Paras 7, 14–17].

Criminal Breach of Trust – No Entrustment or Misappropriation – Offence Not Attracted – The complaint does not indicate any entrustment of property nor dishonest misappropriation – Held: Section 406 IPC not attracted as essential element of entrustment is absent – Civil dispute wrongly converted into criminal prosecution [Paras 11, 16–17].

Section 202 CrPC – Compliance Satisfied – Cognizance Valid – Petitioners’ claim that Magistrate failed to comply with Section 202 CrPC rejected – Held: Magistrate recorded complainant’s statement and other witness before issuing process – Procedural compliance found proper [Para 6].

Abuse of Process – Criminal Law Misused for Recovery of Dues – Proceedings Quashed – The complainant attempted to pressurise petitioners to settle civil dues by initiating criminal proceedings – Held: Such misuse of criminal process deprecated – Complaint quashed to secure ends of justice [Paras 8, 18–20].

Decision – Complaint Quashed under Section 482 CrPC – Criminal Revision Allowed – Court exercised inherent power to prevent abuse of process – Held: Entire proceedings in CS 41478 of 2017 quashed against the petitioners – All orders passed therein set aside [Paras 21–22].