Criminal Law – Quashing of Cognizance - Custodial Violence Allegation – Police Officers Summoned – Cognizance Quashed - Petitioners, senior police officers, challenged summoning order in a complaint case alleging police excess during a bandh protest in 2014 – Held: Proceedings initiated after an unexplained delay of 10 years, during Model Code of Conduct, are manifestly malicious and aimed at countering lawful police action – Complaint and medical records insufficient to justify prosecution [Paras 2-6, 21-24].

Section 197 Cr.P.C. – Protection to Public Servants – Sanction Mandatory - Cognizance taken without sanction against Superintendent of Police and Dy. SP for acts performed during official duty – Court reaffirmed requirement of prior sanction for prosecution where actions were integrally connected with performance of duty – Cognizance held bad in law, vitiated by lack of jurisdiction [Paras 10, 22-24].

Delay and Abuse of Process – Complaint Filed After a Decade – Court’s Caution on Malicious Prosecution - Complaint filed after 10 years of incident involving alleged custodial assault during protest – Petitioners were already prosecuting the complainant in related FIRs – Continuation of proceedings held to be abuse of judicial process – Summoning order quashed as per principles in Neeharika Infrastructure and D.T. Virupakshappa [Paras 4-6, 14-15, 20-24].

Prima Facie Test – Injury Report Not Corroborative – Cognizance Treated as Mini-Trial - Injury reports failed to substantiate serious assault allegations – Magistrate’s detailed order amounted to adjudication beyond prima facie satisfaction – Court held this impermissible at the summoning stage [Paras 12, 19-20].

Decision – Cognizance Order Quashed – Petitions Allowed - High Court quashed the impugned cognizance order dated 29.04.2024 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai – Held: Complaint lacked merit and was politically motivated [Paras 24-25].
 

Civil Law - Lease vs License – Determination of Nature of Document – Lease Deed Upheld – The appellant contended that the 1945 document (Exhibit P/35) was a license and not a lease – Court applied the intent test laid down in Delta International Ltd. v. Shyam Sundar Ganeriwalla, (1999) 4 SCC 545 and held that the document conveyed possessory rights and interest with exclusive enjoyment and conditions – Held: It constituted a lease, not a mere license [Paras 14–15].

Acquisition of Bhumiswami Rights – Long Possession – Statutory Conversion – Title Established - Based on successive tenurial enactments, the Court held that Heeralal (predecessor of plaintiffs) lawfully became a Pakka tenant and then Bhumiswami under M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 – Held: Plaintiffs inherited valid title and possession as Bhumiswamis of suit lands [Paras 16–18].

Invalidity of Sale by Non-owner – Lack of Title in Seller – Plaintiffs Protected – Defendant No.1 (Shantilal) was not the Bhumiswami and had no authority to execute the 1989 sale deed in favour of appellant (Defendant No.2, Ghisalal) – The transaction was without legal effect – Mere agreement (Exh D/1) not sufficient to transfer title – No delivery of possession proved – Sale void ab initio [Paras 19–20].

Appeal Dismissed – Findings of Lower Appellate Court Affirmed – The trial court had wrongly held the document as a license and dismissed plaintiffs’ suit – Lower appellate court rightly reversed and decreed plaintiffs’ claim – Second appeals found devoid of merit and dismissed [Paras 7, 20].
 

Judicial Proceedings – Conduct During Video Conferencing – SOP Recommendation Upheld – Petitioner, a Senior Police Inspector and witness in a Sessions Trial, challenged a Trial Judge’s letter to the DGP recommending Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for remote testimony – The letter was based on his alleged disrespectful behavior while deposing from a police station via mobile phone – Supreme Court held that request for SOP was administrative and aimed at preserving court decorum; it did not amount to punitive or mala fide action – Petition dismissed [Paras 1-2, 6-10].

Contempt and Misconduct – Casual Demeanor During Evidence – Court Disapproved – Petitioner was found laughing, muting the microphone, answering calls, and speaking to others while testifying – His behavior was deemed insolent and disruptive to trial decorum – Held: Witnesses, especially Investigating Officers, must maintain solemnity and respect while deposing, regardless of remote access – No personal bias found in Trial Judge’s conduct [Paras 3-9].

Relief – No Interference Warranted – Impugned Letter Not Illegal – Court held that recommending procedural reform through internal communication to senior officials is within a judge’s discretion and does not warrant judicial interference under Article 226 or Section 482 CrPC – Petition devoid of merit – Liberty granted to petitioner to respond to departmental notice on its own merits [Paras 10-11].

Decision – Petition Dismissed – No infirmity found in Trial Judge’s actions – Recommendations for SOPs held valid and well-intentioned – Petitioner may respond to administrative proceedings independently [Para 10-12].

Civil Law - Procedure – Order XVIII Rule 1 CPC – Right to Begin – Plaintiff Entitled to Lead Evidence – Deviation Not Justified – The appellant challenged the direction of the learned Single Judge requiring him (defendant) to lead evidence first in a partition suit – The High Court held that as per Order XVIII Rule 1 CPC, it is the plaintiff who has the right to begin unless the defendant admits all material facts and raises only legal defences or additional facts – No such admission was made by the appellant – Held: The impugned order directing the defendant to begin was contrary to procedural law and thus set aside [Paras 15-23]. 
 
Burden of Proof – Direction to Defendant to Lead Evidence – Improper Allocation – No Admission by Defendant – The trial court placed initial burden on defendant based on disputed documents allegedly in his exclusive knowledge – The appellate court held that absence of admissions by the defendant made it incorrect to call him first to lead evidence – The responsibility lies with the plaintiffs to prove their case in the first instance [Paras 16-18, 21-22]. 
 
Decision – Appeal Allowed – Impugned Order Set Aside – The direction requiring the appellant to lead evidence first was quashed – The respondents/plaintiffs were directed to lead their evidence in accordance with law [Para 23]. 
 

Criminal Law – Sect. 138 N.I. Act - Bail Cancellation – Non-Appearance Due to Health – Bail Restored – Petitioner’s bail was cancelled and non-bailable warrants issued for non-appearance in a Section 138 NI Act case – Held: Absence was unintentional, caused by medically proven encephalopathy – Trial Court’s action in issuing arrest warrant without notice was harsh and disproportionate – Bail cancellation order quashed [Paras 2–6, 7–8].

Judicial Discretion – Due Process Violated – No Prior Notice Before Warrant – Petitioner not issued notice before issuance of non-bailable warrant – Held: Contrary to settled law and judicial fairness – Courts must avoid mechanical detention and ensure liberty is not curtailed without procedural safeguards [Paras 5, 6].

Legal Principles – Liberty & Bail – Ref. Gudikanti Narasimhulu, Sanjay Chandra – Cited – Court reiterated that deprivation of liberty must be based on necessity, not mere procedural lapse – Held: Petitioner’s conduct showed cooperation, no risk of tampering with evidence – Bail is to secure appearance, not punishment [Paras 5.1, 5.2, 6].

Final Directions – Bail Restored with Conditions – Impugned order of 11.10.2024 set aside – Petitioner directed to appear before trial Court on 09.06.2025 and all subsequent dates – Passport to be surrendered if any – Rs.10,000 costs imposed payable to Punjab and Haryana High Court Employees Welfare Association [Para 8].
 

Criminal Law – Quashing - Disproportionate Assets – Mere Relationship with Principal Accused – No Abetment Made Out – Proceedings Quashed - Petitioner, wife of the principal accused, was arrayed as abettor under Section 109 IPC based on ownership of some assets – Court held that mere spousal relationship or name-lending without evidence of active role or mens rea is not sufficient for abetment – No prima facie case made out [Paras 20–26, 31–32].

Speedy Trial – Delay of Over Two Decades – Article 21 Violation – Proceedings Quashed - Criminal case initiated in 2004 remained pending with no charge framed or trial initiated for over 20 years – Court held that continued prosecution violated petitioner’s right to speedy trial under Article 21 – Quashing necessary to prevent abuse of process [Paras 20, 22–24, 28, 30].

Vigilance Practice – Mechanical Implication of Spouses – Strongly Criticized - Court observed that spouses, often housewives, are routinely added as co-accused in DA cases without inquiry into their role or mens rea – Reiterated that such practice is arbitrary and contrary to criminal justice principles [Paras 25–27, 31].

Judicial Precedent – Smt. E. Swarnalata Case Followed – Quashing Warranted - Citing coordinate Bench decision in Smt. E. Swarnalata v. State of Odisha (Vigilance), 2024 (I) ILR-CUT-1465, Court reiterated that ownership of assets alone by a spouse does not establish abetment – Ratio applied squarely to petitioner’s case [Paras 25–26].

Final Decision – CRLMC Allowed – Proceedings Quashed Against Petitioner - Criminal proceeding in Vigilance PS Case No. 20/2004, T.R. No. 83/2007 quashed with respect to petitioner – Court directed expeditious trial against remaining accused [Paras 32–33].
 

Service Law – Regularisation in Higher Post – Petitioner Appointed as Peon but Entrusted Duties of Cashier – LongTerm Functioning in Higher Post Without Formal Promotion – Regularisation Ordered as Peon Ignoring Court Direction and Favourable Performance Report – Held: Petitioner qualified for regularisation in post of Cashier under 1984 Rules – Board failed to consider performance report as directed by Court – Impugned order quashed – Direction issued to reconsider regularisation in post of Cashier [Paras 6–13]. 
 
Constitutional Mandate – Non-Compliance of Judicial Direction – Mandate of High Court to Consider Branch 
Manager’s Report Ignored – Resolution of Board Preceded Court’s Direction But Later Order Failed to Incorporate Directed Consideration – Held: Violation of judicial discipline and disregard of binding direction – Action unsustainable [Paras 8.3–8.5, 12.3–12.5]. 
 
Doctrine of Equal Pay for Equal Work – Long-Term Discharge of Duties of Cashier with Lower Pay – Petitioner Entrusted with Responsibilities of Higher Grade Without Regularisation or Pay Benefits – Held: Petitioner entitled to pay and post of Cashier – Reliance placed on Supreme Court judgment in State of Punjab v. Dharam Pal – Principle of equal pay for equal work invoked [Paras 10.1–10.6, 12.6]. 
 
Applicability of 1984 Rules vs. 2011 Rules – Resolution for Regularisation Predated 2011 Rules – Eligibility to Be Assessed Under 1984 Rules – Held: Respondent’s reliance on 2011 Rules misplaced – Petitioner’s case to be decided under 1984 Rules where she met eligibility criteria for post of Cashier [Paras 7.3, 8.8, 13.1–13.2]. 
 
Administrative Law – Requirement of Reasoned Orders – Order Regularising as Peon Lacked Reasons or 
Consideration of Pertinent Facts – Held: Decision without reasons contrary to settled principles – Quashed for nonapplication of mind – Reliance placed on Steel Authority of India Ltd. V. Sales Tax Officer [Paras 9–9.5]. 
 
Maintainability of Writ – Availability of Alternative Remedy Not a Bar – Long Delay and Two Rounds of Litigation Justified Invocation of Article 226 – Held: Writ maintainable despite alternative remedy under Section 68 of Odisha Cooperative Societies Act [Paras 11.1–11.5, 14]. 
  
Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Impugned Order Quashed – Petitioner’s Case to Be Reconsidered for Regularisation as Cashier – Direction to Decide Within Three Months – Petitioner Entitled to Higher Pay Scale upon Favourable Decision [Paras 15–17]. 
 

Criminal Law - Sections 498-A and 306 IPC - Suicide – Abetment Not Proved – Acquittal Upheld – No Instigation or Active Role by Accused - The deceased allegedly committed suicide by self-immolation after claimed harassment by in-laws and husband – Court found no proximate evidence of instigation or mental cruelty triggering the act – Accused had been residing separately from deceased – Held: No evidence of abetment or harassment sufficient to invoke Sections 306 or 498-A IPC [Paras 10–12, 19].

Hostile Witnesses – Prosecution Case Undermined – Evidence Inconclusive - Several key witnesses including panch and inquest witnesses turned hostile – Medical officer could not confirm whether burns were suicidal, homicidal, or accidental – Scientific evidence indicated open kerosene jar and stove; incident possibly accidental – Held: Inconclusive cause of death supports acquittal [Paras 10.1–10.8, 11].

Mens Rea – No Mens Rea Established – Mental Element for Abetment Missing - Citing Supreme Court precedent (Mohan, Amalendu Pal), Court reiterated that mere cruelty or quarrel without intent to incite suicide does not attract Section 306 – Held: No proof of sustained provocation, mens rea, or direct incitement by accused [Paras 9–10, 12].

Separate Residence – No Direct Link to In-laws – Charges under Section 114 IPC Fail - The deceased and her husband resided separately from accused Nos. 2 and 3 – Court found no acts of aiding or presence at the time of death – No vicarious liability under Section 114 IPC sustainable [Para 11].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Acquittal Confirmed – No Ground for Interference - High Court held Trial Court rightly extended benefit of doubt – No perverse finding or illegality shown – Appeal dismissed; Trial Court's acquittal judgment affirmed [Paras 12–14].
 

Bail – Cheating and Forgery – Prima Facie Offence Established – Bail Denied – The petitioner, accused of inducing the complainant to invest Rs.1.73 crores in forged schemes by impersonating an employee of Yes Securities Ltd., failed to show any bona fide investment or return of funds – Investigation revealed the use of fake letters and documents to mislead the complainant – Coaccused declared a proclaimed offender – Held: Allegations are grave, fraudulent intent evident, and continued detention justified at this stage [Paras 5–9]. 
 
Nature of Dispute – Not Merely Civil – Serious Criminal Elements Involved – Court Rejected Argument of Civil Dispute – Despite presence of financial transactions and ledgers, the consistent use of false documentation, impersonation, and deceit elevated the matter beyond a commercial disagreement – Fraudulent inducement supported by forged documents indicative of premeditated criminal conspiracy [Paras 2–6]. 
 
Long Detention – Not a Ground for Bail – Judicial Custody Since June 2023 – Bail Refused – Though the petitioner has been in custody since 05.06.2023 and investigation is complete, the Court held that serious nature of the allegations outweighs the duration of detention – Ongoing trial and gravity of offence warranted continued custody [Para 9]. 
 
Decision – Bail Application Dismissed – Court found no ground to grant bail considering the serious nature of allegations and fraudulent conduct prima facie established during investigation [Para 9].