Criminal Procedure – Quashing FIR – Co-Accused’s Statement – Premature to Interfere – Applicant named in liquor seizure case solely based on co-accused’s statement – Held: Statement under Section 10 of Evidence Act relevant during investigation though inadmissible at trial – At FIR stage, admissibility not determinative – Court cannot scuttle investigation prematurely under Section 482 CrPC – No abuse of process made out [Paras 6–8, 11–12].

Inherent Powers – Scope of Section 482 CrPC – Interference in Ongoing Investigation Discouraged – Referring to Skoda Auto Volkswagen v. State of U.P., and Mohd. Malek Mondal v. Pranjal Bardalai – Held: High Courts must exercise restraint in quashing FIRs unless allegations are palpably absurd – Investigation not concluded, charge-sheet not filed – Petition dismissed as premature [Paras 10–12].

Evidence Law – Statement of Co-Accused – Not Substantive Evidence but Investigative Lead – Held: Co-accused statement inadmissible unless corroborated, yet it can serve as clue to launch investigation – Decision in Mansing Shakarlal Mina v. State of Gujarat affirmed – Final determination on evidentiary value lies at trial stage, not FIR stage [Paras 6–10].

Criminal Investigation – Prior Antecedents Considered – Applicant had 22 previous cases – Held: Criminal history reinforces need for thorough investigation before considering quashment – No basis for presuming malice or false implication at this juncture [Para 6].

Decision: Application under Section 482 CrPC dismissed – Interim relief vacated – Liberty granted to petitioner to seek remedy post-charge-sheet, if solely based on inadmissible evidence [Paras 12–14].

Criminal Law – Discharge - Medical Negligence – Delay in Filing Complaint – Barred by Limitation – Cognizance Not Justified – Complaint filed four years after patient's death alleging medical negligence – Held: Offence under Section 304-A IPC carries a limitation of three years – No satisfactory explanation offered for delay – Trial Court’s assumption of jurisdiction under Section 473 CrPC flawed – Cognizance beyond limitation not sustainable without judicial justification [Paras 9–10].

Criminal Law – Absence of Prima Facie Case – Discharge Allowed – Charges under Sections 418, 420, 304(A), and 120(B) IPC – Held: No allegations of wrongful gain, inducement, or rash/negligent act by petitioner – No material to indicate criminal intent – Referral to another doctor after diagnostic tests does not amount to offence – Charge-sheet silent on petitioner’s role – Discharge warranted [Paras 7, 11–15].

Standard of Criminal Liability in Medical Negligence – No Recklessness or Gross Negligence Attributed – Citing Dr. Suresh Gupta and Jacob Mathew – Held: Mere adverse outcome in treatment not criminal offence – Criminal liability arises only on gross negligence or recklessness – In present case, no such finding exists – Petitioner may be liable in civil law, but not in criminal [Paras 16–17, 20].

Impact of Consumer Forum Orders – Not Binding on Criminal Court – Held: Proceedings before Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission operate on preponderance of evidence, not proof beyond reasonable doubt – Finding of negligence by forum has no bearing on criminal prosecution – Independent judicial scrutiny required for criminal liability [Paras 18–19].

Discharge Under Section 239 CrPC – Judicial Scrutiny Required – Citing Sanjay Kumar Rai – Held: Trial Court erred in mechanical dismissal of discharge petition – Court is not a post office – Required to evaluate material and assess legal sufficiency of allegations – High Court found no ground to proceed to trial [Para 21].

Decision: Criminal Revision Case allowed – Order of Trial Court dated 01/04/2024 set aside – Petitioner discharged from all offences in C.C. No.1304 of 2014 – Pending miscellaneous applications closed [Para 22].
 

PIL - Public Prosecutors – Appointment and Consultation – Primacy of District Judge’s Opinion – Rules of 1978 Inapplicable - The Court held that the appointment of Public Prosecutors under Section 24(3) Cr.P.C. (now Section 18(3) BNSS) is governed exclusively by statutory provisions and not by the Kerala Government Law Officers Rules of 1978, which apply only to civil posts – Public Prosecutors do not hold civil posts and hence fall outside the purview of the Rules – The CrPC/BNSS mandates consultation with the Sessions Judge whose opinion must be given primacy in the selection process [Paras 7–12, 15–19].

Vacancies – Delay in Appointments – Duty of the State – Protocol Required - The Court expressed serious concern over delays in appointing Public Prosecutors and failure to create posts in newly established courts – Directed the State to formulate and follow a protocol for timely appointment – Court reserved the right to revive the petition in case of non-compliance [Paras 21–23, 24.3].

Judicial Review – Arbitrary Appointments – Guidelines Must Align with Law – The Court held that any executive guidelines which dilute the statutory consultative requirement or deviate from the law laid down by the Supreme Court would be invalid – Mandated formulation of new internal guidelines giving primacy to the opinion of District Judges [Paras 20, 24.2].

Decision – Suo Motu PIL Closed with Directions – The Court closed the suo motu proceedings with explicit directions for the State to issue revised guidelines for appointments and protocols for prompt filling of vacancies – Liberty granted to revive the petition if future violations occur [Paras 24–26].
 

Banking Law – Fraudulent Withdrawal – Liability of Bank – Plaintiff firm’s Fixed Deposits of Rs. 25 lakhs and Rs. 5 lakhs prematurely discharged within days of opening – Amounts fraudulently transferred to a current account falsely opened in plaintiff’s name by impersonation – Original FD receipts recovered from Bank custody – Trial Court decreed Rs. 39,67,922/- with interest and costs – Defendant Bank’s appeal dismissed – Held: Acts were committed in regular course of banking business by Branch Manager, thus Bank vicariously liable – Plaintiff not required to implead Branch Manager personally – Service rules of Bank do not bind customers – Suit for damages lies against the Bank [Paras 1, 18–20, 27, 31–36, 38].

Evidence Act – Handwriting Comparison – Trial Court compared signatures of Branch Manager across documents and found similarity – Challenge by Bank rejected – Held: Section 73 empowers court to compare handwriting on admitted documents – Court is the ‘expert of experts’ – No need to refer to handwriting expert in such case – No legal infirmity in Trial Judge’s approach [Paras 22–26].

Fraud – Standard of Proof in Civil Cases – Bank argued fraud must be proved beyond reasonable doubt – Rejected – Held: In civil proceedings, standard is ‘preponderance of probabilities’ – Evidence indicated gross negligence and collusion by Bank employees – Even if fraud not established beyond doubt, Bank’s conduct went beyond negligence and into realm of fraud [Paras 27, 30–34].

Vicarious Liability – Acts within Course of Employment – Branch Manager acted within scope of authority and regular banking functions – Held: Bank liable for fraud/acts of negligence committed by its officer during official duties – Reaffirmed that recourse against employee lies with Bank, not with customer – Citing Smt. Shyama Devi v. SBI inapplicable where act took place within bank premises and regular course [Paras 20, 34–35, 37–38].

Procedural Law – Non-Joinder of Necessary Party – Bank argued Branch Manager was necessary party – Rejected – Held: Dispute is between customer and Bank – Branch Manager acted as agent of Bank – No relief claimed against Manager personally – Suit maintainable against Bank alone [Paras 11, 36].

Appeal – Scope of Interference – Appellate Court found no error in Trial Court’s fact-finding or legal conclusions – Affirmed decree with minor modifications regarding disbursement of decretal amount and additional interest – Held: No ground for interference where judgment is well-reasoned and lawful [Paras 39–41].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Trial Court judgment and decree upheld – Bank directed to pay balance interest within 90 days failing which additional interest at 8% p.a. on such balance interest will apply – Bank Guarantee to be encashed and proceeds handed to plaintiff [Paras 41–44].

Bail - Rape Allegation – Consensual Relationship – Bail Granted - Alleged victim, a 25-year-old educated woman, claimed she was raped after intoxication and later coerced with a forged marriage – Court noted delays in FIR, consensual travel and cohabitation, and contradictions in victim's statements – Found prima facie indications of a soured relationship rather than criminal conduct – Bail granted [Paras 4–10, 30–32, 42].

False Promise to Marry – Not Always Rape – Legal Principle Affirmed - Court cited Supreme Court precedents (Deepak Gulati, Pramod Suryabhan Pawar, Sheikh Arif) emphasizing that consensual relationships, even if based on failed marriage promises, do not always amount to rape – Held: No evidence that the promise was false from inception [Paras 23–24, 34–35].

Delayed FIR – Adverse Inference – Relationship Timeline Considered - FIR filed nearly five months after the alleged initial offence, despite multiple interactions and trips with the applicant – Court noted the absence of immediate complaint undermined the rape narrative [Paras 12, 42].

Morality vs Criminality – Immorality Not Penal – Social Commentary - Court reflected on societal shifts and increasing misuse of penal provisions post emotional fallout – Held: Not all unethical conduct amounts to crime – Case viewed as fallout of failed personal relations, not rape [Paras 30–33].

Right to Liberty – Bail as Rule, Jail as Exception – No Flight Risk - Court reiterated constitutional protection under Article 21 – Found no risk of accused absconding or influencing witnesses – No prior criminal record except related case – Bail granted with conditions [Paras 37–41].

Final Decision – Bail Allowed – Conditions Imposed - Applicant released on personal bond and two sureties, with directions to appear on key trial dates – Breach of conditions to result in cancellation of bail [Paras 42–44].
 

Civil Law - Transfer of Execution Proceedings – Section 24 CPC – Mere Apprehension Not Sufficient – Petitioner sought transfer of execution petitions E.P.No.2/2024 and E.P.No.3/2024 from Civil Judge (Senior Division), Narsapur to III Additional District Judge, Kakinada – Held: No legal ground made out – Execution petitions pertain to decrees passed by Narsapur Court concerning property within its jurisdiction – No reason to bypass normal forum of execution [Paras 5–6, 11–12].

Bias Allegation Against Judicial Officer – Not Tenable Post Transfer – Petitioner cited complaint against X Additional District Judge, Narsapur as basis for apprehension of injustice – Held: The concerned Judge has already been transferred – Apprehension no longer reasonable – Transfer cannot be granted based on vague or past allegations, as per settled law [Paras 7, 10].

Execution Jurisdiction – Territorial and Procedural Boundaries – Property Lies Within Local Limits – Held: As per Sections 38 and 39 CPC, executing court’s territorial jurisdiction over the property is paramount – Order XXI Rules 3 and 48 are not affected by Section 39(4) – Since property lies within Narsapur, execution cannot be shifted outside without legal cause [Paras 8, 11].

Multiplicity of Litigation – No Justification for Transfer Absent Identity of Parties and Cause – Petitioner’s other execution-related claim petitions pending before X Additional District Court at Narsapur – Held: Commonality in schedule property not sufficient ground for transfer – No identity of cause of action or parties between suits to justify consolidation [Para 11].

Decision: Both Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petitions dismissed – No valid legal or factual ground to shift proceedings – Mere apprehension without proof of bias or legal infirmity is insufficient to invoke transfer under Section 24 CPC [Paras 12–13].
 

Service Law - Transfer – Equivalence of Post – Non-Cadre Transfer Held Illegal – Appellant transferred from post of Chief Medical & Health Officer (CM&HO), a cadre post, to Deputy Controller, which is not included in the amended cadre list of 2012 – Held: Transfer constitutes deputation to a non-cadre post without statutory backing – Reliance on outdated rules misled Single Judge – Transfer order quashed [Paras 15–18, 22].

Deputation – Consent Requirement – Transfer Beyond Cadre Requires Consent – Appellant’s posting to Deputy Controller post amounts to deputation – Held: Deputation necessitates voluntary consent, which was not obtained – Such transfer is invalid in absence of employee’s consent [Paras 19–21].

Stigma in Transfer – Allegations Unsubstantiated – Complaints Largely Closed or Found Motivated – Transfer said to be based on administrative grounds pending inquiries – Held: No credible administrative exigency made out – Transfer found to be indirectly punitive in nature [Paras 4–5, 14].

Judicial Review – Interference in Exceptional Cases – Transfer Impacts Career Prospects – Held: Although courts normally do not interfere in transfer matters, interference justified where service rights are affected and post transferred to is of lower rank and non-cadre – High Court intervention warranted [Paras 23–25].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Transfer Order Set Aside – Special appeal allowed, impugned transfer order and learned Single Judge’s decision set aside – Appellant directed to be reinstated as CM&HO, Udaipur with consequential pecuniary benefits [Paras 26–27].
 

Matrimonial Law - Maintenance – Enforcement of Judicial Orders – Non-Attraction of Section 92(i) AFA – Petitioner sought deduction of maintenance from salary under Air Force Act – Held: Since civil courts had already granted maintenance and respondent was complying, such recovery cannot be enforced under Section 92(i) – Air Force guidelines (AFO 24/2000) bar parallel deductions when civil decree exists – Petitioner advised to pursue enforcement under CrPC, not through writ [Paras 5.5, 6.1–6.2, 5.14].

Marital Status – Entry in Service Records – Writ Not Maintainable – Disputed Facts – Petitioner’s prayer to record her as wife in service book opposed based on talaqnama and subsequent marriage of respondent – Held: Disputed questions of marital status not suitable for adjudication in writ jurisdiction – Remedy lies before competent civil/family court – Writ to alter service records or declare marital status not permissible under Article 226 [Paras 5.13–5.14, 7.1–7.3].

Talaq – Validity and Recognition – Certificate Found Genuine – Respondent produced talaqnama dated 01.09.2009 recorded by Qazi and verified by Air Force – Subsequent marriage to Sahista Parwin solemnized under Special Marriage Act – Held: Authority accepted validity of talaq after verification – No challenge made by petitioner before appropriate forum – Legal recognition of second marriage cannot be disturbed in writ [Paras 4.2–4.4, 5.3–5.4].

Marriage by Notary – Not Recognized in Law – Agreement Executed before Notary Invalid – Petitioner relied on marriage agreement dated 12.12.2008 before Notary – Held: Notaries have no authority to perform or certify marriage/divorce – Reiterated that execution of marriage deed by Notary has no legal sanctity – Such acts declared illegal by multiple High Courts and Ministry of Law circulars – Professional misconduct if done by Notaries [Paras 5.6–5.12].

Relationship in Nature of Marriage – Relief under PWDV Act Valid – Courts below granted maintenance considering domestic relationship akin to marriage – Held: Relationship established through cohabitation and social acknowledgment, even without formal marriage – Protection under PWDV Act justified – Order of maintenance upheld across judicial tiers [Paras 5.1–5.3].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – No mandamus can be issued for salary deduction under Air Force Act when judicial maintenance order exists – Petitioner’s status not fit for declaration under writ – Directed to seek relief before appropriate civil court if aggrieved – Name of respondent’s second wife validly recorded based on verified documents and legal marriage [Paras 5.14, 6.2, 7.3].

Cheque Dishonour – Section 138 of the NI Act - Limitation for Sending Demand Notice – Exclusion of Date of Intimation – Notice Held Within Time – The Trial Court acquitted the accused holding that the statutory notice under Section 138(b) was sent on the 31st day after intimation of dishonour – Held: The date of receipt of bank intimation must be excluded while computing the 30-day period – On applying the correct legal standard, the notice was issued within time – Trial Court’s view was contrary to binding precedent and hence liable to be set aside [Paras 17-19].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Material Alteration in Cheque – Signature of Accused Validates Correction – Conviction Restored – Trial Court found material alteration in cheque amounting to Rs. 11,70,000/- as fatal to complainant’s case – Held: Correction in amount was duly counter-signed by accused – No plausible explanation or defense was put forth by accused – No rebuttal evidence led – Mere admission by complainant insufficient to rebut presumption under Section 139 NI Act – Finding of material alteration erroneous in law [Paras 20-22].

Cheque Dishonour – Failure to Rebut Presumption – No Reply to Demand Notice – Conviction Warranted – Despite receiving statutory demand notice, the accused did not dispute the liability or issue a reply – No evidence of lack of financial capacity or alternate explanation for issuance of cheque – Appellate Court found presumption under Section 139 unshaken and complainant's case proved – Judgment of acquittal reversed [Para 22].

Decision: Appeal against Acquittal – Principles for Appellate Interference – Trial Court Ignored Material Evidence – When the Trial Court’s findings are based on misapplication of law and disregard of material evidence, the Appellate Court may interfere – Present case warranted interference due to perverse reasoning on both limitation and cheque alteration issues – Judgment of acquittal set aside, appeal allowed [Paras 22-23].