Criminal Law – Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Section 482 CrPC – Power to be used sparingly – Prima Facie Case Absent – No Role Attributed – Names Not in FIR – Petitioners (except those named in FIR) not identified by witnesses and not linked to offences by any direct or circumstantial evidence – Held: Continuation of proceedings against such petitioners amounts to abuse of process – Cognizance order and criminal proceedings quashed qua unnamed petitioners – Trial to continue only against Petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 9, 11, and 16 [Paras 1, 4–6, 12–13, 22–26]

Criminal Law – Protest Turning Violent – FIR Alleging Vandalism, Assault, and Outraging Modesty – Allegations Found Largely Omnibus – Prosecution Unable to Link Vandalism to Specific Accused – Recovery of Broken Furniture and ABVP Flags not Sufficient to Sustain Charges – Simple Injuries Alleged without Medical Proof – Acquittal of Juvenile Co-Accused on Same Evidence Considered Relevant – Petitioners entitled to relief under Bhajan Lal Guidelines [Paras 22–24]

Public Employment – Adverse Impact of Prosecution – Consideration of Career Stakes – Petitioner in CRLMC No. 1017/2024 selected for multiple public posts – Criminal case preventing joining – No prior criminal antecedents – Held: In absence of concrete evidence, continuation of proceedings would unfairly jeopardize future – Court considers such facts while applying discretion under Section 482 CrPC [Para 24]

Inherent Powers – Guiding Principles – Reiterated Principles from R.P. Kapur, Madhu Limaye, Bhajan Lal and Neeharika Infrastructure – Inherent power under Section 482 CrPC not to be exercised arbitrarily – Meant to prevent miscarriage of justice – Must not result in a mini-trial – High Court must avoid appreciation of evidence unless case falls into recognised exceptions [Paras 14–21]

Decision: CRLMC applications allowed in part – Criminal proceedings and cognizance order dated 14.11.2018 quashed only in respect of petitioners not named in FIR – Proceedings to continue against Petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 9, 11 and 16 in CRLMC No. 2832/2024 – Trial court directed to expedite and conclude trial within six months [Paras 26–28]

Service Law – Public Appointments – Bypassing PSC Candidates – KSRTC continued engaging empanelled drivers under Exts.P6 and P9 notifications despite binding judgments in Antony Stejo and Venugopal cases mandating appointments only through PSC – Held: KSRTC's action violates Rule 9(a)(i) of KS & SSR and amounts to contempt of binding court orders – Notifications quashed – KSRTC cannot invoke emergency clause when it has willfully avoided filling reported vacancies [Paras 1–14]

Administrative Law – Violation of Judicial Orders – Court found that KSRTC engaged over 900 previously terminated empanelled drivers under the guise of new temporary appointments despite earlier undertakings not to do so – Held: KSRTC’s conduct reflects a deliberate subversion of court orders through tortuous methods [Paras 9–14]

Constitutional Law – Locus Standi – First respondent was included in the 2012 PSC rank list and was eligible for appointment against 2455 vacancies reported to PSC – Despite expiry of the list, Ext.P6 gave preference to those in that list – Held: Petitioner had locus to file writ petition to enforce compliance with court orders and raise issues of public importance [Para 15]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Ext.P9 quashed – KSRTC restrained from continuing engagement of empanelled drivers under Exts.P6 and P9 – Directions in Antony Stejo and Venugopal cases, as affirmed by Supreme Court, to be strictly complied with.

Criminal Law – Murder and Rape – Conviction Based on Circumstantial Evidence – Acquittal – Appellant convicted under Sections 302 and 376 IPC for alleged rape and murder of a young woman inside a house – Prosecution case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence and alleged “last seen” circumstance – No direct eyewitness to the occurrence – Held: Chain of circumstances not complete and prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Benefit of doubt granted – Conviction set aside [Paras 26–34, 53–55].

Circumstantial Evidence – Golden Principles – Failure to Establish Complete Chain – Prosecution relied on recovery of articles, alleged presence of accused at spot and medical evidence – Circumstances neither conclusively proved nor inconsistent with innocence of accused – Possibility of alternative hypothesis not ruled out – Held: Conviction cannot be sustained when circumstances fall short of the standard laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda case [Paras 26–33].

Last Seen Theory – Limited Applicability – Accused allegedly seen leaving the house where deceased was found dead – Appellant not last seen together with deceased – Mere sighting of accused coming out of the house insufficient to complete chain of circumstances – Held: “Last seen” theory by itself cannot form basis of conviction without other clinching links [Paras 33–35].

Evidence – Chance Witnesses – Credibility and Cautious Scrutiny – Prosecution relied mainly on testimony of chance witnesses who were neither natural nor convincing in their presence at spot – Conduct of witnesses found unnatural – Failure to explain presence satisfactorily – Held: Testimony of chance witnesses unreliable and unsafe to base conviction upon [Paras 35–45].

Medical Evidence – Nature of Injury – Weapon Not Established – Deceased sustained a deep, wide incised wound on neck severing vital structures – Alleged weapon was knife – Held: Injury of such magnitude could not be caused by ordinary knife – Prosecution failed to explain inconsistency between medical evidence and alleged weapon – Serious doubt created about prosecution story [Paras 47–49].

Investigation – Serious Lapses – Ante-timing and Doubtful Recoveries – Delay in recording statements, unexplained overwriting in Panchayatnama, late dispatch of FIR, doubtful recovery of book and postcard without witness signatures – Held: Though lapses alone may not be fatal, in a case resting on circumstantial evidence such defects assume significance and weaken prosecution case [Paras 46, 50–52].

Benefit of Doubt – Two Views Possible – Evidence on record gave rise to more than one plausible hypothesis – Possibility of involvement of persons other than appellant not ruled out – Held: Where two views are possible, one favouring accused must be adopted [Paras 52–54].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 302 and 376 IPC set aside – Appellant acquitted by giving benefit of doubt – Bail bonds cancelled and sureties discharged.

Anticipatory Bail – Sections 318(4) & 319(2) BNS - Impersonation in Public Examination – Extraordinary Nature of Relief – Petitioner sought pre-arrest bail in FIR alleging that another person appeared in a recruitment examination on his behalf using his roll number and documents – CCTV footage and seizure of documents indicated impersonation – Held: Anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy to be granted only in exceptional circumstances and not as a matter of rule [Paras 8–12].

Cheating and Impersonation – Prima Facie Involvement – Roll number allotted to petitioner and admit card used by co-accused to appear in examination – Court held that such impersonation could not have occurred without petitioner’s complicity – Prima facie case of abetment made out against petitioner [Paras 13–14].

Public Examinations – Sanctity of Recruitment Process – Impersonation in employment examination undermines public confidence and fairness – Reliance placed on Supreme Court precedent holding that persons involved in cheating in public examinations are not entitled to bail – Public interest outweighs individual liberty at anticipatory bail stage [Paras 14–15, 17].

Parity – Distinction between Anticipatory Bail and Regular Bail – Co-accused granted regular bail – Held: Principle of parity not applicable as parameters for pre-arrest bail and regular bail are materially different [Para 16].

Investigation – Interference by Grant of Pre-Arrest Bail – Investigation at a continuing stage – Grant of anticipatory bail would hamper fair investigation – Petition dismissed [Paras 18–20].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Anticipatory bail declined.

Service Law – Recruitment – Age Relaxation – SEBC Candidate – Migration to Unreserved Category – Petitioner belonging to SEBC category applied for post of Management Trainee (HR) against unreserved vacancy – Advertisement prescribed maximum age of 32 years for UR candidates with age relaxation for reserved categories – No vacancy earmarked for SEBC category – Petitioner exceeded upper age limit for UR category – Held: In absence of express provision permitting migration with relaxation, reserved category candidate cannot claim age relaxation while competing for unreserved post [Paras 6–10, 12–13].

Recruitment Advertisement – Binding Nature – Eligibility Conditions – Recruitment governed strictly by terms of advertisement – Age limits and relaxations form part of employer’s policy domain – Court cannot rewrite or dilute conditions of advertisement – Online portal correctly rejected application as over-aged with reference to UR age criteria – Judicial interference unwarranted [Paras 10–11].

Reservation Law – Age Relaxation vis-à-vis Reservation – Distinction – Age relaxation is a category-based concession ancillary to reservation – Such concession cannot be availed independently when no post is reserved for the concerned category – Grant of such relaxation without reservation would result in hostile discrimination against unreserved candidates – Violative of Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution [Paras 11, 13, 15].

Precedent – Applicability – Union of India v. Sajib Roy – Supreme Court held that migration of reserved category candidates to unreserved posts with relaxations is not an inherent right – Such migration must be expressly authorized by recruitment rules or notification – Ratio applied to deny claim of SEBC candidate in absence of enabling clause in advertisement [Paras 9–10].

Judicial Review – Recruitment Policy – Limited Scope – Fixation of age limits, category-wise vacancies and relaxations fall within exclusive domain of employer – Courts to interfere only in cases of manifest arbitrariness or illegality – No such infirmity found in present case [Paras 10–11].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – Rejection of petitioner’s application upheld – Interim orders vacated – No entitlement to age relaxation against unreserved post in absence of SEBC vacancy [Paras 14–15].

Criminal Law – Section 319 Cr.P.C. – Power to Array Additional Accused – Degree of Satisfaction – Power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is extraordinary and cannot be exercised mechanically – Degree of satisfaction required is the same as that required for framing of charge – Mere existence of some evidence is insufficient unless such evidence is strong and cogent – Held: Magistrate erred in summoning petitioner as additional accused without legally admissible material [Paras 4–6].

Evidence – Belated and Bald Allegations – Lack of Credibility – Petitioner not named in private complaint nor in original testimony of PW1 – After lapse of about nine years, PW1 gave additional statement implicating petitioner without disclosing source of knowledge or reasons for delay – Such belated allegations based on surmises and conjectures cannot form basis for invoking Section 319 Cr.P.C. [Paras 4–5].

Lok Ayukta Proceedings – Limited Scope – Lok Ayukta proceedings against petitioner related only to alleged grant of police protection – Proceedings ended on acceptance of unconditional apology – No finding of involvement in theft of trees – Held: Lok Ayukta order cannot be relied upon to infer criminal complicity in offence under Section 379 IPC [Para 5].

Further Investigation Report – No Incriminating Material – Further investigation by police indicated only that petitioner rendered police protection to first accused in connection with civil dispute – No material to suggest participation in theft – Held: Such material insufficient to arraign petitioner as co-accused [Para 5].

Public Servant – Requirement of Sanction – Section 197 Cr.P.C. – Allegations against petitioner relate to acts purportedly done in discharge of official duties as Dy.S.P. – In absence of sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C., Magistrate could not have taken cognizance – Proceedings held vitiated for want of sanction [Para 6].

Inherent Powers – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Abuse of Process – Continuation of proceedings against petitioner would amount to abuse of process of court – Ends of justice require quashing of proceedings – High Court justified in exercising inherent jurisdiction [Para 6].

Decision: Criminal Miscellaneous Case allowed – Proceedings against petitioner/additional 8th accused in C.C. No.138/2005 quashed – Order passed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. set aside.

Education Law – Fee Regulation – Mid-course Enhancement of Fees – Self-financing Engineering Colleges – Students admitted for B.Tech. batch 2023–2027 challenged applicability of revised fee ceiling notification dated 16.10.2023 – Primary contention confined to applicability and not legality of notification – Challenge to notification itself abandoned [Paras 33].

AICTE Act, 1987 and Regulations, 1994 – Fee Fixation – Regulation 7 – Fee to be fixed by State Level Committee – Fees to be intimated in advance for entire course but payable year-wise or semester-wise – Fee structure subject to ceiling fixed by competent authority – Held: Fee structure not indivisible and may be revised subject to statutory framework [Paras 34–38, 45–46].

Prospectus – Contractual Nature – Reservation of Right to Revise Fees – Prospectus expressly stated that fee structure was subject to change as per Government decisions – Students admitted with notice of such condition – Held: Students bound by contractual terms voluntarily accepted at the time of admission [Paras 41, 50–51].

Government Notification – Power to Revise Fee Ceiling – Section 21, General Clauses Act – Power to issue notification includes power to amend or supersede earlier notifications – State competent to revise upper fee ceiling after seven years – Notification dated 16.10.2023 issued in supersession of earlier orders and effective from date of issuance [Paras 42–44].

Prospective vs. Retrospective Operation – Interpretation of “with effect from academic year 2023–2024” – Academic year comprising multiple semesters – Fee payable semester-wise – Implementation from second semester (January 2024) not retrospective – Enhancement held prospective and legally permissible [Paras 45, 48–49].

Expression “To be admitted” – Interpretation – Expression used to identify category of students and not to restrict applicability only to future admissions – Explicit stipulation regarding effective date prevails over ambiguous language – Intention of notification held clear [Paras 47, 49].

Judicial Precedents – Distinguishability – Shanker Doon case and Bindiya Khatri case held inapplicable – Rendered under different statutory frameworks with express statutory prohibitions on fee revision for existing students – No such bar under West Bengal regime [Paras 52–54].

Equitable Considerations – Financial Hardship – No Ground to Avoid Contractual or Statutory Obligations – Writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to rewrite contract or negate Government-mandated fee revision [Paras 51].

Decision – Writ Petitions Dismissed – Notification dated 16.10.2023 validly applicable to petitioners from academic year 2023–2024 – No arbitrariness or illegality found – Prayer for stay rejected [Paras 55–56].

Civil Law – Order 41 Rule 21 CPC – Rehearing of Appeal – Ex-parte Judgment – Delay of 86 Days – Delay Condoned – Application for rehearing maintainable where sufficient cause shown for non-appearance of respondent when appeal was heard ex-parte [Paras 1–3].

Advocate’s Default – Litigant Not to Suffer – Respondents had engaged counsel who appeared initially but stopped appearing thereafter – No Special Process/Notice (SPC) issued by Court despite continuous absence of counsel – Applicants unaware of listing and hearing of appeal – Sufficient cause established for non-appearance [Paras 7, 11].

Principles of Natural Justice – Right of Hearing – Party having done everything expected by engaging counsel cannot be penalised for advocate’s lapse – Litigant not required to act as watchdog over advocate – Reliance placed on Rafiq v. Munshilal and Ram Kumar Gupta v. Har Prasad – Rehearing warranted to prevent miscarriage of justice [Paras 8–9].

Knowledge of Ex-parte Decree – Irrelevant Consideration – Relevant factor is cause for absence on date of hearing and not subsequent knowledge of judgment – Participation in execution proceedings does not disentitle applicant from relief under Order 41 Rule 21 CPC [Para 10].

Delay and Conduct – Bona fide Explanation Accepted – No material to show deliberate avoidance of proceedings – Absence attributable to counsel’s failure to inform – Distinction drawn from cases where parties were negligent or relief discretionary [Paras 7, 11].

Costs – Balancing of Equities – Though rehearing allowed, applicants directed to compensate respondents – Costs of ₹10,000 imposed as condition for rehearing [Para 12].

Decision – Application Allowed – Delay Condoned – Ex-parte Judgment Dated 15.04.2025 Recalled – Second Appeal Directed to be Listed for Rehearing – MCC Disposed of [Paras 1, 11–12].

Civil Law - Will – Proof and Suspicious Circumstances – Burden on Propounder – Deceased owner Buddhsen admittedly left behind wife and children as natural heirs – Defendant No.1 claimed title on the basis of Will dated 18.09.1985 – When Will excludes wife and children and bequeaths entire property to a non-relative belonging to a different caste, strong suspicious circumstances arise – Burden lies heavily on propounder to dispel such suspicion – Failure to satisfactorily explain exclusion of natural heirs renders Will doubtful and unenforceable [Paras 11, 15–21].

Will – Attestation and Evidence – Interested and Unreliable Witnesses – Though formal attestation sought to be proved under Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of the Evidence Act, evidence of attesting witnesses revealed inconsistencies and unnatural conduct – Witnesses closely connected with defendant and having doubtful credibility – Circumstances surrounding execution and alleged registration before Notary found improbable – Held: Mere formal proof insufficient when execution surrounded by grave suspicion [Paras 11–14, 19].

Suspicious Circumstances – Exclusion of Natural Heirs – Will executed in favour of wealthy and influential person depriving poor testator’s wife and children of sole property – Reasons stated in Will found fabricated and unnatural – Testator owning no other property – Date gap between execution and verification of Will unexplained – Held: Suspicious circumstances not removed by propounder [Paras 16–21].

Letter Relied upon by Propounder – Fabrication – Letter dated 13.12.1985 (Ex.D-1) relied upon to justify Will – Typed document allegedly written by poor testator – Contents appeared self-serving and prepared to support Will – Held: Letter unreliable and confers no benefit on defendant [Para 15].

Mutation and Sale Deed – Effect – Mutation obtained on basis of doubtful Will – Subsequent sale deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 based on invalid title – Held: Mutation order and sale deed are null and void being derivative of invalid Will [Paras 2, 24].

Civil Suit – Declaration of Title and Possession – Plaintiffs established themselves as legal heirs of deceased owner – Will not proved beyond suspicion – Trial Court rightly decreed suit declaring Will, mutation and sale deed null and void and directing restoration of possession – No perversity or legal infirmity found [Paras 24–25].

Decision: First Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree of Trial Court affirmed – Will dated 18.09.1985, mutation and sale deed declared null and void – Plaintiffs entitled to possession.