Civil Law – Institution of Suit under Section 92 CPC – Orders Without Leave Held Void – Petitioners filed scheme suit alleging mismanagement of People’s Education Trust and sought interlocutory reliefs – District Court passed interim orders including formation of ad hoc committee – Held: Leave under Section 92 CPC is a jurisdictional prerequisite – Without such leave, plaint remains inert and Court has no power to pass interim directions – Orders dated 02-05-2025 and 11-06-2025 quashed as without jurisdiction [Paras 10–15].

Interim Relief – Formation of Ad Hoc Committee – Lack of Statutory Basis – District Court formed an ad hoc committee citing urgency due to approaching summer vacation – Held: Imminent vacation does not constitute valid legal justification to override statutory requirement under Section 92 CPC – Interim arrangement made without jurisdiction – Entire order and subsequent proceedings declared non est [Paras 10–15].

Order 40 CPC – Appointment of Receiver – Requires Validly Instituted Suit – Petitioners sought appointment of receiver under Order 40 Rule 1 CPC – Held: Such application can be entertained only in a properly instituted suit – Since leave under Section 92 CPC was not granted, application was premature and without legal basis [Para 11].

Precedent – Binding Nature of Coordinate Bench – Judgments of Other High Courts Not Applicable – Petitioners relied on decisions of Kerala and Allahabad High Courts – Held: Coordinate Bench decision in W.P. No. 9267 of 2022 squarely applies and is binding – Leave under Section 92 CPC is mandatory even for passing interim orders – Judgments of other High Courts only persuasive and not binding [Paras 12–14].

Supreme Court Precedent – Bhupinder Singh v. Joginder Singh – Distinguished – Held: Supreme Court recognises that leave under Section 92 CPC is mandatory though it may be granted ex parte in emergent situations – Does not support proposition that interim orders can be passed without leave – Trial Court's orders rendered without granting leave were thus unsustainable [Paras 13–14].

Decision – Writ Petition No. 17445 of 2025 Allowed – Writ Petitions Nos. 16971 and 16223 of 2025 Dismissed – Orders dated 02-05-2025 and 11-06-2025 passed by District Court quashed – Trial Court given liberty to act in accordance with law after properly instituting the suit by granting leave – All pending applications disposed of accordingly [Para 16].

Criminal Law - Bail – Cancellation – Maintainability – Section 483(3) of BNSS – Petition Not Maintainable – The petitioner sought cancellation of bail granted to the accused under Section 4 of the POCSO Act and relevant BNSS provisions – Held: Cancellation of bail primarily lies before the court that granted it – Section 483(3) of BNSS (equivalent to Section 439(2) Cr.P.C.) does not confer appellate or revisional jurisdiction over discretionary bail orders of the Sessions Court – Mere disagreement with the bail order without showing violation of conditions or supervening circumstances is not a ground for cancellation – Petition dismissed as not maintainable [Paras 11-15].

Criminal Procedure – Bail – Supervisory and Inherent Powers – Limited Scope – The Court clarified that in the absence of legislative provision allowing an appeal or revision against a bail order, the remedy against a bail order passed erroneously lies under Article 227 of the Constitution or Section 482 of Cr.P.C. (inherent powers) – Routine invocation of Section 483(3) to challenge discretionary bail orders is impermissible unless supported by compelling reasons like breach of conditions, interference with witnesses, or tampering with evidence [Paras 14-16].

POCSO Act – Heinous Offence – Grant of Bail – Discretionary – While acknowledging that offences under the POCSO Act are serious and heinous, the Court held that unless the accused violates bail conditions or fresh circumstances arise, mere gravity of offence is not sufficient to warrant cancellation once bail is granted with conditions – No exceptional circumstances demonstrated in the present case [Paras 10-13].

Decision – Petition Dismissed – Criminal Petition under Section 483(3) of BNSS seeking cancellation of bail is dismissed as not maintainable – Liberty reserved for the petitioner to avail appropriate remedies under Article 227 of the Constitution of India or Section 482 of Cr.P.C. if so advised [Paras 16-17].

Taxation Law - Income Tax Act - Reassessment Proceedings – Validity of Notice – Notice Time-Barred – Reassessment quashed – The petitioner challenged the notice dated 29.07.2022 issued under Section 148 and the order dated 29.07.2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act for AY 2013-14 – Held: In view of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal, notices issued under TOLA between 1.4.2021 and 30.6.2021 must comply with the timeline prescribed therein – Since the petitioner’s notice dated 30.6.2021 allowed only one day for issuing the final notice post the mandatory reply period after the judgment in Ashish Agarwal (21.5.2022), the notice dated 29.7.2022 was beyond limitation and thus invalid – Impugned notices quashed [Paras 8-14].

Limitation for Reassessment – Interpretation of TOLA – Supreme Court Clarification Applied – Held: As per Rajeev Bansal, the legal fiction created in Ashish Agarwal suspended limitation during the pendency of deemed notices but required the final notice under Section 148 to be issued within the surviving period post-reply – The Revenue’s failure to issue the notice by 17.6.2022, the computed deadline, rendered the notice dated 29.7.2022 time-barred – Applying Rajeev Bansal, the Court held the entire reassessment invalid [Paras 10-12].

Effect of Supreme Court Judgments – Ashish Agarwal and Rajeev Bansal – Binding Precedent – Held: The Gujarat High Court reiterated that the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ashish Agarwal and Rajeev Bansal apply pan-India and bind all High Courts and authorities – Any reassessment notices issued beyond the surviving period of limitation are invalid [Paras 10-12].

Decision – Assessment Order and Notice Quashed – The Court quashed the impugned order dated 29.07.2022 under Section 148A(d) and the reassessment notice dated 29.07.2022 along with the initial notice dated 30.06.2021 – Petition allowed – Rule made absolute – No order as to costs [Paras 13-14].

Criminal Law – Quashing of Complaint - Negotiable Instruments Act – Premature Complaint – Cognizance Not Permissible – Complaint Quashed – The complaint under Section 138 N.I. Act was filed before the expiry of 15 days from the date of service of legal notice – Held: As per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Yogendra Pratap Singh v. Savitri Pandey [(2015) AIR (SC) 157] and Gajanand Burange v. Laxmi Chand Goyal [2022 LiveLaw (SC) 682], a complaint filed before the expiry of the statutory 15-day period is not maintainable in the eye of law – The proceedings initiated on the basis of such a premature complaint are quashed [Paras 7-14, 17].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Liberty to File Fresh Complaint – Condonation of Delay – Permitted – The Court granted liberty to the complainant to file a fresh complaint within one month from the date of this order – Held: In view of the Supreme Court’s directions, delay in filing the fresh complaint shall be treated as condoned under the proviso to Section 142 of the N.I. Act – The trial court is directed to dispose of the complaint expeditiously, preferably within six months from its filing [Paras 18-19].

Criminal Procedure – Deposit Amount – Directions for Preservation – The amount deposited by the petitioner-accused shall be kept in fixed deposit in Karnataka Bank, CMM Court Branch, in the name of the Deputy Registrar with auto renewal – The successful party shall be entitled to the said amount post final adjudication [Para 23].

Decision – Revision Allowed – The judgments of conviction passed by the XIX ACMM, Bengaluru, dated 03/04/2017 in C.C. No. 8433/2016, and affirmed by the LXVI Additional Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in Crl.A. No. 649/2017 dated 20/09/2017, are set aside – Liberty granted to the complainant to file a fresh complaint – Trial court directed to return original documents after retaining certified copies and proceed in accordance with law [Paras 17-23].

Criminal Law - Cheating – Ingredients of Section 420 IPC – Conviction Unsustainable – Set Aside – Acquittal - The trial court convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 420 IPC based on the complainant’s allegation that the appellant, under the false promise of marriage, had sexual relations and took money from her and her family – Held: Mere allegation of taking money without documentary evidence or corroboration is insufficient to establish the offence under Section 420 IPC – Essential ingredients such as dishonest inducement and delivery of property with resultant wrongful loss were not established – Conviction set aside [Paras 10-23].

Cheating – Requirement of Dishonest Inducement – Mere Relationship Dispute Not Sufficient – The court reiterated that a deceitful act must be coupled with dishonest inducement leading to delivery of property or valuable security – The relationship and subsequent disputes cannot be stretched into an offence of cheating in absence of conclusive proof of inducement or fraudulent intention at inception [Paras 18-22].

Supreme Court Precedent – Applied – Mariam Fasihuddin & Anr. vs. State by Adugodi Police Station & Anr., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 53 – The Calcutta High Court relied upon the Supreme Court's observation that mere deceit or false promise without delivery of property does not satisfy the offence under Section 420 IPC [Para 20].

Decision – Conviction Set Aside – Appeal Allowed – The impugned judgment dated 22.09.2015 convicting the appellant under Section 420 IPC is quashed – The appellant is discharged from bail bonds and set at liberty if not required in any other case [Paras 23-26].

Criminal Law  – Withdrawal of prosecution – Section 321 CrPC – Application moved in National Lok Adalat without hearing victim and without independent application of mind – Public Prosecutor acted mechanically on government order – Court consented without scrutiny – Orders illegal and irregular – Quashed – Trial restored [Paras 8–13, 28–35].

Lok Adalat – Jurisdictional limits – Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 – Lok Adalat is conciliatory, not adjudicatory – Can only dispose cases on compromise or settlement – Application under Section 321 CrPC filed unilaterally by prosecutor not referable to Lok Adalat – Orders passed therein held without jurisdiction – Reference beyond orbit of Lok Adalat deprecated [Paras 8–12].

Section 321 CrPC – Scope – Prosecutor’s independence – Initiative lies with Public Prosecutor, Court’s role supervisory – Consent not formality, requires satisfaction that withdrawal serves public justice – Prosecutor cannot act as post office of Government – Rajender Kumar Jain v. State, (1980) 3 SCC 435; Subhash Chander, AIR 1980 SC 423; Bairam Muralidhar, (2014) 10 SCC 380 applied – Held: APP filed application mechanically under State directive, without independent mind [Paras 16–25, 28].

Court’s duty – Judicial discretion – Court must scrutinize grounds, not accept ipse dixit of prosecutor – Abdul Karim v. State of Karnataka, (2000) 8 SCC 710 followed – Here, trial court gave consent without reasons, appellate court wrongly affirmed – Orders unsustainable [Paras 23–25, 28].

Victim’s right to be heard – Although CrPC silent, jurisprudence (Sheonandan Paswan, 1987; Abdul Wahab K., 2018; Purshottam ‘Vijay’, 1983 MPLJ 694) recognized locus of victim/complainant – BNSS 2023 now expressly mandates victim’s hearing before withdrawal – Trial court’s preponement of hearing date deprived victim of opportunity to oppose – Violation of principles of natural justice [Paras 29–33].

Procedural irregularity – Order dated 30.11.2013 captioned as passed in National Lok Adalat, but not in regular trial course – Preponement of case from 05.12.2013 to 30.11.2013 solely to permit withdrawal amounted to irregular proceeding – Vitiated by illegality [Paras 7, 10–13].

Legal principle – Withdrawal of prosecution permissible only when bona fide and in furtherance of public justice – Not to shield accused from trial – Society has right to demand punishment of offender – Abdul Wahab K. (2018) 18 SCC 448 reiterated [Para 26].

Disposition – Orders of JMFC (30.11.2013) and Appellate Court (27.08.2014) permitting withdrawal set aside – Criminal Case restored on original number – Trial to proceed from stage prior to withdrawal – Parties to appear before trial court on 26.09.2025 [Paras 34–36].

Matrimonial Law – Divorce  – Admissibility of Electronic Evidence – Section 14 of Family Courts Act – WhatsApp Chats Admissible – The petitioner/wife challenged the Family Court’s order permitting the husband to mark WhatsApp chats as evidence alleging violation of her right to privacy – Held: Under Section 14 of Family Courts Act, Family Courts are not bound by strict rules of evidence and may admit any material if it assists in resolving the dispute – The evidence, even if collected without consent, is admissible if relevant – However, admission does not amount to proof, and weightage is subject to judicial discretion [Paras 9-13, 35-36].

Right to Privacy vs. Right to Fair Trial – Not Absolute – Balance Required – While right to privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21, it is not absolute – In case of conflict, right to fair trial prevails over right to privacy in matrimonial disputes – Admission of relevant evidence does not absolve the procurer of liability for breach of privacy under criminal or civil law – Such evidence must be scrutinized with higher standards of authenticity [Paras 18-21, 38].

Illegally Obtained Evidence – Permissible in Family Court – Distinction Between Admissibility and Weightage – Even if evidence is procured illegally or unethically, Family Courts can admit it subject to relevance – The Court clarified that Section 122 of the Evidence Act allows disclosure of communications between spouses in matrimonial disputes – The objection regarding violation of IT Act or privacy cannot bar the admission of such evidence under Section 14 of the Family Courts Act [Paras 11-13, 18, 36, 38].

Doctrine of Sub Silentio and Per Incuriam – Earlier Contradictory Judgments Not Binding – The Court held that earlier judgments of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Anurima @ Abha Mehta v. Sunil Mehta, Ram Talreja v. Sapna Talreja, Smt. Saroj v. Ashish Yadav, and Abhishek Ranjan v. Hemlata Choubey were passed without considering Section 14 of the Family Courts Act and Section 122 of the Evidence Act – Such judgments are per incuriam and not binding precedents [Paras 34].

Safeguards While Admitting Sensitive Evidence – The Court laid down safeguards for Family Courts, including: conducting in-camera proceedings for sensitive materials, rigorous scrutiny of authenticity, and ensuring decency in proceedings – Admission of evidence does not absolve parties from potential liability for illegally procuring the same [Para 37].

Decision – Petition Dismissed – The Family Court’s order permitting the WhatsApp chats to be exhibited is upheld – The Court held that such evidence is admissible subject to proof, scrutiny, and judicial discretion at the adjudication stage [Para 39].

Motor Accident – Criminal Liability of Vehicle Owner – Registered Owner Held Liable – Petition for Quashing Rejected – The petitioner, arraigned as Accused No.2, sought quashing of proceedings on the ground that he had sold the scooter involved in the accident – Held: Despite the claim of sale, the Registration Certificate continued in the name of the petitioner – In law, the registered owner remains liable for responsibilities attached to ownership until formal transfer – Prima facie material exists against the petitioner – Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. rejected, leaving the petitioner free to raise his defence during trial [Paras 3-6].

Criminal Procedure – Quashing of Proceedings – Prima Facie Case Exists – Petition Dismissed – Allegations indicate that the deceased was permitted to drive the scooter without holding a valid driving license, attracting criminal negligence – Held: Whether the petitioner was no longer the owner or whether he permitted the deceased to drive without a license are matters of trial – The petition for quashing is premature and devoid of merit [Paras 4-6].

Decision – Petition Dismissed – The petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. / Section 528 BNSS seeking quashing of FIR No.19/2023 of Cubbon Park Traffic Police Station is rejected – Trial court directed to proceed in accordance with law – A copy of the order is directed to be sent to the trial court through email [Order].

Civil Suit – Maintainability – Suit for Bare Injunction – Title in Dispute – Not Maintainable - The plaintiffs filed a suit for bare permanent injunction without seeking declaration of title, despite serious title disputes – The vendor's title was already negatived in previous proceedings under the Estates Abolition Act – Held: When title is under cloud, a suit for injunction simpliciter is not maintainable; declaratory relief is necessary [Paras 24-29, 45].

Civil Procedure – Substantial Question of Law – Interference in Second Appeal – Concurrent Findings Found Perverse - Both the Trial Court and First Appellate Court failed to consider crucial documentary evidence including Ryotwari patta and settlement proceedings – Findings are perverse, contrary to law, and liable to be interfered with under Section 100 CPC [Paras 26-29].

Estates Abolition – Binding Effect of Tribunal Orders – Civil Court Jurisdiction Barred – The grant of Ryotwari patta by the Assistant Settlement Officer and confirmation by the Estate Abolition Tribunal is binding on Civil Courts – Plaintiffs’ vendor’s claim having been rejected earlier, cannot be reopened in a civil suit [Paras 22-24, 29].

Additional Evidence – Order 41 Rule 27 CPC – Not Maintainable in Second Appeal – Documents relating to separate suits involving different parties and properties cannot be admitted as additional evidence at the second appellate stage – Application rejected [Paras 34-38].

Contempt – Alleged Violation of Status Quo Order – No Interim Injunction – Writ Petitions Filed by Both Parties – In absence of conclusive material and with the matter sub judice in writ proceedings, contempt application under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC dismissed [Paras 40-44].

Decision – Second Appeal Allowed – Judgments of Trial Court and First Appellate Court set aside – Suit dismissed – Each party directed to bear their own costs [Para 45].