Loan Fraud – Discharge Petitions – Criminal Conspiracy and Abuse of Official Position – Discharge Rejected – Prima facie material supports framing of charges under IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act [Paras 5-7, 14-16, 21-22, 33-35].

Discharge Petition – Criminal Conspiracy – Bank Loan Fraud – Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act – Discharge Denied – The 2nd and 5th accused challenged dismissal of their discharge petitions in a case involving fraudulent loans sanctioned through conspiracy with bank officials to cheat State Bank of Travancore – The Court held that there was prima facie material including witness statements, cheques, and banking transactions indicating the accused’s role in the conspiracy – The discharge petitions were rightly dismissed [Paras 5-7, 14-16, 21-22].

Retrospective Application – Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 – Earlier Offences Under Section 13(1)(d) Continue – Held: The amended provisions do not apply retrospectively to offences committed before 26.07.2018 – Section 6 of the General Clauses Act applies – Prosecution of prior offences under unamended Act valid [Paras 18-24, 27-30].

Mens Rea – Criminal Misconduct Under Section 13(1)(d)(iii) – Not Always Required – Legislative History Indicates Amendment Aimed at Excluding Acts Without Public Interest – But Pre-Amendment Offences Remain Punishable – Court rejected contention that amended provision should apply to pending proceedings [Paras 28-32].

Circumstantial Evidence – Prima Facie Material Sufficient to Frame Charges – In Conspiracy and Economic Offences, Direct Evidence Often Absent – Reliance Placed on Bank Documents, Witness Statements, and Transaction Trails – Court held that sufficiency of material warrants trial [Paras 14, 16, 20, 22].

Decision:

The Court dismissed both criminal revision petitions, upheld the Special Court’s refusal to discharge the 2nd and 5th accused, and held that the amended provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, do not affect pending prosecutions for offences committed prior to 26.07.2018 – Proceedings to continue under the unamended provisions [Paras 33-35].

Civil Procedure – Permanent Injunction – Ownership and Possession Dispute – Regular Second Appeal against concurrent findings of fact – Plaintiffs claimed ownership of plots 57, 58, 59 through sale deeds and sought injunction against defendants’ alleged attempt to carve passage – Trial Court dismissed suit, First Appellate Court partly decreed only portion BCEX based on defendants’ admission – High Court upheld concurrent findings – Held: Plaintiffs failed to establish title and possession over entire claimed land – No interference warranted under Section 100 CPC [Paras 3–7, 13–20].

Evidence – Parchi Allotments and Site Plans – Plaintiffs relied on allotment parchis and private site plan (Ex.P-2) without demarcation – Court held parchis showed only area, no boundaries/dimensions – Failure to link claimed land to purchased plots weakened case – Local Commissioner’s site plan (Ex.D-7) prepared in presence of parties accepted as reliable – Plaintiffs’ plan rejected [Paras 9–14].

Admissions – Effect of Witness Statements – Plaintiffs’ own witnesses admitted existence of street and boundary walls between properties – Appellate Court relied on such admissions to hold defendants’ possession lawful – Such admissions corroborated Local Commissioner’s findings – Appeal dismissed [Paras 15–16].

Scope of Second Appeal – Concurrent Findings of Fact – High Court reiterated limited scope of interference under Section 100 CPC – Findings based on reliable evidence including Local Commissioner’s report and witness admissions – No perversity or substantial question of law arose – Appeal dismissed [Paras 18–20].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Judgment of First Appellate Court dated 16.11.1999 affirmed – Permanent injunction limited to portion BCEX – Plaintiffs’ claim over rest of land rejected – No order as to costs [Para 20].

Service Law – Termination of University Employee – Mala fides and Vindictiveness – Fourth termination order challenged – Allegations of forged Ph.D. degree and misuse of salutation “Dr.” – Petitioner denied ever submitting any Ph.D. certificate – Proceedings found to be initiated only after petitioner lodged sexual harassment complaint against Registrar – Held: Proceedings actuated by mala fide intent, bias, and extraneous considerations – Termination unsustainable – Writ Petition Allowed [Paras 52–63].

Disciplinary Proceedings – Proof of Misconduct – Requirement of Cogent Evidence – Mere mention of “pursuing Ph.D.” in CV does not amount to false claim – No material produced to show petitioner gained appointment/promotion using alleged fake degree – Findings based on conjectures cannot constitute misconduct [Paras 53–61].

Bias and Abuse of Power – Initiation of Proceedings after Complaint Against Registrar – Vindictive Approach – Courts have held mala fide and biased disciplinary proceedings void ab initio – Registrar acted with personal enmity; authorities misused process – Proceedings vitiated [Paras 55–59].

Doctrine of Proportionality – Misconduct Must Be Grave, Supported by Evidence – Courts can interfere if punishment shocks conscience – In present case, no misconduct proved; dismissal wholly disproportionate and arbitrary [Paras 47–51].

Decision – Impugned termination order dated 14.12.2024 quashed – Petitioner entitled to reinstatement with consequential benefits – Writ Petition Allowed [Paras 62–63].

Partition Suit – Final Decree based on Mediator’s Report Ignoring Preliminary Decree – Set Aside – Trial court wrongly ordered auction sale despite binding preliminary decree directing allotment of specific properties – Held: Final decree must conform to earlier confirmed directions [Paras 9–17].

Partition Suit – Final Decree Contradictory to Preliminary Decree – Final decree ordering auction sale of D & E schedule properties set aside – Trial court ignored reservation made in preliminary decree confirmed by High Court – Direction to re-partition as per original decree restored [Paras 9–17].

Civil Procedure – Commissioner’s Role – Mediator’s Report Lacked Legal Sanctity – Appointment of mediator to perform commissioner’s duties improper – Report not signed by parties and not compliant with Order 26 Rule 10(2) CPC – Final decree based on such report held invalid [Paras 13–15].

Res Judicata – Binding Nature of Preliminary Decree – Preliminary decree directing allocation of certain properties to specific parties became final – Trial court’s deviation from this in final decree was impermissible – Earlier High Court confirmation in OP(C). No. 658 of 2017 reiterated [Paras 10–12, 16].

Partition Execution – Mandatory Compliance with Prior Directions – Trial court failed to comply with remand direction to amend commission report and ignored binding judicial orders – Such deviation vitiates final decree process [Paras 13, 16].

Final Decision – Impugned final decree set aside – Matter remanded for fresh final decree proceedings in accordance with preliminary decree – Trial court directed to dispose final decree application within one year – All interlocutory applications dismissed [Paras 17–19].

Interim Injunction – Suit for Specific Performance – Material Misstatement – Injunction Set Aside – The plaintiff/respondent filed a suit seeking specific performance of a property sale agreement and obtained interim injunction restraining alienation of the property – Petitioner challenged the orders under Article 227, alleging misrepresentation in pleadings regarding extension of time for performance – The plaintiff admitted in evidence that he had sent the message extending the date, contrary to the claim in the plaint that it was sent by the defendant – Held: Interim orders based on misstatement of material facts cannot be sustained – Interim injunction quashed – Orders of the trial and appellate courts set aside [Paras 11–11.5].

Civil Law - Execution of decree for injunction – Executing Court wrongly dismissed application under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC – High Court held even prohibitory injunction enforceable in execution; demarcation can be directed – Order set aside, matter remanded [Paras 7–13].

Civil Procedure – Order 21 Rule 32 CPC – A decree for permanent injunction can be executed by attachment, detention, or restitution – Decree-holder need not file fresh suit for possession if judgment debtor violates decree by encroachment – Remedy lies in execution itself – Toran Singh v. Imrat Singh, 2012 (3) MPLJ 385 followed [Paras 7–9, 12].

Meaning of “wilful disobedience” – Requires proof of knowledge of decree, opportunity to obey, and deliberate defiance – Mere inadvertent act not enough – Burden lies on decree-holder – Karnataka rulings in Shivamurthy v. Dannammadevi Cycle Mart, AIR 1987 Kar 261 and Kariyappa v. Haladappa, AIR 1989 Kar 163 applied [Paras 7–9].

Prohibitory injunction – Enforceability – Explanation to Order 21 Rule 32(5) (added by 2002 CPC Amendment) makes clear that prohibitory injunctions too are enforceable in execution – Law Commission intent was to avoid multiplicity of suits – Court bound to give effect to decree, not drive decree-holder to new litigation [Paras 8–9, 12].

Error of Executing Court – Executing Court wrongly held that it could not go beyond decree and that possession relief was outside scope – High Court clarified that Executing Court has power to restore possession where decree violated – Impugned order unsustainable [Paras 12–13].

Demarcation – Where dispute arises as to location/identity of land, Executing Court can direct demarcation by revenue authorities before enforcing decree – Necessary for determining whether obstruction (“Muram”) lies on suit land or adjoining land [Paras 11, 13].

Inherent powers – Section 151 CPC – Even apart from express powers, Court has inherent duty to prevent frustration of decrees – Power to “put clock back” where decree violated – Surjit Pal v. Prabir Kumar Sun, AIR 1986 Cal 220; Hari Nandan Agrawal v. S.N. Pandita, AIR 1975 All 482 cited [Para 8].

Disposition – Revision allowed – Impugned order dated 05.01.2023 set aside – Matter remanded to Executing Court to get demarcation done through revenue authorities and then enforce decree under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC – Miscellaneous applications closed [Paras 12–14]

Criminal Law - Possession Dispute – Section 145 CrPC – Magistrate’s Order Restored – Dispute over possession of land between developer and private parties – Magistrate, relying on documents and overt acts, held applicants were in settled possession as on 22.04.2017 and unlawfully dispossessed by police action – Sessions Court set aside order applying strict evidentiary standards – Supreme Court/High Court reiterated preventive nature of Section 145 CrPC, held Sessions Court exceeded revisional powers – Magistrate’s order restored; applicants entitled to possession through Court Receiver [Paras 23–64].

Criminal Procedure – Section 145 CrPC – Scope and Purpose – Proceedings preventive and summary in nature – Object is to maintain law and order by protecting actual possession, not to adjudicate ownership or title – Magistrate must decide who was in possession on relevant date or whether forcible dispossession occurred within two months prior – Strict rules of Evidence Act inapplicable [Paras 23–27].

Possession – Proof through Acts of Control – Applicants established possession by chain of documents: Deed of Assignment-cum-Surrender (10.12.2016), letter of possession (11.04.2017), registered conveyances, bank payments with TDS deduction, and corroboration by witnesses – Further proved by overt acts: erection of cabins, fencing, iron boards, engagement of security guards, and payment of taxes/electricity bills – Held sufficient to establish settled possession [Paras 30–34].

Evidentiary Standards – Preventive Proceedings – Magistrate entitled to rely on probative material including unregistered documents when showing possession – Sessions Court erred in discarding documents on technical grounds of registration and by applying strict rules of proof as in civil trial – Misapplied principle of Bareilly Electricity Supply Co. – [Paras 37–44, 50–52].

Forcible Dispossession – Police Action – Evidence showed applicants’ structures and boards at site on 22.04.2017 – Panchanama and removal of cabins/fencing by police indicated dispossession – Magistrate correctly held applicants in possession and unlawfully ousted – [Paras 34–36].

Preliminary Order – Requirement under Section 145 – Absence of separate preliminary order not fatal where High Court itself directed inquiry under Section 145, later confirmed by Supreme Court – Substantive compliance sufficient [Paras 53–58].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Limits – Sessions Court exceeded jurisdiction by reappreciating entire evidence and substituting findings of fact – Interference only permissible for jurisdictional or glaring legal errors – Magistrate’s findings based on probative material restored [Paras 59–61].

Decision – Revision Allowed – Order of Sessions Court dated 04.08.2022 set aside – Order of Magistrate dated 21.12.2019 restored – Court Receiver directed to hand over physical possession to applicants after charges paid, with police assistance if necessary [Paras 62–64].

Quash Petition – Corruption Allegations – Section 482 CrPC – Alleged Conspiracy in Purchase of Fogging Machines – Quash Rejected – Petitioners, former Executive Officers of Salem District Town Panchayats, sought quashing of proceedings in Spl.C.C.Nos.1–3 of 2024 arising from Crime No.3 of 2021 under PC Act and IPC offences – Allegation: machines purchased at inflated rates in collusion with traders, violating tender norms, causing loss to Panchayat funds – Defence: procedure followed, sanction obtained, prices comparable to GeM portal and other Panchayats, selective prosecution, absence of dishonest intention – Held: Grounds raised are factual and disputed, malice or arbitrariness can only be tested at trial – Sufficient materials exist in charge sheet, cognizance properly taken – No case for quashing [Paras 2–3, 6–7, 16–22].

Public Servant Misconduct – Prevention of Corruption Act, 2018 – Section 13(1)(a) – Entrustment and Misappropriation – Petitioners argued absence of dishonest intention, citing audit clearance and departmental approvals – Held: Whether purchases were dishonest, collusive, or in violation of MRP directions are factual issues requiring evidence – Audit clearance not conclusive to absolve criminal liability – Prima facie case made out in charge sheet [Paras 8–11, 16–21].

Selective Prosecution – Allegation of Mala Fide and Arbitrariness – 180 Panchayats purchased machines at similar prices but no action taken – Petitioners claimed abuse of process – Held: Selective targeting and mala fides are matters of trial, not for consideration at quash stage – Petitioners failed to produce unimpeachable material warranting interference [Paras 6, 15, 22].

Quash Petition – Scope under Section 482 CrPC – Judicial Interference – Court reiterated that disputed factual issues, motive, and conspiracy cannot be assessed at the pre-trial stage – As charge sheet supported by sanction, witness statements and documents, no ground to quash prosecution – Petitions dismissed [Paras 21–23].

Decision: All Criminal Original Petitions dismissed – Connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions closed – Trial Court directed to proceed uninfluenced by observations in this order [Para 23].

Civil Law – Order 8 Rule 1 CPC - Delay in Filing Written Statement – No Exceptional Circumstance Shown – Petition Dismissed – Petitioner served with summons on 19.12.2024 but failed to file written statement within 30 days or extended period of 90 days – Right to file written statement closed on 01.04.2025 – Application for recall and condonation dismissed by trial court – High Court held: obtaining certified copies of documents in another litigation not an exceptional circumstance – Petitioner could have inspected documents instead of delaying – Delay beyond 90 days unjustified – Revision dismissed [Paras 3-7].

Res Judicata – Interlocutory Orders – Review Not Maintainable – Petitioner attempted to reopen trial court’s order dated 01.04.2025 by way of recall plea – Court held: no error apparent on record or discovery of new facts despite diligence – Review jurisdiction cannot be invoked to circumvent finality of procedural orders [Para 8].

Strict Application of Order VIII Rule 1 CPC – Leniency Rejected – High Court rejected plea for liberal approach in condoning delay – Emphasized that post-2002 CPC amendment, strict timelines must be adhered to – Lenient view would render provision otiose and defeat purpose of expeditious trial [Para 9].

Final Decision – No infirmity in trial court’s order – Petition and connected applications dismissed – Closure of right to file written statement upheld [Paras 9-10].