Service Law – Departmental Proceedings based on Same Allegations as Criminal Trial – Proceedings vitiated – The petitioner, a bank employee, was earlier acquitted honourably in a criminal trial arising out of alleged issuance of fraudulent CRIS certificates – Later, departmental proceedings were initiated on identical facts with the same witnesses – Held: Departmental punishment unsustainable in view of acquittal and settled law that parallel departmental proceedings cannot be sustained on identical allegations when the accused has been honourably acquitted [Paras 1-5, 17-28].

Criminal Trial – Acquittal on Merits – Not a Case of Mere Benefit of Doubt – The Trial Court found prosecution witnesses unreliable, disbelieved the case of the bank, and recorded a finding that the petitioner was made a scapegoat – Department cannot re-litigate the matter through disciplinary proceedings – Findings of acquittal were substantive and not technical [Paras 11-14, 25].

Departmental Proceedings – Same Witnesses and Evidence as in Criminal Case – Departmental witnesses were the same as prosecution witnesses who had already been disbelieved in criminal trial – Proceedings hit by the principles laid down in G.M. Tank vs. State of Gujarat, (2006) 5 SCC 446 – Supreme Court ruling squarely applicable [Paras 19-23].

Judicial Review – Limited Scope – Court recognized that ordinarily judicial review in service matters is limited to illegality, perversity, or violation of natural justice – However, when departmental action is contrary to settled law and ignores acquittal on merits, intervention is justified – Reliance placed on G.M. Tank, Capt. Paul Anthony, and Ram Lal cases [Paras 25-29].

Decision – Petition Allowed – Impugned orders dated 19.12.2002 and 04.08.2003 quashed – Petitioner entitled to all consequential service and pensionary benefits – Bank directed to implement the order within 3 months and pay arrears within a further period of 2 months, failing which 6% interest shall apply [Para 30].

Contempt of Court – No Willful Disobedience – Supervening Circumstances Justified Delay - The petitioner alleged that the respondents failed to distribute the collected ‘Dakshina’ among the three managing families of the temple as per the 2018 High Court judgment – The respondents contended that distribution was temporarily halted due to an internal dispute among family members and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic – The High Court held that the delay was due to legitimate administrative and legal hurdles, and there was no deliberate violation of the court’s order – Held: Mere delay, without intent to defy the court, does not amount to contempt [Paras 12-13].

Judicial Directives for Temple Administration – Compliance Achieved – Contempt Petition Infructuous - The Court examined records and found that post-2023, the respondents resumed the daily counting and monthly distribution of ‘Dakshina’ as per the 2018 judgment – Evidence of deposits and withdrawals from bank accounts confirmed compliance – Held: Since the court’s directives were now being followed, no further action was necessary, and the contempt petition was closed [Paras 11-13].

Locus Standi in Contempt Proceedings – Petitioner’s Standing Disputed – No Proof of Membership in Managing Families - The respondents argued that the petitioner was not a direct party to the original writ petition and had not proven his status as a beneficiary – The Court noted that a contempt petition can only be filed by a party with a direct grievance regarding non-compliance – Held: Though the petitioner’s membership in the managing families was in dispute, the issue was moot since compliance had already been ensured [Paras 6-7].

Decision – Contempt Petition Dismissed – No Further Action Required - The Court found no willful disobedience of its 2018 judgment and dismissed the contempt petition – Held: The petitioner’s claims were now irrelevant as compliance had been established, and the case was closed [Paras 13-15].
 

Civil Law - Limitation for Specific Performance – No Fixed Date for Performance – Suit Within Time - The trial court dismissed the suit as time-barred under Article 54 of the Limitation Act, holding that the agreement stipulated execution of the sale deed within six months – The High Court found that the six-month period related only to the completion of construction and handing over of possession, not execution of the sale deed – Held: In the absence of a fixed date for performance, the suit was within the three-year limitation period, and the trial court erred in dismissing it as time-barred [Paras 40-50].

Genuineness of Agreement – Allegation of Interpolation Rejected – Validity Upheld - The defendant contended that the agreement was forged or interpolated – The High Court found that all insertions were accompanied by signatures, confirming authenticity – Held: The agreement dated October 16, 1995 was genuine, and the defendant’s contradictory stands regarding its validity were legally untenable [Paras 66-70].

Doctrine of Part Performance – Admission by Co-Owners – Sale Deed Execution Directed - Two out of three co-owners admitted the agreement and executed a registered sale deed for their 2/3rd share – The High Court held that the remaining defendant was bound by the agreement and must execute a deed for her 1/3rd share – Held: The plaintiff is entitled to specific performance for the remaining share, upon payment of the balance amount of Rs.1,667/- [Paras 55-65].

Eviction Decree and Specific Performance – Plaintiff’s Ownership Prevails Over Possession Dispute - The defendant argued that the appeal was not maintainable as the plaintiff did not challenge the counterclaim decree for eviction – The High Court rejected this argument, stating that once the plaintiff becomes the lawful owner, the eviction decree becomes inoperative – Held: The decree for specific performance supersedes the eviction decree, and the defendant must execute the sale deed [Paras 80-85].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Trial Court’s Order Set Aside – Decree of Specific Performance Granted - The High Court reversed the trial court’s decision and directed the defendant to execute a sale deed for her 1/3rd share in favor of the plaintiff upon payment of Rs.1,667/- – Held: If the defendant fails to comply, the plaintiff is entitled to have the sale deed executed through court [Paras 98-101].
 

Criminal Law - Dismissal of Complaint – No Prima Facie Case – Allegations Patently Absurd and Inherently Improbable - The petitioner alleged an elaborate conspiracy involving multiple accused, claiming she was shot 25 times but survived due to homeopathic medicine – The Magistrate dismissed the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C., finding the allegations ex-facie improbable – The Sessions Court upheld this decision, noting that no prudent person could believe such claims – Held: The High Court found no error in the lower courts' reasoning, affirming that an inherently absurd and unbelievable complaint cannot form the basis for summoning the accused [Paras 7-12].

Power of Magistrate to Dismiss Complaint – No Duty to Issue Summons if No Prima Facie Case Exists - The petitioner contended that the Magistrate was obligated to issue summons despite the nature of her allegations – The High Court rejected this argument, citing Supreme Court precedent that allows dismissal of complaints where allegations are patently absurd or improbable – Held: A Magistrate is not bound to issue summons if the complaint lacks substance, as doing so would amount to an abuse of process [Paras 13-14].

Inherent Powers of High Court – No Interference Where Lower Courts Have Rightly Exercised Discretion - The High Court emphasized that interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is warranted only in cases of miscarriage of justice – Held: Where both the Magistrate and Sessions Court have correctly exercised discretion to dismiss a frivolous complaint, the High Court will not interfere [Paras 15-16].

Decision – Petition Dismissed – No Grounds for Interference - The High Court upheld the dismissal of the complaint and rejected the Section 482 petition – Held: The petition was frivolous and no interference was required – Pending applications, if any, were also disposed of [Paras 17-18].
 

Criminal Law – Quashing - Second Complaint After Acceptance of Final Report – Not Maintainable in Absence of Special Circumstances – Summoning Order Set Aside - The first FIR filed by the complainant in 2005 led to a final report being accepted in 2012 – A fresh complaint was filed in 2017 on identical facts, leading to the summoning of the accused under Section 406 IPC – The High Court held that a second complaint on the same facts is not barred but can only be entertained in exceptional circumstances, such as discovery of new facts or manifest miscarriage of justice – Held: In this case, no new material was presented, and the fresh complaint was filed after an unreasonable delay of more than five years – The summoning order was therefore legally unsustainable [Paras 20-28].

Criminal Breach of Trust – No Entrustment Established – Offense Not Made Out - For an offense under Section 406 IPC, entrustment of property must be proved – The dispute in the present case related to control over a school and its managing society, with both parties claiming rights based on succession – The Court held that there was no entrustment by the complainant to the accused, making the offense of criminal breach of trust inapplicable – Held: A civil dispute regarding succession of management cannot be given a criminal color by alleging breach of trust [Paras 30-31].

Bar Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. – Delay of Over 12 Years in Filing Complaint – Cognizance Impermissible - The original cause of action arose in 2005, and the first round of criminal proceedings concluded with the acceptance of a final report in 2012 – The fresh complaint was filed in 2017, after a delay of 12 years from the alleged offense and 5 years from the final report – The Court held that since the maximum punishment for Section 406 IPC is three years, the complaint was barred by limitation under Section 468 Cr.P.C. – Held: No cognizance could be taken for an offense that is time-barred, and the fresh complaint was legally untenable [Paras 32-33].

Summoning Order Must Show Application of Mind – Cryptic Order Not Sustainable - The High Court emphasized that summoning an accused is a serious matter and must be supported by reasons showing judicial application of mind – The Magistrate’s order merely recorded that statements of witnesses were perused without discussing whether a prima facie case was made out – Held: A mechanical and non-speaking summoning order is legally defective and must be quashed [Paras 34-37].

Decision – Petition Under Article 227 Allowed – Summoning Order and Revisional Court Order Set Aside – Application Under Section 482 Dismissed - The High Court quashed the summoning order and set aside the Revisional Court’s order affirming it – Held: The complaint was an abuse of process, filed to exert pressure in a civil dispute – The connected Section 482 application, challenging the 2012 final report, was dismissed due to an unexplained delay of over six years [Paras 38-39].

Delay in Pronouncement of Judgment – Prejudice to Litigants – Order Set Aside - The Single Judge heard arguments on 18/05/2022 but pronounced the order only on 05/06/2023 – The appellants contended that the delay violated judicial discipline and deprived them of the opportunity to seek timely relief – The High Court held that while mere delay does not invalidate an order, in this case, the delay led to procedural unfairness – Held: The inordinate delay of over a year caused prejudice to the appellants, warranting setting aside the impugned order [Paras 12-18].

Injunction in Commercial Disputes – Failure to Consider Prima Facie Case, Balance of Convenience, and Irreparable Injury – Order Unsustainable - The learned Single Judge granted an injunction without assessing the fundamental requirements of interim relief – The High Court found that the order was cryptic and did not discuss whether the plaintiffs had a prima facie case or whether the balance of convenience favored them – Held: Injunction orders must be reasoned, and failure to consider the three essential elements renders the order unsustainable [Paras 24-26].

Pledged Shares and Right to Sell – Restriction on Alienation Until Fresh Consideration - The plaintiffs sought a declaration that no valid pledge existed over certain shares and requested an injunction preventing their sale – The High Court noted that prior to the interim order, 16,00,000 shares had already been sold – Held: Pending fresh adjudication, the remaining pledged shares shall not be alienated, transferred, or disposed of [Paras 25-27].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – Injunction Order Quashed – Matter Remanded for Fresh Consideration - The High Court quashed the order dated 05/06/2023 and remanded the matter to the learned Single Judge for fresh adjudication of the injunction application within six weeks – Held: The injunction application must be decided expeditiously, without being influenced by prior orders, and all contentions remain open [Paras 26-28].
 

Civil Writ - Government's Power to Take Over Water Bodies – Compliance with Natural Justice Required – No Proof of Private Ownership - The petitioner contended that the impugned order under Section 17A of the West Bengal Inland Fisheries Act was passed without due notice and without verifying whether the property was indeed a water body – The respondent-KMC argued that the land was a designated water body requiring conservation – The High Court held that while the law allows the government to take control of water bodies for ecological preservation, such action must be preceded by proper notice and inquiry – Held: The petitioner failed to provide documentary proof that the land in question was not a water body, and thus, the takeover was legally justified [Paras 16-24].

Writ Petition Not Maintainable When Alternative Remedy Exists – Challenge to Government Action Must Follow Statutory Process - The respondents argued that the petitioner should have pursued an appeal under Section 18 of the West Bengal Inland Fisheries Act before approaching the High Court – The Court reiterated that writ jurisdiction is discretionary and should not be invoked when an adequate statutory remedy is available – Held: Since the petitioner did not exhaust the alternative remedy, the writ petition was not maintainable [Paras 26-27].

Locus Standi of the Petitioner – Burden of Proof Lies on the Party Challenging Government Action - The petitioner claimed ownership of the land but failed to provide conclusive evidence linking the disputed water body to their property – The High Court noted that municipal records classified the land as a water body and that the petitioner had not taken steps to correct the classification – Held: Mere assertion of ownership without substantive proof is insufficient to challenge a government action under the Fisheries Act [Paras 24-30].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Government Action Upheld - The High Court held that the petitioner had not established a valid legal basis to challenge the municipal action under Section 17A of the Act – Held: The writ petition was dismissed, and all connected applications were disposed of [Paras 31-35].
 

Bail - NDPS – Charge Sheet Without FSL Report – Bail Granted - The petitioner was arrested for possession of 300 grams of MDMA and remained in custody for nearly a year – The prosecution filed a charge sheet without an accompanying Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report – The Court held that in cases under the NDPS Act, a chemical analysis report is an integral part of the investigation, and without it, the charge sheet is incomplete – Held: Since the Supreme Court is considering the issue of charge sheets being filed without FSL reports, and in similar cases bail has been granted, the petitioner is entitled to bail [Paras 6-7].

Long Pre-Trial Detention – No Trial Commenced – Bail Cannot Be Denied Indefinitely - The petitioner was in custody since 29.03.2023 and was granted interim bail on 13.03.2024 – The trial had not yet commenced – The Court held that prolonged pre-trial detention without progress in trial proceedings violates the petitioner’s rights – Held: The interim bail order was made absolute, and the petitioner was directed to attend trial proceedings regularly [Paras 5-6].

Conditions for Bail – Compliance with Court Directives Required - The High Court imposed conditions, including surrendering the passport, refraining from influencing witnesses, and appearing before the trial court on scheduled dates – Held: Violation of any condition would result in the cancellation of bail [Para 7].

Decision – Bail Granted – Interim Order Made Absolute - The Court made the interim bail granted on 13.03.2024 absolute and directed the petitioner to comply with all bail conditions, keeping the legal issue of FSL reports open for future determination [Para 7].
 

Civil Law - Negative Declaratory Relief – Suit for Declaration of Non-Marital Status – Maintainability – Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Defendant contended that a suit seeking a declaration that no marriage exists is barred under Section 34 – Court held that a suit for declaration of legal status is maintainable under Section 9 CPC, irrespective of the provisions of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act – Legal character includes marital status, and a suit seeking a declaration of non-marriage is within the jurisdiction of the civil court [Paras 10-12, 17-18].

Jurisdiction of Civil Courts – Declaratory Relief Outside Specific Relief Act – Plaintiff argued that relief could be sought under Section 9 CPC, which grants civil courts broad jurisdiction – Court held that declaratory relief is not confined to Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act – Civil courts can grant such declarations independently [Paras 15-16].

Conflicting High Court Views – Reliance on Supreme Court Precedent – Karnataka High Court had previously held in Bhuvaneshwari v. Revappa that such suits are not maintainable – Calcutta High Court in Joyita Saha v. Rajesh Kumar Pande ruled otherwise – Court followed Supreme Court’s ruling in Balram Yadav v. Fulmaniya Yadav, which held that a suit for a declaration regarding marital status, whether affirmative or negative, is maintainable [Paras 19-21].

Consequential Relief – Not Always Necessary – Defendant argued that a suit for mere declaration without consequential relief is barred by the proviso to Section 34 – Court held that in cases concerning marital status, the declaration itself is a substantive relief and need not be accompanied by additional claims [Paras 24-25].

Court’s Decision – Suit for Declaration of Non-Marriage Maintainable – Rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC not justified – Civil courts have jurisdiction to entertain such suits – Revision application dismissed [Paras 22-25].