Specific Relief Act  - Agreement to Sell – Claim of Earnest Money by Stranger – Concurrent Findings Against Plaintiff – Dismissal Upheld – Appellant claimed to have paid ₹46,85,625/- as earnest money and to have inserted respondent no.1’s name in agreement dated 14.10.2011 in good faith – Both Trial and First Appellate Courts held that agreement (Ex.P1) showed respondent no.1 as buyer and no evidence supported appellant’s plea – Bank records proved earnest money was paid by respondent no.1 from funds withdrawn from his and his wife’s accounts – Held: No cogent evidence by appellant; concurrent findings sustained [Paras 2–9].

Scope of Second Appeal – Section 100 CPC – No Substantial Question of Law – Appeal Dismissed – Findings of fact by both courts below that appellant was never part of transaction and consideration flowed from respondent no.1 – High Court found no substantial question of law arising – Appeal dismissed as devoid of merit [Paras 9–10].

Final Decision – Writ for Declaration/Recovery – Relief Denied – In absence of proof of involvement or payment by appellant, suit rightly dismissed; second appeal also dismissed – Pending applications disposed of [Para 10].

Suspension of Sentence – Section 389 CrPC – Convict for Possession of Counterfeit Currency – Relief Denied – Petitioner convicted under Sections 489-B and 489-C IPC for recovery of ₹31,27,500/- counterfeit currency notes – Application under Section 389(1) CrPC seeking bail pending appeal rejected – Revision filed challenging rejection – Held: Mere allegation of procedural lapses, non-examination of forensic expert, and lack of independent corroboration cannot justify suspension of sentence – Evidence including seizure, recovery, and forensic report prima facie established guilt – Presumption of innocence no longer available post-conviction – Suspension of sentence not warranted [Paras 16-21].

Procedural Lapses – Alleged Defects in Seizure and Resending of Exhibits – Court held that such issues fall within appellate jurisdiction and cannot be examined in detail at revision stage – Alleged irregularities regarding sealing, forwarding, and forensic examination not grounds for bail under Section 389 CrPC – To be adjudicated in appeal on merits [Paras 17-20].

Right to Appeal – Custody Since 2023 – Article 21 – Prolonged detention argued as ground for bail – Court reiterated principle in Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai that appeals should be disposed of expeditiously to avoid futility – Directed Appellate Court to conclude appeal within one month – Rejection of suspension of sentence affirmed [Paras 21-24].

Decision – Criminal Revision Dismissed – Impugned order of Additional Sessions Judge, Titilagarh, refusing suspension of sentence affirmed – Appeal to be disposed of on merits expeditiously without being influenced by present observations [Para 24].

Section 528 BNSS - Right to Travel Abroad – Article 21 of Constitution – Permission to Study Overseas Granted – The petitioner, a 21-year-old student, sought permission to go abroad for higher studies in Germany but was denied by the trial court on apprehension of absconding – Held: Right to travel abroad is an integral facet of personal liberty under Article 21 – Courts can secure presence of accused by imposing stringent conditions such as heavy surety and undertakings – Trial Court erred in denying permission solely on apprehension – Order set aside – Petition allowed subject to conditions [Paras 8-17].

Bail Conditions and Judicial Discretion – Accused on Bail – Future Prospects – The petitioner was already on bail in connection with offences under IPC and SC/ST Act – Court held that denial of study opportunities would be detrimental to his reformation and career prospects – Liberty to impose strict conditions to ensure trial participation – Petition accepted [Paras 3-4, 13-17].

Decision: Impugned order dated 13.08.2024 set aside – Petitioner permitted to go abroad for studies subject to stringent conditions, including heavy surety and undertaking to not object to trial proceedings in absence – Petition allowed [Paras 16-18].

Criminal Law - Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Civil Dispute Cloaked as Criminal Offence – Sections 406, 420 IPC – Quashment Allowed – Petitioners (OYO and its Directors) challenged proceedings initiated by the complainant alleging cheating, breach of trust and conspiracy regarding hotel management agreements – The dispute pertained to contractual breaches, revenue sharing, and claims already referred to arbitration and IBC proceedings – Held: No entrustment of property or dishonest inducement at inception – Essential ingredients of Sections 406 and 420 IPC absent – Criminal law cannot be invoked to settle civil scores – Continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process – Proceedings quashed [Paras 7-11, 13-19].

Abuse of Process – Invocation of Criminal Law in Contractual Disputes – Section 482 CrPC – Petitioners contended that multiple similar complaints had already been quashed by coordinate benches; complainant cleverly drafted complaint to give colour of criminality – Court held that criminal process cannot be used as a cudgel for recovery of money or arm-twisting in commercial disputes – Reliance placed on Paramjeet Batra, Sarabjit Kaur, Naresh Kumar, Manish, Rikhab Birani, and S.N. Vijayalakshmi – Complaint held to be mala fide and vexatious [Paras 12-16].

Civil and Criminal Proceedings – Simultaneous Remedies – While in law civil and criminal proceedings may coexist, such coexistence requires a demonstrable element of criminality – In the present case, substratum of dispute was purely civil – Invocation of criminal law deprecated – Reliance on Punit Beriwala distinguished as facts revealed fraudulent intent at inception in that case, unlike present matter [Paras 17-18]

Decision – Criminal Petition Allowed – Proceedings in C.C.No.10486/2023 before IV ACMM, Bengaluru quashed – Clarified that observations confined to exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC and shall not influence other proceedings [Para 20].

Civil Law - Partition Suit – Claim by Granddaughter – Property Inherited under Section 8 HSA – Not Ancestral – Rejection of Plaint – Plaintiff sought 1/4th share in property purchased by grandfather, claiming it to be ancestral – Court held: After Hindu Succession Act, 1956, property inherited by Class I heirs on intestate death of male Hindu is absolute property of heirs, not ancestral coparcenary property – Plaintiff, whose father was alive at time of grandfather’s death, is not Class I heir – No right in property [Paras 12-19].

Cause of Action – Non-disclosure – Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Plaint Rejected – Since plaintiff has no legal right in suit property, plaint discloses no cause of action – Without existence of right, question of partition or injunction does not arise – Suit barred at threshold [Paras 11, 19-23].

Interpretation – Ancestral Property vs. Self-Acquired Property – HSA Effect – Court relied on CWT v. Chander Sen (1986) 3 SCC 567 and Yudhishter v. Ashok Kumar (1987) 1 SCC 204 – Property devolving under Section 8 HSA is individual property of heir, not HUF property – Coparcenary rights not created by such succession – Plaintiff’s reliance on Mitakshara pre-HSA principles misplaced [Paras 12, 16-18].

Final Decision – Application under Order VII Rule 11(a) Allowed – Plaint Rejected – No order as to costs [Para 24].

Criminal Revision Against Rejection Of Discharge Plea - Loan Fraud – Advocate’s Attestation of False Declaration – Prima Facie Conspiracy Established – Revision Dismissed – Accused lawyer (A8) attested affidavit declaring impersonator (A5) as personally known to him, enabling fraudulent sanction of ₹44 lakh loan – Held: Unlike erroneous legal opinion (as in CBI v. K. Narayana Rao, (2012) 9 SCC 512), false certification of identity directly facilitated impersonation and cheating – Attestation cannot be brushed aside as innocuous; prima facie complicity made out – Discharge rightly refused [Paras 5–11].

Scope of Discharge – Standard at Pre-trial Stage – Whether Advocate Acted Innocently is Matter of Trial – Court observed that whether attestation was done inadvertently or knowingly is an issue of evidence – At discharge stage, court cannot conclude innocence; sufficient material exists for framing charge [Paras 7–11].

Parity with Discharge of Co-Accused – Not Applicable – Though Special Court discharged A1, reasons not automatically extendable to A8 – Allegations differ; specific charge of false attestation against A8 stands on distinct footing [Para 9].

Final Decision – Revision Petition Dismissed – Interim stay vacated – Trial to proceed uninfluenced by observations herein [Paras 12–13].

Employment Dispute – Maintainability of Civil Suit – Order 7 Rule 11 CPC – Specific Relief Act – Single Judge rejected plaint holding specific performance of employment contract barred under Section 14 SRA – Division Bench held rejection unsustainable since plaint also sought damages of ₹2 crores for arbitrary and mala fide termination and reputational harm – Cause of action disclosed, and rejection of part of plaint not permissible – Suit restored [Paras 2, 5-10].

Civil Procedure – Partial Rejection of Plaint – Not Permissible – Court reiterated that plaint must be read as a whole; partial rejection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC impermissible – Relief for damages independent and maintainable even if reinstatement barred – Hence, plaint could not be rejected in entirety [Paras 6, 10].

Employment Law – Termination – Allegations of Mala Fides and Procedural Impropriety – Plaintiff pleaded arbitrary suspension, sham enquiry, collusion of senior officials, and reputational harm by public removal from workstation – Such allegations constituted triable issues requiring adjudication – Rejection of plaint at threshold erroneous [Paras 8-9].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Impugned judgment of Single Judge set aside – Suit restored to file for trial – Parties directed to appear before Single Judge (Roster Bench) on 16.09.2025 [Paras 15-16].

Service Law – Absorption on Takeover – Special Officer (CAPE) vs. Senior Superintendent (DME) – Tribunal’s Order Set Aside – Petitioner appointed as Special Officer under CAPE, probation declared post-takeover; later downgraded to UDC by Govt. order – Tribunal dismissed challenge citing lack of proof of equivalence – High Court noted crucial documents (Exts.P9 & P10) recommending creation of Senior Superintendent post to accommodate petitioner were withheld – Held: Tribunal erred in ignoring these – Matter remanded for reconsideration [Paras 10–18].

Qualification Dispute – MBA as Postgraduate Degree – To Be Examined by Tribunal – Notification required Post Graduation + MBA – Govt. disputed MBA as PG – Court held issue of qualification and equivalence must be considered afresh along with absorption claim [Paras 7–13].

Parity Claim – Vanishing Category Posts – Engineers Retained, Officer Downgraded – Petitioner argued Engineers allowed to continue as vanishing category; same principle should apply – Court held Tribunal must examine parity argument in light of policy documents and Govt. practice [Paras 8–13].

Final Order – Tribunal’s judgment dated 04.03.2025 in O.A. No.79/2020 set aside – Case remanded to Tribunal for fresh consideration with Exts.P9 & P10 and observations of Court – OP allowed [Para 18].

Legality And Propriety Of Two Suo Motu Orders - Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act – Externment Order – Lack of Jurisdiction and Procedural Safeguards – Externment order passed suo motu by Sessions Judge under Section 10 of the SC/ST Act against the PSO and others without police report or material indicating the area as a Scheduled/Tribal Area – Held: The externment order is illegal, based on a closed CSR, and passed without satisfying statutory preconditions – Order quashed [Paras 6–9, 11].

Criminal Procedure – Judicial Overreach – Suo Motu Remand of DSP – Judge remanded a Deputy Superintendent of Police for alleged inaction under Section 4 of SC/ST Act – Held: Arrest is within the discretion of the investigating officer – No administrative enquiry or recommendation as required under Section 4(2) SC/ST Act – Action found arbitrary and unwarranted – Remand order quashed [Paras 10–12].

Misuse of Judicial Authority – Allegations of Bias and Vengeance – Allegations supported by WhatsApp messages suggest misuse of judicial position by Principal District Judge against former PSO – Court observed serious irregularities in initiating criminal process, motivated by personal bias – Directed Vigilance Enquiry against the Judicial Officer to probe allegations of misconduct and abuse of power [Paras 3–5, 14–15].

Due Process – Requirement of Safeguards Before Prosecuting Public Servants – Supreme Court precedent in State of GNCTD v. Praveen Kumar (2024) cited – Held: Cognizance under Section 4 of SC/ST Act requires prior administrative recommendation – Absence of this renders proceedings illegal [Paras 11–12].

Decision – Both Suo Motu Orders Set Aside – Externment and Remand Orders Quashed – Deputy Superintendent of Police Ordered to be Released Forthwith – Registrar (Vigilance), High Court directed to submit report after independent enquiry into conduct of District Judge [Paras 13–16].