Quashing of FIR – Section 17-A of Prevention of Corruption Act – Procedural Safeguard – Accused as Municipal Commissioner challenged FIR alleging malafides and non-application of mind during approval under Section 17-A – Held: Approval under Section 17-A must be substantive, not ritualistic, requiring application of mind to the materials presented – Court found lack of incriminating evidence and misuse of Section 17-A – FIR quashed [Paras 22-38].

Frivolous or Malicious Proceedings – Guidelines in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal – FIR in Public Servant Decisions – Allegations relating to contracts for municipal services during floods and public health measures – No prima facie evidence produced, prosecution failed to substantiate charges despite seven years of investigation – FIR was found frivolous and vexatious, quashed by Court [Paras 11-13, 37].

Role of Section 17-A PCA – Procedural and Substantive Nature – Approval for Investigation – Section 17-A ensures protection for bonafide public decisions – Court noted improper application of mind by authority granting approval for investigation, undermining legislative intent of Section 17-A – FIR quashed for failure to adhere to statutory safeguards [Paras 20-24].

Evaluation of Malafides – Allegations of Blackmail by Complainant – FIR Initiated by Professional Blackmailer – Petitioners placed materials highlighting personal vendetta – Held: Court recognized the malicious intent of complainant and misuse of legal process – FIR quashed [Paras 6.1-6.2, 30.4].

Decision: FIR No. 2 of 2023 quashed for lack of evidentiary support, procedural infirmities under Section 17-A PCA, and malicious intent of complainant – Petition allowed.
 

Criminal Law – Dowry - Quashment of Proceedings – Prima Facie Case Established – Petition Dismissed - The petitions seeking quashment of criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC were dismissed as prima facie evidence supported the allegations of cruelty under Section 498A IPC and misappropriation under Section 420 IPC. The court held that these were matters to be examined during the trial. [Paras 13-14].

Legality of Marriage – Relevant for Trial – Evidence Required - The court noted that the legality of the alleged second marriage and its effect on the prosecution's case under Section 498A IPC were matters of evidence. Whether the complainant's prior marriage was legally dissolved before the second marriage is an issue to be determined during trial. [Paras 7, 14].

Joint Trial – Directed for Connected Cases - Considering the connection between the cases (Crime No. 105/2019 and Crime No. 175/2019), the court directed the trial court to conduct a joint trial for both matters for effective adjudication. [Para 15].

No Quashment for Cheating Allegations – Intent to Cheat Requires Trial Scrutiny - The allegations of cheating under Section 420 IPC, involving misappropriation of gold and money, were held to be issues of fact requiring trial. The court declined to quash the proceedings, emphasizing the need for detailed examination of evidence. [Para 12].

Decision – Petitions Dismissed - Both petitions were dismissed, leaving the petitioners to raise their contentions during the trial. The interim orders were vacated, and the trial court was directed to ensure compliance. [Paras 15-16].
 

Bail in UAPA Cases – Prima Facie Evidence – Under Section 43-D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, the court must determine whether there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations against the accused are prima facie true – Held: The material collected by the NIA, including WhatsApp group activity, videos, pamphlets, and digital records, establishes a prima facie case against the appellant [Paras 9-22].

Role of Appellant – Leadership and Radicalization – The appellant allegedly led a group promoting the ideology of ISIS, created propaganda materials, and conspired to attack the Ordnance Factory, Jabalpur – Held: The appellant played a central role in organizing and motivating co-accused, as evidenced by recovered digital records, incriminating literature, and witness statements [Paras 20-22].

Stringent Bail Provisions – Section 43-D(5) of UAPA – The statutory restrictions on granting bail under UAPA require the court to reject bail if prima facie evidence exists – Held: The appellant’s active involvement in planned terrorist acts and his leadership role in promoting ISIS ideology disqualify him from bail at this stage [Paras 16-18, 22].

Constitutional Rights vs. National Security – While prolonged incarceration may violate Article 21 of the Constitution, in this case, the trial is proceeding expeditiously, and the gravity of the charges outweighs concerns of delay – Held: The appellant’s detention is justified considering the seriousness of the charges [Para 23].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – The bail application was rightly rejected by the trial court, and the appeal is dismissed. However, the trial court is directed to proceed without being influenced by observations made during the bail proceedings [Paras 24-25].

Taxation Law - GST Act - Seizure of Goods – Provisional Release Pending Adjudication – Allowed - The petitioner challenged the seizure of goods and denial of provisional release during proceedings under Section 130 of the GST Act. The Court held that Section 130 does not bar interim release, and provisional release is permissible under Section 67(6) upon execution of a bond and payment of applicable penalties. [Paras 12-15].

Confiscation Proceedings – Protection of Revenue Interests – No Prejudice in Release - The Court observed that the intent of the GST Act is to secure the value of goods liable for confiscation rather than their physical possession. Provisional release pending adjudication does not prejudice revenue interests, as recovery options remain intact. [Para 14].

Interim Relief for Business Continuity – Fundamental Rights Considered - The petitioner demonstrated that continued seizure of goods without valid reasons would cause irreparable harm to business and infringe on the fundamental right to property under Article 14. The Court set aside the rejection of the provisional release request. [Paras 5, 15].

Show Cause Notice – Adjudication Proceedings to Continue - The Court declined to quash the show cause notice under Section 130, stating that such issues must be resolved during adjudication. The legality of the seizure order was left open for determination. [Paras 13, 15].

Decision – Provisional Release Ordered with Conditions - The Court directed the respondents to release the seized goods upon the petitioner depositing the penalty and fine as quantified in the show cause notice, along with executing a bond for the value of the goods. [Para 15].

Motor Accident Claims – Applicability of Limitation Period Under Amended Section 166(3) – Prospective Effect – The petitioner challenged the maintainability of a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the MV Act, arguing that it was barred by the six-month limitation period introduced by the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019 – Held: The six-month limitation under Section 166(3), effective from 01.04.2022, applies prospectively – Claims relating to accidents occurring prior to this date are governed by the unamended law, which imposed no limitation period – Petition dismissed, affirming that benevolent legislation should be liberally interpreted in favor of claimants [Paras 6.1-7.1].

Legislative Intent – Benevolent Interpretation of MV Act – Compensation to Victims – The legislative intent behind Section 166 of the MV Act is to provide a mechanism for victims of road accidents to claim compensation – Courts must prioritize the purpose of the enactment over technical objections – Amendment introducing limitation was prospective and does not extinguish pre-existing rights [Para 7.1].

Claims Process – Detailed Accident Report (DAR) as Claim Petition – Section 166(4) – Emphasized the role of investigating authorities under Sections 159 and 166(4) of the amended MV Act – Report filed by police authorities, including the Detailed Accident Report, is deemed sufficient to initiate claims proceedings, reducing procedural burdens on victims [Para 6.8].

Decision – Petition Dismissed – The writ petition challenging the Tribunal's order rejecting the objection to maintainability was dismissed – Held: The claim petition was correctly entertained, as the accident occurred before the introduction of Section 166(3), MV Act – No costs awarded [Paras 8-9].
 

Civil Law - Trust Dispute – Removal of Trustees – Absence and Misconduct – Injunction Sustained - Appellants removed as trustees for non-attendance and alleged criminal acts – Court found prima facie justification for removal based on trust deed clauses – Held: Injunction warranted to prevent further harm to trust and its educational institutions [Paras 4, 20, 30-31].

Territorial Jurisdiction – Office Shifted by Resolution – Trial Court Jurisdiction Valid - Though original trust deed located trust in Birbhum, Board resolved in 2014 to operate from Kolkata – Key meetings, including removal, held in Kolkata – Held: Trial court rightly assumed jurisdiction [Paras 13, 16-17].

Notice of Meetings – Disputed Service – Factual Issue for Trial - Appellants denied receiving notice of meetings used to justify removal – Court held this issue requires trial and cannot be conclusively decided at injunction stage [Paras 5, 18, 27].

Trust Fund Mismanagement – Prima Facie Case of Misappropriation – Public Interest Considered - Allegations of forged resolutions, hijacking official email, and misuse of bank accounts found in meeting records and FIR – Court upheld injunction to protect students’ interests and trust assets [Paras 20-22, 25, 31].

Trust Deed Clauses – Removal for Non-Attendance and Detriment – Proper Procedure Followed - Trust deed allowed removal for three consecutive absences or detrimental conduct by two-thirds majority – Court found these requirements satisfied prima facie [Paras 29-30].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Injunction Affirmed - Injunction restraining appellants from trust administration and operating bank accounts upheld – Appeal and connected application dismissed [Paras 32-34].

Electrocution – Negligence of Power Department – Compensation Awarded – The victim, aged eight at the time of the incident, suffered severe burns and amputation due to contact with an uncovered 11KV electric wire. The appellants admitted that the victim came into contact with a live wire but argued that he was at fault. Held, it was the duty of the Power Department to ensure public safety, and failure to insulate or secure the transformer amounted to negligence, making them liable for compensation [Paras 6-12].

Government Compensation Scheme – Not a Bar to Judicial Compensation – The appellants relied on Government Order No. 454-F of 2019, which prescribes ex-gratia relief of Rs. 7.5 lakhs for total disability and Rs. 2 lakhs for partial disability. Held, ex-gratia schemes cannot prevent constitutional courts from awarding just compensation to victims of state negligence. Compensation must be determined based on facts and the extent of disability, beyond statutory ex-gratia amounts [Paras 11-12].

No Contributory Negligence by Minor – The victim was eight years old at the time of the incident. Under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, a child below seven years is incapable of committing a crime, and similar principles of incapacity apply under civil law. The doctrine of volenti non fit injuria does not apply to minors. Held, the minor’s actions cannot absolve the appellants of liability [Paras 12-13].

Quantum of Compensation – Based on Disability and Future Needs – The victim suffered 78% disability, including amputation and severe burns. The Writ Court awarded Rs. 20 lakhs in compensation without itemizing heads. The Supreme Court’s principles in Kajal v. Jagdish Chand, (2020) 4 SCC 413, for determining compensation in motor accident cases were applied. Held, considering medical expenses, pain and suffering, loss of future earnings, and cost of an artificial limb, the awarded compensation was reasonable and not excessive [Paras 14-15].

Delay in Filing Writ Petition – Explained and Justified – The incident occurred in 2007, and the writ petition was filed in 2018. The victim, a minor at the time, began pursuing his claim after attaining majority. Held, delay and laches cannot be a ground for rejection when the delay is satisfactorily explained, and the victim was legally incapacitated as a minor [Para 15].

Decision: The appeal is dismissed, and the judgment of the Writ Court is upheld. The Power Development Department is directed to pay Rs. 20 lakhs to the victim along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the writ petition until realization. The court holds that state authorities must ensure public safety and compensate victims fairly in cases of negligence.
 

Civil Law - Export Credit – Interpretation of Maximum Tenure – Paragraph 1.1.2(ii) of the Master Circular – Partial Relief Granted - The Borrowers challenged the reversal of subvention on export credit due to delays in submitting export documents despite fulfilling export obligations within the stipulated period of 450 days. Held: Submission of export documents is a procedural requirement aimed at proving exports. A minor delay in submission does not disqualify the advances as "export credit" when the export obligation is fulfilled within the prescribed period. [Paras 43-47, 56].

Subvention Reversal – Validity of Banking Ombudsman’s Decision – Set Aside for First Lot; Upheld for Second Lot - For the First Lot of export transactions, where exports were effected within 450 days, the reversal of subvention was held to be unjustified. For the Second Lot, where exports did not materialize within 450 days, the reversal of subvention and reclassification of advances as domestic credit were upheld. [Paras 50-56, 62-63].

Beneficial Instruments – Purposive Interpretation of Master Circular – Relief Granted for Procedural Lapses - The Court emphasized that the Master Circular is a regulatory instrument promoting export competitiveness and must be interpreted in letter and spirit to fulfill its objective. Procedural delays in document submission should not undermine the substantive compliance of export obligations. [Paras 23, 47, 55].

Rule of Compliance – Strict vs. Substantial – Beneficial Instruments - Distinguishing between strict compliance (exports within 450 days) and substantial compliance (delayed submission of documents proving exports), the Court held that substantial compliance suffices to uphold the advances as "export credit." [Paras 43, 66-67].

Decision of the Court – The reversal of subvention for the First Lot was set aside, and the Borrowers were entitled to the benefits under the Subvention Scheme. However, the reversal for the Second Lot was upheld due to failure to effect exports within the stipulated period. Directions issued for recalibration of accounts and compliance by the Bank. [Paras 72(a)-(l)].
 

Preventive Detention – Subjective Satisfaction of Detaining Authority – Judicial Review – Detention Order Quashed – The detaining authority failed to establish a live and proximate link between the grounds of detention and the alleged activities of the detenue – Subjective satisfaction was vitiated due to lack of material evidence and application of mind – Decision: Detention quashed, detenue released [Paras 13, 20, 24].

Grounds of Detention – Vagueness and Ambiguity – Constitutional Safeguards Violated – Held: Grounds of detention lacked specificity, rendering them vague and irrelevant – Non-disclosure of material relied upon by the authority violated the detenue’s right to make an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution – Decision: Detention order set aside [Paras 19, 21-23].

Health Grounds – Preventive Detention and Medical Needs – Constitutional Safeguards Ignored – The detenue’s health condition, including a chronic medical ailment, was overlooked by the detaining authority – Failure to consider medical grounds amounted to a constitutional violation – Decision: Detention order quashed; detenue released [Paras 7, 23].

Role of Advisory Board – Duty to Conduct Independent Review – Held: The Advisory Board failed to provide an independent review of the detention order, reducing its role to a mere formality – Such actions violate constitutional protections – Decision: Detention quashed [Paras 18, 20].

Relevant Material – Non-Disclosure – Constitutional Violation – Non-supply of documents relied upon by the detaining authority invalidated the detenue’s opportunity for an effective representation – Held: Failure to supply essential material violated Article 22(5) – Decision: Detention quashed; immediate release ordered [Paras 21-23].

Decision: The detention order issued under the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978, was quashed on grounds of non-application of mind, vagueness in allegations, and failure to adhere to constitutional safeguards. The Court ordered the immediate release of the detenue unless required in any other case.