Civil Law - Expert Evidence - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 151 - Comparison of signatures on photocopies - Petitioner-defendant sought permission to examine handwriting expert to compare signatures on certified copies of sale deeds and a photocopy of a compromise deed after plaintiff heir denied signatures during cross-examination - Trial Court rejected application on the ground that comparison on non-originals is legally impermissible - High Court noted that the original compromise deed was available in another court file and sale deeds were certified copies of public documents - Held - Trial Court should not have shut out the petitioner case at the threshold - it is for the expert to decide if comparison can be made from certified copies or photocopies - science of identifying impressions has attained exactitude and best evidence available should not be excluded on a preposterous plea - final decision remains with the Court after expert report and cross-examination - impugned order set aside - [Paras 1-18].

Evidence Law - Handwriting Expert - Comparison from Photocopy - Permissibility - High Court observed that a photocopy of a document can be subject to expert opinion if signatures or thumb impressions appearing on the document are apparent - Held - Best evidence available with a party cannot be shut out on the plea that comparison cannot be made on the basis of a photocopy - expert opinion is subject to cross-examination and the final decision rests with the Court - [Paras 15-17].

Decision: Revision petition allowed – Impugned order dated 22.12.2021 set aside – Petitioner permitted to examine expert in accordance with law.

Criminal Law - Quashing of FIR - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 - Section 528 - Forgery and Conspiracy - Petitioners sought quashing of FIR registered for offences under BNS involving alleged forgery of signatures of shareholders on a Special Power of Attorney used in NCLT proceedings - Petitioners contended that the complaint was malafide and filed at a remote location to cause harassment and that no prima facie case existed against the company directors and officers - Court observed that at the stage of investigation the veracity of allegations cannot be tested on merits - High Court cannot act as an investigating agency under Section 528 BNSS - Allegations of conspiracy involving the disclosure of confidential company information by the Company Secretary and CFO required proper investigation - Held - Unless allegations are found to be inherently improbable or absurd the investigation must be allowed to reach its logical conclusion - petition dismissed - [Paras 1-33].

Criminal Law - Territorial Jurisdiction - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 - Sections 173(1) and 156(2) - Registration of FIR - Challenge to investigation on the ground that the police station at Baharampore lacked jurisdiction as the accused were residents of Delhi and the alleged acts occurred outside the local limits - Held - Section 173(1) BNSS mandates registration of FIR irrespective of the area where the offence is committed - Section 156(2) creates a statutory bar against challenging the proceedings of a police officer on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction - Lack of territorial jurisdiction is not a valid ground for quashing an FIR - [Paras 35-41].

Criminal Law - Malafides of Informant - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 - Section 528 - Effect on Prosecution - Petitioners alleged that the complainant had a malafide motive to wreak vengeance - Held - Malafide of the informant is of secondary importance once a cognizable offence is registered - Fate of the accused is decided by the material collected during investigation and evidence produced in Court and not by the alleged motives of the complainant - [Para 34].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Investigating agency directed to conclude the investigation at the earliest.

Civil Law - Hindu Undivided Family - Hindu Law - General Principles - Proof of Nucleus - Plaintiffs sought interim injunction claiming suit properties belonged to Jotumal HUF based on 1956 partnership dissolution deed - Alleged subsequent acquisitions in 1973 and 1978 were from joint family funds - Court found no evidence of continuing ancestral fund or flow of money from 1956 nucleus to later acquisitions - Held - Legal position settled that mere existence of joint family does not lead to presumption of joint property - Burden lies on person asserting HUF character to first establish existence of joint family nucleus of sufficient strength and further demonstrate reasonable nexus between such nucleus and acquisition of properties - Plaintiffs failed to produce books of account or income tax records - Case founded on inference and conjecture - Prima facie case not established - [Paras 43-48, 59-62].

Civil Law - Pleadings - Inconsistent Pleas - Destructive Pleas - Plaintiffs simultaneously asserted that properties were HUF assets and alternatively claimed title via mother's registered Will - Court observed that these foundations are fundamentally destructive of each other - If properties were truly coparcenary the mother could not claim absolute testamentary authority over them - Conversely if rights flow under a Will the premise is that properties were self-acquired and capable of testamentary disposition - Held - Plaintiffs cannot approach the Court with mutually inconsistent and destructive pleas - Such approach weakens credibility at interlocutory stage - Interim protection cannot be granted on such basis - [Paras 50-52, 63].

Civil Law - Partition - Necessary Parties - Non-joinder - Plaintiffs sought partition of HUF property originating from common ancestor Jotumal but impleaded only the branch of Newandram - Contended other branches were not necessary - Held - If properties belong to an HUF originating from a common ancestor any adjudication regarding its existence and assets would affect every branch - Every branch claiming through the common ancestor is a necessary party - Partition of only one branch of an alleged larger HUF is conceptually incompatible with the foundation of Hindu law - [Paras 12, 53-55].

Civil Law - Interim Injunction - Prima Facie Case - Balance of Convenience - Application for protective relief against third-party purchasers of a flat - Plaintiffs alleged fraud in a 2017 Gift Deed but challenged it only in 2025 - No explanation for delay - Held - Jurisdiction to grant interim injunction cannot be exercised on speculative or conjectural claims - Plaintiffs failed to cross the threshold of establishing a credible and legally sustainable prima facie right - Balance of convenience tilts in favour of title holders rather than restraining them on unsubstantiated claims - Interim application dismissed - [Paras 56-58, 61-63].

Decision: Interim Application dismissed – No order as to costs.

Civil Law - Pleadings and Evidence - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order VIII Rule 1 and Order VIII Rule 10 - Right to lead evidence without written statement - Petitioner-defendant failed to file written statement within statutory and extended time leading to closure of his right - Plaintiff led evidence and petitioner cross-examined witnesses - Petitioner subsequently filed evidence affidavit seeking to prove the agreement to sell was prohibited under Income Tax Act and void under Section 23 of Contract Act - Trial court returned the affidavit holding defendant cannot lead independent evidence without pleadings - Petitioner challenged the order arguing right to demolish plaintiff case includes right to lead evidence demonstrating statutory bar - High Court analyzed provisions of Orders VI and VIII CPC and apex court precedents - Court observed that while a defendant whose defense is struck off can participate in proceedings and cross-examine plaintiff witnesses to demolish their case he cannot lead his own evidence to establish new facts or a positive defense - Pleadings are foundational and no amount of evidence can be looked into upon a plea never put forward - Held - Trial court committed no illegality in rejecting the evidence filed by the petitioner for want of pleadings - Petition dismissed - [Paras 1-28].

Civil Law - Importance of Pleadings - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order VI Rules 1 and 2 and Order VIII Rules 2 and 3 - New facts to be specially pleaded - Defendant must raise all matters showing suit is not maintainable or transaction is void in the written statement - Object of pleadings is to narrow parties to definite issues and prevent surprise - A party cannot make out a case on the basis of evidence for which no foundation is laid in pleadings - Held - Since there are no pleadings due to non-filing of written statement evidence cannot be led on issues framed in absence of pleadings - [Paras 11-17].

Civil Law - Extent of Participation without Written Statement - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order VIII Rule 10 and Order IX Rule 7 - Defendant who fails to file written statement retains limited right of participation - Such defendant can cross-examine plaintiff witnesses to demonstrate falsity of plaintiff case and address arguments based on material on record - Defendant cannot be permitted to adduce evidence of his own or attempt to substantiate his own defense under the guise of cross-examination - Held - Permission granted to petitioner to cross-examine witnesses adduced by plaintiff is sufficient and beyond that permission cannot be granted to lead evidence for want of pleadings - [Paras 18-27].

Decision: Petition dismissed – The trial court's order rejecting the evidence affidavit of the petitioner is upheld.

Criminal Law - Prevention of Corruption - Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 - Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) - Disproportionate Assets - Appellants husband and wife both public servants - Prosecution alleged acquisition of assets worth Rs 44,79,283.32 disproportionate to known sources of income during the check period 01.03.2000 to 30.01.2008 - Trial Court convicted appellants and sentenced them to two years rigorous imprisonment with fine - High Court observed that the initial check period in FIR was 2001-2008 but was later altered to 2000-2008 without giving the accused an opportunity to explain properties acquired in the extended period - Investigating Officer failed to consider legal sources including bank loans from IDBI and Central Bank of India and rental income supported by statutory documents like Form 16 and Income Tax returns - Evidence showed properties were gifted by relatives which was ignored by the prosecution - Held - Prosecution failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt as the Investigating Officer did not conduct a proper enquiry into the rendered accounts - Conviction and sentence set aside - [Paras 1-28].

Criminal Law - Investigation Procedure - Opportunity to Explain - Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 - Section 13(1)(e) - Statutory Requirement - Public servant must be given an opportunity to account for pecuniary resources or property - Investigating Officer failed to call for explanation after altering the check period - Selection of assessment period without considering anterior legal income is arbitrary - Held - Failure to give an opportunity to the accused to explain disproportionate wealth is fatal to the prosecution - [Paras 19-23].

Criminal Law - Evidence Law - Burden of Proof - Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 - Section 13(1)(e) - Possession vs Account - Primary burden lies on the prosecution to establish that the public servant was in possession of disproportionate assets - Burden shifts to accused to satisfactorily account for the same only after prosecution discharges its initial burden - Held - In the absence of proof of allegation the public servant cannot be compelled to furnish an explanation - [Paras 21-25].

Criminal Law - Investigation Standards - Calculation of Expenditure - Standing Instructions - Investigating Officer deducted one-third of the gross salary for household expenditure - High Court held that investigating agency cannot be allowed to deduct one-third as a matter of routine - In the interest of justice only 10 percent of gross salary should be deducted under the head of kitchen expenses as per standing instructions - Held - Investigating Officer failed to follow proper norms for quantifying unverifiable expenditure - [Paras 22-26].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of the Trial Court set aside – Appellants acquitted of all charges – Fine amount to be refunded – Bail bonds cancelled.

Criminal Law - Cruelty - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Section 498A - Petitioners challenged their conviction and two-year sentence for dowry-related cruelty - Marriage solemnized in 2003 and complaint lodged in 2009 after a lapse of six years - Trial Court and Appellate Court convicted the husband and brother-in-law while acquitting the parents-in-law on the same evidence - High Court observed that prosecution failed to provide cogent evidence for the alleged demand of two lakhs - Complainant remained at the matrimonial home for six years without any prior police report or Panchayati proceedings - Medical evidence revealed the complainant was unable to conceive due to blocked tubes and underwent treatment at BHU Hospital in 2007 - Defense argued the dispute arose from a disagreement over the adoption of the complainant's nephew which was resisted by the husband - High Court found that the courts below were influenced by emotions rather than the legal definition of cruelty - Held - Prosecution failed to substantiate the charge of cruelty - conviction and sentence set aside - revision allowed - [Paras 1-20].

Criminal Law - Delay in filing complaint - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Section 498A - Impact of long silence on allegations of dowry demand - Complainant alleged demand of two lakhs since marriage in 2003 but filed the complaint only in 2009 - Father of the complainant admitted that no report was lodged and no Panchayati was convened between 2003 and 2009 - Complainant continued to reside at the matrimonial home during this period - Held - Keeping mum for a long period of six years without any complaint indicates the absence of any demand or consequent torture - [Paras 9-15].

Criminal Law - Matrimonial Dispute - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Section 498A - Distinction between domestic disagreement and cruelty - Documentary evidence showed the complainant received medical treatment for infertility - Dispute emerged regarding the complainant's insistence on adopting her nephew and transferring land in his name which the husband refused - Held - A case of domestic disagreement and failure of adjustment regarding domestic problems cannot be categorized as cruelty as defined under Section 498A IPC - [Paras 9-13].

Criminal Law - Examination of accused - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 313 - Failure to explain incriminating circumstances - High Court noted that no incriminating circumstances constituting cruelty were properly explained to the petitioners during their statement under Section 313 CrPC - Held - Lack of evidence proving specific instances of cruelty and failure to put incriminating circumstances to the accused vitiates the findings of the trial court - [Paras 9-16].

Decision: Revision allowed – Judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial court and upheld by the appellate court is set aside – Petitioners discharged from bail bonds.

Criminal Law - Acquittal - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 378 - Appeal against acquittal of five respondents for offences under Sections 323, 324, 504 and 114 IPC and Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocity Act - State challenged the Trial Court order dated 12.04.2012 - Prosecution alleged the accused assaulted the informant’s wife and daughter at a village dairy and used caste-related abuses - Trial Court acquitted the accused citing lack of independent witnesses and material contradictions - High Court observed that the informant (PW-1) was not an eyewitness - only interested witnesses were examined - evidence on record revealed deep animosity between parties as the informant’s son was accused of raping a relative of one of the accused - medical evidence did not support ocular testimony as no external injuries were found - material witness who informed the informant about the incident was not examined - Held - trial court rightly appreciated the evidence - judgment of acquittal suffers from no illegality or perversity - appeal dismissed - [Paras 1-15, 23-25].

Criminal Law - Caste Based Abuses - Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 - Section 3(1)(10) - Essential ingredients - Prosecution failed to prove that the alleged insults were made with the specific intent to humiliate on the ground of caste in a place within public view - Record suggested the altercation was rooted in personal enmity and land litigation rather than caste identity - Held - mere belonging to a Scheduled Caste is not sufficient to attract the Act unless the insult is laced with casteist remarks and targeted specifically at the victim’s community status - prosecution failed to satisfy essential requirements - [Paras 16-18].

Evidence Law - Medical Evidence - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 3 - Conflict between ocular and medical testimony - Prosecution witnesses alleged being struck by a milk can and a knife - The Medical Officer who examined the victims found no external injuries on PW-2 or PW-3 - Held - when the medical evidence fails to support the version of injured witnesses regarding the nature of the assault - it creates a serious doubt on the veracity of the prosecution case - [Para 11].

Criminal Law - Appellate Jurisdiction - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 378 - Scope of interference in acquittal - Double presumption of innocence - Appellate Court has full power to re-appreciate evidence but should not disturb acquittal if two reasonable conclusions are possible - Interference is warranted only if the trial court's conclusion is perverse or ignores material evidence - Held - Trial Court’s findings were just and proper - presumption of innocence is reinforced by the order of acquittal - [Paras 19-22].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment and order of acquittal confirmed – Bail bonds stand cancelled.

Civil Law - Commercial Dispute - Commercial Courts Act 2015 - Sections 2(1)(c)(vi) and 21 - Nature of Development Agreements - Appellants being property owners entered into registered development agreements and powers of attorney in 2016 for housing projects - Alleging delay in construction they filed suits in 2020 for cancellation before the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Barasat - Defendants filed applications under Order VII Rule 10 CPC for return of plaints citing commercial nature and high pecuniary value - Trial Court allowed applications returning plaints for presentation before the Commercial Court at Rajarhat - Appellants challenged this contending agreements involve transfer of title rights in rem and are not pure construction contracts - High Court affirmed trial court findings noting the phrase a dispute arising out of in Section 2(1)(c) lends expansive connotation - Held - any contract contemplating construction and infrastructure irrespective of additional ownership transfer ingredients falls under commercial dispute - development agreements for housing projects pertain to infrastructure - trial court justified in returning plaints - [Paras 1-38].

Civil Law - Specified Value - Commercial Courts Act 2015 - Sections 12 and 21 - Determination of Pecuniary Jurisdiction - Dispute over whether self-assessed valuation for court fees determines specified value - Appellants claimed dominus litis right to choose valuation under the West Bengal Court Fees Act 1970 and Suits Valuation Act 1887 - High Court rejected reliance on contrary Delhi and Kerala High Court views - Observed that Section 21 of the CC Act lends unbridled overriding effect over all other statutes - Held - market value of the immovable property on the date of suit filing is the sole determinant for specified value under Section 12(1)(c) where relief relates to property rights - certificates showed market values of subject properties exceeded the thirty lakh rupees threshold - [Paras 39-47].

Civil Law - Jurisdiction - Commercial Courts Act 2015 - Section 15 - Transfer of Proceedings - Appellants sought transfer of suits to the Commercial Court instead of return of plaints to mitigate limitation risks - High Court distinguished cases filed after the enactment of the CC Act - Held - Section 15 only permits transfer of suits pending at the time of the Acts commencement in 2015 - Institution of commercial suits before ordinary civil courts after 2015 lacks inherent subject-matter jurisdiction ab initio - threshold defect cannot be cured by transfer - return of plaint under Order VII Rule 10 CPC is the appropriate course - Plaintiffs at liberty to argue Section 14 Limitation Act 1963 before the proper forum regarding bona fide proceedings - [Paras 48-60].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Impugned orders returning the plaints affirmed – Interim orders vacated – No order as to costs.

Writ Law - Letters Patent Appeal - Service Law - Disciplinary Proceeding - Natural Justice - State preferred appeal against Single Judge order quashing punishment of a Sub-Inspector - Respondent was charged with demanding bribe through an investigating officer for releasing seized trucks in a criminal case - Departmental inquiry proceeded despite respondent non-participation - Inquiry officer found charges proved based solely on documents without examining any witnesses or the complainant - Disciplinary authority imposed penalty of withholding one annual increment - Single Judge quashed the punishment for non-service of second show cause notice and inquiry report - Division Bench held that while non-supply of inquiry report must be tested on the anvil of prejudice - the failure to examine the complainant to prove the documents was a fatal procedural lapse - Held - Non-examination of the complainant is an inexcusable lapse that caused serious prejudice to the delinquent - Appeal dismissed - [Paras 1-28].

Writ Law - Principles of Natural Justice - Service Law - Non-supply of Inquiry Report - Prejudice Rule - Managing Director ECIL and Others Vs B Karunakar and Others (1993) 4 SCC 727 - Requirement of furnishing inquiry report is to provide the delinquent an opportunity to meet the reasoning and controvert findings - High Court observed that supplying the report is not a formality but a substantive right to know if findings are based on evidence - Held - Denial of inquiry report in a case where no witnesses were examined prevented the respondent from raising serious lapses before the disciplinary authority - [Paras 20-26].

Service Law - Departmental Inquiry - Proof of Charges - Evidence - Roop Singh Negi Vs Punjab National Bank and Others (2009) 2 SCC 570 - Inquiry officer performs quasi-judicial functions and must base findings on materials proved on record - Evidence collected during criminal investigation cannot be automatically treated as evidence in disciplinary proceedings - Held - Inquiry officer is duty bound to examine the complainant to prove the charges especially when the delinquent fails to attend - Finding guilt solely on documents without witness testimony is unsustainable - [Paras 22-24].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment of the learned Single Judge affirmed – No remand ordered as the respondent had already retired from service in 2022.