Rape on False Promise of Marriage – Whether Conviction Sustainable – The appellant was convicted for rape based on an alleged false promise of marriage—Trial Court found that the prosecutrix consented to sexual relations believing in the appellant’s promise—Held: Consent obtained under a misconception of fact due to a false promise of marriage is not valid under Section 90 IPC—However, prosecution failed to establish that the appellant never intended to marry her—Benefit of doubt granted—Conviction set aside [Paras 24-27].

Long-Term Consensual Relationship – Whether Sexual Relations Were Based Solely on Promise of Marriage – The parties were in a relationship for over a year, met frequently, and stayed together in hotels—Prosecutrix knew of caste differences that could prevent marriage—Held: Prosecution failed to prove that the promise of marriage was the sole inducement for consent—Lack of evidence of initial fraudulent intent—Acquittal justified [Paras 19-23].

Application of Supreme Court Precedents – Differentiating False Promise and Breach of Promise – Court relied on Deepak Gulati vs. State of Haryana, (2013) 7 SCC 675 and Mahesh Damu Khare vs. State of Maharashtra, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3471—Held: A breach of promise does not constitute rape unless there is evidence of deliberate deception at the outset—Present case falls within breach of promise, not false inducement—Acquittal granted [Paras 16-18].

Final Decision – Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside—Appellant directed not to contact prosecutrix or her family in any manner—Appellant to be released forthwith if not required in any other case [Paras 27-30].

Civil Law - Permanent Injunction – Grant Without Finding of Possession – Order Set Aside – The lower appellate court maintained the trial court’s dismissal of the suit for cancellation of the sale deed but granted a permanent injunction in favor of the plaintiff-respondent – The High Court held that an injunction cannot be granted without recording a clear finding of possession – Held: Since the land in dispute was not identifiable, the relief of permanent injunction was unjustified and was set aside [Paras 6-9].

Suit for Cancellation of Sale Deed – No Challenge to Prior Transaction – Claim Not Sustainable – The plaintiff-respondent challenged the sale deed dated 12.11.2007 but failed to challenge an earlier sale deed of 20.01.2000 from the original co-owner – The courts found that once the first sale deed was accepted and acted upon, the subsequent sale was legally valid – Held: Without challenging the foundational transaction, the claim for cancellation of the later sale deed is untenable [Paras 11-12].

Possession – Failure to Establish Actual Occupation – Relief Cannot Be Granted – The lower appellate court granted an injunction based on a partition decree obtained by the plaintiff-respondent – The High Court held that such a decree did not automatically establish actual possession in the present case, especially when the land in dispute was unidentifiable – Held: Possession must be proven through evidence in the same proceedings; injunction relief set aside [Paras 13-14].

No Substantial Question of Law – Appeal Allowed in Part – The Court reiterated that a second appeal under Section 100 CPC is maintainable only if a substantial question of law arises – Since the lower appellate court granted relief contrary to its own findings on possession and identifiability of land, interference was justified – Held: Judgment granting permanent injunction set aside; remaining portion of the judgment upheld [Paras 18-19].

Decision: Second appeal allowed in part – The relief of permanent injunction granted by the lower appellate court was set aside – The remaining findings, including the dismissal of the suit for cancellation of the sale deed, remained intact – No order as to costs.

Writ Jurisdiction Against Private Banks – Function Test Applied – The respondent bank contended that it was a private entity and, therefore, not amenable to writ jurisdiction – The Court held that while a private scheduled bank may not be a state instrumentality, its obligation to allow depositors to withdraw their own funds is a public function governed by statutory regulations – Held: A writ under Article 226 is maintainable against a scheduled private bank when it arbitrarily denies a depositor access to its funds, violating banking regulations and depositors’ rights [Paras 19-22].

Freezing of Bank Account Without Legal Authority – Arbitrary Action – The petitioner company’s current account was frozen by the respondent bank based solely on a request from the director’s estranged wife, citing an ongoing matrimonial dispute – The Court noted that no competent authority had passed an order directing such action, nor was there any criminal investigation requiring account freezing – Held: A private dispute between shareholders or directors does not authorize a bank to unilaterally freeze a company’s account without a valid court or government order [Paras 26-29].

Bank’s Role as Custodian – Duty to Allow Withdrawals in Absence of Legal Restrictions – The Court emphasized that scheduled banks operate under strict regulatory supervision and act as custodians of depositors’ funds – The respondent bank’s refusal to allow withdrawals without legal justification violated its obligations under the Banking Regulation Act – Held: A scheduled bank cannot assume adjudicatory authority over disputes between depositors and third parties and must release funds unless legally restrained [Paras 28-30].

Matrimonial Dispute of Director – No Basis for Freezing Corporate Account – The respondent argued that the petitioner’s director was facing a criminal complaint and civil litigation from his estranged wife, who was a minority shareholder in the company – The Court held that such private disputes do not justify restricting the company’s access to its funds, especially when no legal proceedings had mandated such action – Held: The wife’s remedy lay before the civil court or National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), not through an extrajudicial request to the bank [Paras 31-32].

Decision: Writ petition allowed. The bank’s order dated 28.05.2024 freezing the petitioner’s account was quashed. The respondent bank was directed to allow the petitioner to operate its current account freely unless a competent legal authority imposes any lawful restrictions.

Criminal Law – Robbery and Murder – Sections 394, 397 IPC – Conviction and sentence upheld – The appellant was convicted for armed robbery and murder along with co-accused – The prosecution relied on the testimony of three eyewitnesses, including an injured witness – The defense argued that the witnesses were interested parties and that the investigation was defective – Held: The presence of eyewitnesses was natural, and minor inconsistencies in statements do not affect the reliability of their testimony – The trial court’s findings were upheld, and no material error was found [Paras 5, 7, 25, 26].

Eyewitness Testimony – Credibility of Interested Witnesses – Conviction based on testimony of family members of the deceased – Defense argued that such testimony was unreliable – Held: Relationship with the victim does not render a witness unreliable unless enmity or motive to falsely implicate the accused is proven – The testimony was found to be credible and corroborated by medical and forensic evidence [Paras 12-14, 17, 19, 20].

Injured Witness – Higher Evidentiary Value – Conviction upheld based on the testimony of an injured witness – Held: The testimony of an injured witness carries special evidentiary weight as they have firsthand knowledge of the incident – Unless strong grounds exist to discredit their statements, their testimony should be given due consideration – The trial court rightly relied on the injured witness’s statement [Paras 23, 24].

Conviction Under Section 460 IPC – No Specific Charge – Defense contended that the appellant was convicted under Section 460 IPC despite no specific charge being framed – Held: The court has the power under Section 222 CrPC to convict under an appropriate provision if the facts establish the offense – The trial court’s reliance on Section 460 IPC was justified in the given circumstances [Paras 8, 27].

Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction of appellant Rakshpal was upheld – The court found no legal or factual error in the trial court’s findings – The appellant’s bail bonds were canceled, and he was ordered to surrender – The conviction of co-accused Rameshwar in a related appeal was also upheld, further affirming the correctness of the trial court’s judgment [Paras 27, 28, 29].
 

Labour Law - Industrial Disputes – Wrongful Termination – Compensation Instead of Reinstatement – Whether Justified – Held: Yes – The respondent was employed as a bus driver from 05.03.2002 but was terminated on 09.09.2012 without notice – The petitioner claimed voluntary abandonment, citing a full and final settlement of ₹30,000 – The Labour Court found no evidence of abandonment and held that the settlement voucher was fabricated – Held: Reinstatement was not feasible as the respondent had since taken other employment, but he was entitled to compensation – Compensation of ₹5,00,000 upheld [Paras 6-9].

Judicial Review Under Article 226 – Whether High Court Can Reassess Evidence in Labour Matters – Held: No – The High Court cannot act as an appellate court in a writ petition under Article 226 – Held: Findings of fact by the Labour Court, if based on some evidence, cannot be disturbed unless they are perverse or arbitrary – Reliance placed on State of Rajasthan v. Bhupendra Singh, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1908 [Paras 5, 9].

Voluntary Abandonment of Service – Whether Proved – Held: No – The petitioner claimed that the respondent voluntarily left employment after accepting ₹30,000 in full settlement – Held: No proof was produced to show that the respondent took the money as a final settlement – Labour Inspector’s report of 04.12.2012 showed that the petitioner refused to reinstate the respondent, contradicting the claim of abandonment [Paras 10-12].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Compensation Upheld with Costs – The Supreme Court upheld the Labour Court’s award of ₹5,00,000 as compensation – Petitioner directed to pay ₹25,000 as costs to the respondent for litigation expenses – Payment to be made within one week [Paras 13-15].
 

Family Law – Maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. – No Proof of Husband’s Higher Income – The Family Court assessed the petitioner’s income as Rs. 20,000/- per month based on the Minimum Wages Act in the absence of any concrete evidence of actual earnings – The High Court modified this, holding that since the petitioner was only 10th class pass and not proven to be a skilled worker, his estimated income should be Rs. 18,000/- per month [Paras 16-17].

Family Law – Maintenance Distribution – Equitable Sharing of Income – The Family Court divided the petitioner’s income into five shares based on Annurita Vohra v. Sandeep Vohra, (2004) SCC OnLine Del 192, allocating two shares to the husband and three shares to the wife and children – The High Court upheld this principle while modifying the quantum based on the revised income estimate [Paras 18-19].

Legal Obligation – Able-Bodied Husband Cannot Evade Maintenance Responsibility – The Court reiterated the principle laid down in Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena, (2015) 6 SCC 353, that an able-bodied husband cannot escape his duty to maintain his wife and children, even if he claims financial constraints [Paras 12-13].

Decision – Maintenance Reduced – Monthly Award Fixed at Rs. 3,600/- Each – The High Court modified the Family Court’s order, reducing maintenance from Rs. 4,000/- to Rs. 3,600/- per month for each respondent, in light of the revised income assessment – All other conditions of the Family Court’s order remained unchanged [Paras 19-20].
 

Civil Procedure – Permanent Injunction – Plaintiff Must Prove Possession – The Court held that in a suit for permanent injunction, the plaintiff must establish possession – In this case, the plaintiffs proved possession through property tax records, assessment bills, and eviction suits against tenants – The appellant (defendant) failed to file a written statement or challenge evidence [Paras 22-24].

Property Law – Title and Possession – Mere Claims of Ownership Do Not Create a Dispute – The appellant contended that there was a cloud on the title due to alleged competing claims – The Court ruled that mere unsubstantiated assertions do not raise a valid dispute – Since the appellant failed to produce any evidence of ownership, the trial court’s decree was upheld [Paras 25-28].

Land Encroachment – Unauthorized Construction – Right of Owner to Seek Injunction – The appellant had allegedly constructed unauthorized sheds on the suit property—The Bombay Municipal Corporation (BMC) demolished these structures twice – The Court held that the landowner has the right to seek a permanent injunction against trespassers – The appellant’s claims of ownership were based on forged documents, as per police and BMC reports [Paras 30-31].

Judicial Precedent – No Need for Declaration of Title When Plaintiff is in Possession – The Court relied on Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy, (2008) 4 SCC 594, which held that when a person in possession faces interference, an injunction suit is sufficient without requiring a declaratory suit for ownership – Since the plaintiffs were paying taxes, maintaining records, and managing tenants, no further declaration was necessary [Paras 26-27].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Decree of Injunction Upheld – The High Court upheld the trial court’s decision and dismissed the appeal – The appellant was permanently restrained from trespassing, constructing, or interfering with the plaintiffs' possession – No costs imposed [Paras 33-35].
 

Commercial Law – Rejection of Plaint – Order VII, Rule 11, CPC – The petitioner filed an application under Order VII, Rule 11, CPC, contending that the suit was barred by territorial jurisdiction as per the agreement between the parties – The trial court rejected the application, holding that the plaint disclosed a cause of action and was not barred by any law – Held: The existence of a cause of action is a triable issue, and Order VII, Rule 11 cannot be invoked where controversial questions of fact are involved – No error in the trial court’s order [Paras 2.2, 5.2].

Commercial Courts Act – Maintainability of Civil Revision – Section 8 of the Commercial Courts Act – The respondent raised an objection regarding the maintainability of revision under Section 115, CPC, in light of Section 8 of the Commercial Courts Act, which bars civil revision petitions against interlocutory orders – Held: Since the suit pertains to a commercial dispute, revision under Section 115, CPC is barred – The appropriate remedy lies in appeal under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, if applicable [Paras 6, 14.1].

Jurisdiction – Effect of Exclusive Jurisdiction Clause – The petitioner argued that the agreement between the parties specified that disputes should be resolved in Cuttack courts, and thus, the Bhubaneswar Commercial Court lacked territorial jurisdiction – Held: The existence of an exclusive jurisdiction clause does not automatically oust the jurisdiction of other competent courts – If the plaint discloses a cause of action within Bhubaneswar, the court can proceed with the trial – Application under Order VII, Rule 11 rightly rejected [Paras 5.3, 6.1].

Effect of Commercial Courts Act on Revisionary Jurisdiction – Section 115, CPC read with Sections 8 and 13 of the Commercial Courts Act – The Commercial Courts Act overrides the general provisions of the CPC in matters of commercial disputes – Held: The bar under Section 8 is absolute, and revision petitions under Section 115, CPC are not maintainable against interlocutory orders of Commercial Courts – Appeal under Section 13 is the only available remedy [Paras 14, 14.6].

Interlocutory Orders – Scope of Judicial Review – The petitioner argued that the rejection of his Order VII, Rule 11 application was an erroneous exercise of jurisdiction, warranting interference under Section 115, CPC – Held: The impugned order does not fall within the scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 115, CPC – Any challenge to such interlocutory orders can only be raised in appeal against the final decree [Paras 10.1, 14.3].

Decision – Revision Petition Not Maintainable – The High Court dismissed the revision petition as barred under Section 8 of the Commercial Courts Act – Petitioners are not remediless but must pursue appropriate remedies under Section 13 of the Act – No costs awarded [Paras 16-17].
 

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR - Prohibition Law – Validity of FIR Based on Breath Analyzer Test – FIR Quashed – The petitioner was booked under Section 37 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, based solely on a breath analyzer test showing 41 mg/100 ml blood alcohol concentration – No confirmatory blood or urine test was conducted – The Court relied on Bachubhai Hassanalli Karyani v. State of Maharashtra, (1971) 3 SCC 930, which held that mere smell of alcohol and behavioural observations are insufficient to establish consumption – Held: In the absence of confirmatory medical tests, the breath analyzer test alone is inconclusive and cannot justify prosecution – FIR quashed [Paras 2-6, 12].

Mala Fide Action – Allegations of Professional Vendetta – Petitioner’s Claim Considered – The petitioner claimed that the FIR was a result of vendetta by the District Magistrate after he raised objections regarding financial irregularities – The Court noted that the petitioner’s claims of mala fide intent were not conclusively proven but found procedural lapses in the registration of the case – Held: While the allegations of vendetta were not a primary ground, the procedural irregularities warranted quashing of the FIR [Paras 7-9].

Fundamental Rights – Violation of Articles 14 and 21 – Arbitrary Prosecution – The petitioner argued that his arrest and suspension from government service were unconstitutional as they were based on arbitrary enforcement of law without substantive evidence – The Court found that the prosecution lacked conclusive proof and amounted to an arbitrary exercise of power – Held: The FIR and subsequent departmental action were unjustified, violating fundamental rights [Paras 10-11].

Petition Allowed – FIR Quashed – The High Court held that the registration of the case solely on the basis of a breath analyzer test, without confirmatory medical evidence, was legally unsustainable – Held: Excise PS Case No. 559 of 2024 (Special Case No. 572 of 2024) quashed, and writ petition allowed [Paras 12-13].