Criminal Procedure – Application Under Section 319 CrPC – Whether Witnesses Who Are Particeps Criminis Can Be Summoned as Accused – Held: Yes – Petitioner, an accused in an illegal iron ore mining case, filed an application under Section 319 CrPC seeking to summon 23 forest officials as accused, alleging they signed blank permits later used for illegal transportation – Trial court rejected the application stating that the officials were prosecution witnesses and not hostile – High Court held that persons who have actively participated in an offence cannot be witnesses against co-accused unless granted pardon under Sections 306 or 307 CrPC – Witnesses who admitted to wrongdoing in their Section 161 & 164 statements must be properly evaluated under Section 319 CrPC – Trial court directed to reconsider application [Paras 9-11].

Section 319 CrPC – Scope and Application – Whether a Trial Court Must Examine Material Before Summoning Additional Accused – Held: Yes – High Court emphasized that Section 319 CrPC cannot be invoked mechanically but requires a higher degree of satisfaction than standard cases – Reliance placed on Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) and Sukhpal Singh Khaira v. State of Punjab (2022) – Court held that trial court erred in rejecting the application outright without evaluating statements and evidence – Remanded for fresh consideration in accordance with law [Paras 10-12].

Inherent Powers Under Section 482 CrPC – High Court’s Intervention to Prevent Abuse of Process – Whether Exercise of Inherent Jurisdiction Was Justified – Held: Yes – High Court observed that trial court failed to apply the correct legal principles in rejecting the Section 319 application – It emphasized that an accused cannot be made a witness unless granted legal immunity – Directed trial court to pause witness examination until it reconsidered Section 319 application – Held that High Court can intervene under Section 482 CrPC to prevent miscarriage of justice [Paras 11-12].

Decision – Petition Partly Allowed – Trial Court Order Quashed – Matter Remanded – Karnataka High Court set aside the order dated 06/01/2025 and directed the trial court to reconsider the Section 319 application – Until then, witnesses named in the petition shall not be examined [Paras 12].

Civil Law - Execution of Decree – Fraudulent Transfer – Section 53, Transfer of Property Act – Judgment-Debtor's Transfer of Property Before Suit Filing – Held: Under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act, if a judgment-debtor transfers immovable property with an intent to defeat or delay creditors, such transfer is voidable at the creditor's option – Petitioner’s claim that the transfer was fraudulent must be considered on merits – Reference made to Waryam Singh v. Rameshwar Dass, CR-2504-1985 – Execution petition restored for further adjudication [Paras 2, 5].

Execution Proceedings – Dismissal for Want of Prosecution – Opportunity Granted – Held: Dismissal of execution petition for non-filing of judgment-debtor’s property details is harsh – Petitioner granted one opportunity to submit the list of properties – Imposition of ₹20,000/- costs payable to Poor Patients’ Welfare Fund, PGIMER, Chandigarh, to ensure due diligence in future proceedings [Paras 6-7].

Decision – Revision Petition Allowed – Execution Petition Restored – Held: The impugned order dated 09.12.2024 is set aside – Petitioner granted one effective opportunity to submit judgment-debtor’s property details – Costs of ₹20,000/- imposed – Pending applications disposed of accordingly [Paras 7-8].

Writ Jurisdiction – SARFAESI Act - Maintainability Against Private Banks – Petition Dismissed – The petitioner, a borrower, sought directions against ICICI Bank (a private entity) for enforcement of SARFAESI proceedings, arguing that delays in auctioning the mortgaged property were increasing his financial liabilities – The Court held that a writ petition under Article 226 is not maintainable against a private financial institution unless it discharges public functions – Held: ICICI Bank does not fall within the definition of "State" under Article 12; writ petition dismissed as not maintainable [Paras 1-3].

Alternative Remedy – SARFAESI Act Provides Adequate Redressal – The Court reiterated that the SARFAESI Act provides a comprehensive remedy for borrowers to challenge actions of secured creditors – Reliance placed on Phoenix ARC Pvt. Ltd. v. Vishwa Bharati Vidya Mandir, (2022) 5 SCC 645 – Held: Petitioner must approach appropriate statutory forum instead of invoking writ jurisdiction [Paras 4].

Private Financial Institutions – No Public Duty Obligation – The Court referred to Federal Bank Ltd. v. Sagar Thomas, (2003) 10 SCC 733, and held that private banks do not perform sovereign or public functions merely because they engage in regulated commercial activities – Held: Mere regulatory oversight by the RBI does not bring private banks under writ jurisdiction [Paras 5].

Writ Petition Dismissed – The Court refused to interfere in the contractual matters between a borrower and a private bank, directing the petitioner to seek alternative remedies under the SARFAESI Act – Held: Petition dismissed with liberty to avail appropriate legal recourse [Paras 5].

Civil Law - Impleadment of Party – Necessary or Proper Party – No Interference Warranted – The petitioner challenged the Rent Controller’s order allowing the respondents’ application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleading Kuljinder Singh (petitioner's attorney) as a necessary party – The Court noted that the respondents had made specific allegations that the petitioner had sublet the premises to Kuljinder Singh after securing eviction under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act – Held: Since the dispute involved allegations of subletting, impleadment was justified for a complete adjudication of the case [Paras 5-7].

Principle of Dominus Litis – Applicant's Right to Choose Parties – The Court held that the applicant in a legal proceeding has the right to decide whom to implead, provided there is a reasonable basis for doing so – Since the respondents had already mentioned Kuljinder Singh in their pleadings but omitted him in the memo of parties due to an oversight, rectifying the error through impleadment was legally valid – Held: No interference required; impleadment order upheld [Paras 7-8].

No Prejudice to Petitioner – Impleadment Does Not Delay Proceedings – The petitioner argued that adding Kuljinder Singh as a party would delay the proceedings – The Court rejected this argument, noting that any delay would primarily affect the respondents, who were seeking possession – Held: The impleadment order did not cause any prejudice to the petitioner; revision petition dismissed [Paras 8].

Civil Revision Petition Dismissed – The High Court upheld the order of the Rent Controller and dismissed the petitioner’s challenge – Held: Since impleadment was necessary for effective adjudication, no grounds existed for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India [Paras 8].

Criminal Procedure – Right to Speedy Trial – Delay in Cross-Examination – Section 528 BNSS – Held: Speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution – Criminal Courts must ensure expeditious disposal of proceedings – Supreme Court in Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, 1992 (2) RCR 634, and Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, 1994 (2) RCR 169, emphasized the importance of speedy trials – Delay tactics by the respondent prima facie evident – Trial Court directed to conclude proceedings within one year [Paras 5-8].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Delay in 138 NI Act Proceedings – Respondent's Conduct – Held: The respondent repeatedly sought exemptions, delaying the trial – Petitioner’s right to a speedy trial adversely affected – Supreme Court precedents reaffirm that unnecessary delays violate fundamental rights – Trial Court directed to expedite cross-examination and conclude trial without further delay [Paras 2, 7-8].

Decision – Petition Allowed – Directions Issued – Held: The petition is disposed of with a direction to the trial court to decide complaint COMA No. 92269 of 2022 expeditiously, preferably within one year from the date of this order [Para 8].
 

Service Law – Termination on Basis of Criminal Case – Acquittal Makes Termination Illegal – The petitioner was terminated based on pending criminal proceedings, but he was acquitted by a judgment dated 30/10/2021 – The Court held that the termination was unjustified as the Education Officer ignored the acquittal order and acted arbitrarily [Paras 6-7].

Employment Law – Reinstatement with Continuity of Service – The Court quashed the termination order dated 12/04/2022, holding that the petitioner was wrongfully removed from service – Directed reinstatement with full continuity of service as Shikshan Sevak, entitling him to regular promotion as an Assistant Teacher in accordance with applicable rules [Paras 10-11].

Back Wages – 50% Awarded Due to Arbitrary Termination – The Court held that since the Education Officer knowingly terminated the petitioner despite his acquittal, the petitioner was entitled to full back wages – However, as per the petitioner’s voluntary statement, he agreed to accept only 50% back wages to put the dispute to rest—The Court allowed this concession but stated that if the BMC further litigated, the claim for full back wages would be revived [Paras 8-9].

Decision – Writ Petition Partly Allowed – Termination Quashed – Reinstatement with 50% Back Wages – The Court set aside the termination order and directed reinstatement with continuity of service – 50% of back wages to be paid within 60 days, failing which the amount would carry 6% interest per annum – Subsequent re-appointment treated as inconsequential as the petitioner’s original appointment stood restored [Paras 11-12].
 

Matrimonial Law - Domestic Violence Act – Maintainability of Application Under Section 528 BNSS (Earlier Section 482 CrPC) – Whether Proceedings Can Be Quashed at Notice Stage – Held: Referred to Larger Bench – Conflicting views of Co-ordinate Benches on whether an application under Section 528 BNSS (earlier Section 482 CrPC) can be entertained to quash proceedings under Section 12 of the D.V. Act at the notice stage – Smt. Suman Mishra v. State of U.P. held that such applications are not maintainable, while Devendra Agarwal v. State of U.P. held that they are maintainable – Issue referred to Larger Bench for authoritative determination [Paras 4-10, 20-22].

Judicial Discipline – Whether Co-ordinate Bench Can Declare an Earlier Judgment Per Incuriam – Held: No – Devendra Agarwal declared the judgment in Smt. Suman Mishra as per incuriam without referring the issue to a Larger Bench – Held: A Bench of equal strength cannot ignore or overrule a prior decision; it must either follow it or refer the matter to a Larger Bench – Reliance placed on State of Bihar v. Kalika Kuer and Mary Pushpam v. Telvi Curusumary [Paras 13-16, 21].

Quashing of Domestic Violence Proceedings – Whether Section 528 BNSS (Earlier Section 482 CrPC) Applies – Held: To Be Determined by Larger Bench – Dispute over whether notice issued under Section 12 of the D.V. Act can be challenged under Section 528 BNSS (earlier Section 482 CrPC) – Smt. Suman Mishra held it cannot be challenged, whereas Devendra Agarwal held it can be quashed – Larger Bench to decide whether such proceedings should be challenged under Article 226/227 of the Constitution instead [Paras 8-12].

Protection Officer’s Notice – Whether Subject to Judicial Review – Held: Issue to be Decided by Larger Bench – Notice by Protection Officer under D.V. Act challenged – Kamatchi v. Lakshmi Narayanan held that D.V. Act proceedings are primarily civil in nature – Issue referred to Larger Bench to determine whether notices issued under Section 12 of the D.V. Act are amenable to Section 528 BNSS (earlier Section 482 CrPC) or only to writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 [Paras 10-12].

Decision – Matter Referred to Larger Bench for Final Determination – High Court referred seven legal questions to Hon’ble the Chief Justice for consideration by a Larger Bench – Trial Court directed to adjourn proceedings until final decision by Larger Bench [Paras 20-23].

Bail Application – Prima Facie Case and Delay in FIR – Importance of Unexplained Delay – The accused, the victim’s father, was charged with sexual assault and criminal intimidation under IPC and POCSO – The FIR was filed in April 2024, nearly 11 months after the alleged incident in May 2023 – The Court noted multiple unexplained delays, including the victim’s failure to report the incident immediately, the mother’s delay in taking action after learning about it, and the further delay of two months in lodging the FIR – Held: Unexplained delay in reporting a sexual offence weakens the prosecution's case at the stage of bail [Paras 9-11].

Medical Evidence – Failure to Undergo Medical Examination – Impact on Bail Consideration – The victim refused to undergo a medical examination, and there was no contemporaneous medical report – The Court observed that while lack of medical evidence does not discredit a sexual assault case, in the absence of any corroborative material, it creates reasonable doubt at the prima facie stage – Held: Refusal to undergo medical examination adds to the lacunae in the prosecution case [Paras 6-7, 11].

Trauma and Psychological Impact – Reliance on PTSD Diagnosis – Timing of Psychological Treatment – The prosecution relied on a Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) diagnosis to justify the victim’s delay in filing the FIR – However, the Court noted that the victim did not seek medical treatment for trauma until June 2024, two months after filing the FIR – The Court found it unusual that no symptoms were recorded earlier, despite the victim living in a safe environment with her maternal grandparents for several months – Held: The delayed psychological assessment and lack of early medical intervention raise doubts on the sequence of events narrated by the prosecution [Paras 10-12].

Legal Principles on Bail – Balance Between Presumption of Innocence and Nature of Allegations – The Court acknowledged the serious nature of the allegations but emphasized that bail cannot be refused solely based on the gravity of the offence – The Court cited repeated procedural delays and gaps in evidence as factors favoring the accused – Held: Bail granted with strict conditions to ensure the accused does not interfere with the investigation or intimidate witnesses [Paras 12-14].

Decision:

Bail granted – Applicant released on bail subject to conditions – The Court allowed the bail application, considering the prima facie weaknesses in the prosecution’s case, unexplained delays in reporting, and absence of medical evidence – Strict conditions imposed to prevent tampering with evidence [Paras 12-14].

Preventive Detention – Delay in Proposal Does Not Vitiate Detention – The petitioner argued that there was a long delay between the last alleged offence (11/08/2024) and the issuance of the detention order (25/10/2024), breaking the live link between the alleged acts and detention – The Court rejected this argument, holding that since the detenu was in custody during this period and the proposal was initiated while he was in judicial custody, the delay did not invalidate the detention [Paras 5-6].

Habeas Corpus – Representation Against Detention – No Violation of Due Process – The petitioner contended that the detenu’s representation dated 06/11/2024 was not considered by the Government before referring the case to the Advisory Board – The Court applied K.M. Abdulla Kunhi v. Union of India, (1991) 1 SCC 476, holding that when a representation is received before referral to the Advisory Board, it should be forwarded to the Board along with the case – Since the representation and referral were made on the same date (06/11/2024), the detenu’s rights were not violated [Paras 4-5].

Criminal Law – Definition of "Rowdy" under KAAPA Includes Offences under BNS – The petitioner argued that the offences under BNS were not included in the KAAPA’s definition of "rowdy", which referenced offences under IPC, 1860 – The Court rejected this argument, applying Section 8(1) of the General Clauses Act, 1897, which provides that references to repealed enactments (IPC) should be construed as references to their re-enacted provisions (BNS) – Held: KAAPA’s reference to IPC must be read as applying to BNS offences [Para 8].

Detention Justification – KAAPA Covers Anti-Social Activities – The detenu was involved in two criminal cases after his earlier detention order was revoked – The Court ruled that Crime No. 1184/2024 of Perinthalmanna Police Station, which involved misuse of a vehicle, qualified as an "anti-social activity" under Section 2(a) of KAAPA, as it involved misappropriation of property – The Court also upheld the classification of the detenu as a "known rowdy" based on Crime No. 542/2024 of Cherpulassery Police Station, rejecting the contention that BNS offences could not be considered under KAAPA [Paras 7-9].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Detention Order Upheld – The Kerala High Court dismissed the habeas corpus petition, holding that the detention order was validly issued and the detenu had been classified correctly as a "known rowdy" under KAAPA – No interference warranted [Para 9].