Property Dispute – Claim of Encroachment Over Passage – No Title Proven – The appellant claimed ownership over a disputed passage in a residential area, alleging illegal encroachment by the defendant – The courts below found that the appellant had no title over the passage and failed to establish any ownership rights – Held: Mere assertion of right without documentary proof cannot sustain a claim for possession; suit rightly dismissed [Paras 6-8].

Limitation – Long Delay in Filing Suit – Claim Time-Barred – The appellant filed the suit in 2013, alleging encroachment in 2011, but evidence showed that the defendant had constructed his house on the disputed land in 1984 – The Court held that the appellant's claim was barred by limitation under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 – Held: Long delay and inaction negate the appellant’s claim; suit dismissed as time-barred [Paras 14-15].

Failure to Prove Cause of Action – Admission in Cross-Examination Weakens Case – The appellant admitted in cross-examination that he had no title over the disputed passage – Further, the local commission’s report contradicted the appellant’s claims – Held: No cause of action exists when the plaintiff lacks ownership over the disputed land [Paras 15-16].

No Substantial Question of Law – Second Appeal Dismissed – The Court reiterated that a second appeal under Section 100 CPC is maintainable only if a substantial question of law arises – Since the appellant merely challenged factual findings and failed to demonstrate any legal error, the appeal was dismissed at the admission stage – Held: No substantial question of law; second appeal dismissed [Paras 17-18].
 

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.

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].

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].
 

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].
 

Murder Trial – Common Intention – Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 – Conviction Upheld – The appellants, along with other accused, forcefully entered the victim’s house at night, dragged him outside, and brutally assaulted him with iron rods, wooden sticks, and hammers – The assault continued at multiple locations, ultimately causing the victim’s death – Evidence from multiple eyewitnesses corroborated the sequence of events – Medical report confirmed homicidal injuries – Held: The appellants acted with common intention, making them liable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC [Paras 3-5, 46-47].

Non-Framing of Specific Charge – Section 464 CrPC – No Prejudice Caused – The appellant Badal Sarkar argued that since no specific charge under Section 302 IPC was framed against him, his conviction was illegal – The Court noted that the trial order sheet clearly indicated that all accused were charged under Section 302 IPC – The appellant was represented by counsel throughout the trial and fully participated in cross-examination – Held: The absence of a specific charge did not cause prejudice or failure of justice – Conviction sustained [Paras 25-35].

Acquittal of Co-Accused – Plea of Parity – Rejected – The appellants argued that since some similarly placed accused were acquitted, they should also be acquitted – The Court, relying on Supreme Court precedents, held that a wrongful acquittal does not justify setting aside a valid conviction – Independent evaluation of evidence revealed that the appellants had a more direct and active role in the crime – Held: The plea of parity was not applicable, and the conviction of the appellants was upheld [Paras 38-50].

Reliability of Eyewitness Testimony – Nighttime Identification – No Test Identification Parade Required – The appellants challenged the credibility of eyewitnesses on the ground of nighttime occurrence and lack of Test Identification Parade (TIP) – The Court held that the witnesses were familiar with the accused and had sufficient opportunity to recognize them – Testimony of PW1, PW2, and PW3 was consistent and corroborated by medical evidence – Held: TIP was not necessary, and the eyewitness testimony was reliable [Paras 65-67].

Delay in Recording Eyewitness Statements – Effect on Credibility – The appellants contended that a delay in recording the statements of eyewitnesses affected their credibility – The Court held that delay alone does not render testimony unreliable unless it is unexplained or unsupported by other evidence – The statements of PW1, PW2, and PW3 were recorded soon after the incident and corroborated by other witnesses – Held: No adverse inference could be drawn against the prosecution [Paras 69-72].

Non-Seizure of Weapons – No Adverse Inference Against Prosecution – The defense argued that the absence of seizure of weapons and fingerprints weakened the prosecution’s case – The Court held that in cases involving common household weapons like iron rods, sticks, and hammers, non-recovery was not fatal to the case – Medical evidence and eyewitness testimony sufficiently established the weapons used – Held: Conviction cannot be set aside due to non-seizure of weapons [Paras 73-75].

Medical Evidence – Cause of Death – No Inconsistency – The defense argued that the post-mortem report did not conclusively establish that the injuries were fatal – The Court found that the medical evidence clearly indicated multiple blunt force injuries leading to hemorrhage and cardio-respiratory failure – The injuries were consistent with the eyewitness accounts – Held: Medical evidence corroborated the prosecution’s case, and there was no basis to interfere with the conviction [Paras 56-60].

Assessment of Circumstantial Evidence – Collective Assault and Common Intention – Guilt Established – The Court examined the sequence of events, corroborated eyewitness testimonies, medical evidence, and the accused’s participation in unlawful assembly – The appellants had a clear common intention to cause death – Held: The cumulative effect of the evidence conclusively established the guilt of the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC [Paras 46-50, 62-64].
 

Bail - NDPS Act – Procedural Lapses in Search and Seizure – Section 50 Not Complied With – Bail Granted – The petitioner, a foreign national, was arrested based on secret information, and 57 grams of Amphetamine was allegedly recovered from his possession – The petitioner argued that the police failed to comply with mandatory provisions under Section 50 of the NDPS Act, as no notice was given before the search, and no independent witnesses were present – Held: Non-compliance with Section 50 casts serious doubt on the recovery, strengthening the case for bail [Paras 6-10].

Commercial Quantity – Stringent Conditions of Section 37 NDPS Act – Court's Discretion in Granting Bail – The prosecution opposed bail, contending that the seized quantity was commercial and thus attracted the stringent twin conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act – The Court held that while Section 37 imposes restrictions, Constitutional Courts retain discretion to grant bail if prolonged incarceration violates Article 21 – Held: The petitioner’s long incarceration without trial justified bail despite Section 37 restrictions [Paras 25-27].

Right to Fair Trial – Prolonged Incarceration – Bail Allowed Due to Delay – The petitioner had been in custody for over two years, and trial proceedings had been slow, with only two out of sixteen witnesses examined – Relying on Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, (2021) 3 SCC 713, and Manish Sisodia v. CBI, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 139, the Court held that prolonged incarceration without conclusion of trial violated Article 21 – Held: Bail granted due to delay in trial [Paras 26-28].

Bail Granted – Stringent Conditions Imposed – The Court admitted the petitioner to bail upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000/- with one surety of the like amount – Conditions imposed included restrictions on movement, mandatory court appearances, and prohibition from influencing witnesses – Held: Bail granted subject to conditions to ensure the petitioner remains available for trial [Paras 29-31].
 

Criminal Law - Bank Fraud – Criminal Conspiracy – Misuse of Credit Facility – Conviction Upheld – The accused, in conspiracy with a bank manager, obtained fraudulent credit facilities, causing wrongful loss to the bank – Loan limits were enhanced despite non-payment of earlier dues, and cheques presented by the accused were dishonored – Held: The appellants colluded with the bank official to misuse banking norms, thereby justifying their conviction under Sections 120B and 420 IPC [Paras 3-8].

Corruption Charges – Abuse of Official Position – Wrongful Gain Established – The bank manager failed to report irregularities in loan transactions and sanctioned additional credit despite knowing that previous payments were dishonored – The prosecution established that these actions resulted in wrongful gain for the accused and wrongful loss to the bank – Held: Conviction under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, was justified [Paras 9-12].

Absence of Dishonest Intention at the Inception – Defense Rejected – The appellants argued that their transactions were genuine and that loans were secured – The Court rejected this defense, noting that the fraudulent pattern of financial transactions and overdraft extensions without security indicated clear criminal intent – Held: Mere presence of collateral security does not negate the fraudulent nature of transactions [Paras 15-18].

Appeal Dismissed – Conviction and Sentence Affirmed – The Court upheld the Special Judge's decision, concluding that the evidence sufficiently proved the appellants’ guilt beyond a reasonable doubt – Held: The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence were maintained [Paras 19-25].