Mining Lease – Cancellation and Forfeiture – The court upheld the cancellation of the “In Principal Sanction Order” for the mining lease and the forfeiture of the deposited amounts due to non-compliance with the terms of the tender and delays in obtaining necessary clearances. The petitioner’s failure to execute the lease deed within the stipulated time and the ongoing illegal mining activities on the site were critical factors [Paras 21-26, 30-36].

Impossibility and Frustration of Contract – The court considered the doctrine of frustration under Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act, ruling that the disappearance of the motorable road and illegal mining activities did not render the contract impossible or void, as the petitioner did not take timely action to address these issues [Paras 37-39].

Sustainable Development and Environmental Protection – The court emphasized the balance between economic development and environmental protection, directing the state to implement measures to prevent illegal mining and maintain sustainable development in mining activities, in line with Articles 48A and 51A of the Constitution [Paras 27-29, 40-42].

Decision:

Writ Petition dismissed – The court affirmed the cancellation of the “In Principal Sanction Order” and the forfeiture of deposits, instructing the state to take measures against illegal mining and ensure the restoration of necessary infrastructure to support mining activities [Paras 41-42].

Criminal Procedure – Recalling of Witness – Application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. to recall a minor victim in a POCSO case – Special Court under POCSO Act rejected the application citing Section 33(5) of the POCSO Act – Petitioner’s counsel contends no absolute bar exists and cites various judgments to support the argument that recall of the victim can be permitted for fair trial [Paras 2-4].

Section 33(5) of POCSO Act – Bar on Repeated Summoning – The Act ensures the child is not called repeatedly to testify to prevent harassment – Balancing of rights under Section 33(5) POCSO Act and Section 311 Cr.P.C. is necessary – Cross-examination is a valuable right of the accused and non-cross-examination can lead to prejudice [Paras 4-5].

Judicial Precedents – Referenced judgments establish no absolute bar under Section 33(5) POCSO Act for recalling victim witnesses – Consideration of the victim’s age and necessity of cross-examination for the defense – Emphasis on ensuring justice and preventing miscarriage of justice [Paras 4-5].

Decision – Petition Dismissed – The Court found no merit in recalling P.W.6 as the proposed questions were already addressed during previous cross-examinations – Dismissal does not preclude recalling other relevant witnesses – Emphasis on the statutory bar and necessity to prevent undue harassment of the victim [Paras 5-6].

Property Law – Declaration of Sale Deed and Will – The plaintiffs sought a declaration that a sale deed executed in 1959 and a Will executed in 1999 were null and void. The trial court had dismissed the suit on the grounds that the plaintiffs failed to establish their claims, the suit was barred by limitation, and the possession of the defendants was lawful. The High Court upheld the trial court's decision, emphasizing the lack of evidence for fraud and the failure to exercise due diligence by the plaintiffs [Paras 1-106].

Limitation and Fraud – Discovery and Due Diligence – The court held that the plaintiffs had sufficient time from the execution of the sale deed in 1959 and the death of Shri H.R. Chopra in 1967 to discover any alleged fraud. The plaintiffs failed to exercise due diligence to inspect or challenge the sale deed and did not act within the prescribed period of limitation. The doctrine of laches applied, barring the suit due to the plaintiffs' inaction [Paras 78-81].

Evidence – Admissibility and Proof – The court examined the evidence presented, including the testimonies and documents. It found that the references to Shri H.R. Chopra in the sale deed and the subsequent use of the property by Shri S.N. Chopra did not substantiate the plaintiffs' claims of fraud or wrongful possession. The trial court's findings on issues of possession, title, and validity of documents were affirmed [Paras 54-94].

Decision: First Appeal dismissed. The trial court's judgment and decree were upheld, and all 12 issues framed were settled correctly. The plaintiffs' suit was barred by limitation, and they failed to prove their claims of fraud and entitlement to the property [Paras 105-106].
 

Criminal Procedure – Quashing of FIR – The application for quashing the FIR was based on the grounds that the alleged cause of action occurred at Indore, and the FIR was lodged as a counter-blast to a divorce petition filed by the applicant. The Court held that the existence of a counter-blast motive and the different residence claims did not justify quashing the FIR as these are matters to be examined during the trial. The court cited precedents establishing that the pendency of a civil proceeding does not affect the validity of criminal proceedings [Paras 1-13].

Jurisdiction – FIR Lodgment and Investigation – It was contended that the FIR was lodged at Kareli, District Narsinghpur, where the respondent did not reside. The Court held that the jurisdiction of the FIR lodgment is valid if mental cruelty persists at the parental home, giving the local police jurisdiction to investigate. The presence of financial transactions linked to Kareli also supported jurisdiction [Paras 12-16].

Malafide Intentions – Role of Complainant’s Relatives – The applicants argued that the FIR was lodged maliciously due to the complainant's father's position as a practicing lawyer in Kareli. The Court dismissed this argument, emphasizing that the status of the complainant's relatives does not invalidate the FIR if it discloses a cognizable offence [Paras 17-20].

Territorial Jurisdiction – Transfer of FIR – The Court stated that if a Police Station lacks territorial jurisdiction, it must transfer the FIR to the appropriate station, but this does not provide grounds to quash the FIR initially lodged [Paras 21-22].

Errors in Framing Charges – Correction Mechanism – The Court addressed an error in naming while framing charges and clarified that such errors could be corrected through an application under Section 216 of the IPC during the trial, not a ground for quashing the charges [Paras 23-25].

Decision: Application dismissed. The Court found no merit in the arguments for quashing the FIR or charges and emphasized that these matters should be addressed during the trial [Paras 27-28].

Bail – NDPS Act – Grant of Bail – Petitioners charged with transportation of narcotics – Trial Court had granted bail to similarly placed co-accused – Petitioners alleged to be mere drivers with no previous criminal record – High Court grants bail considering parity and lack of previous criminal involvement [Paras 1-8].

Offence under NDPS Act – Section 20(b)(ii)(C) read with Section 8(c) – Petitioners accused of aiding in the transportation of narcotics – Arrest based on credible information and subsequent seizure – High Court observes that severity of charges alone does not preclude bail – Bail granted with conditions to ensure non-interference with investigation [Paras 1-8].

Conditions for Bail – Compliance and Consequences – Petitioners released on personal bond with sureties – Conditions include regular appearance before police and non-interference with the investigation – High Court warns of serious view on any breach leading to potential cancellation of bail [Paras 7-8].

Decision: Criminal petitions allowed – Bail granted to both petitioners with conditions – Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, closed [Paras 8].

Criminal Law – Bail in Rape and POCSO Case – Petitioner sought bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. – Allegations included following the victim, expressing intent to marry, forcibly taking her to a lodge, committing rape, and issuing threats – Victim’s age contested by petitioner based on school certificate used as age proof without birth/matriculation certificate – High Court granted bail citing lack of definitive age proof and delay in lodging complaint [Paras 1-7].

Evidence – Proof of Victim’s Age – Prosecution relied on school certificate to establish minor status of victim – No birth or matriculation certificate provided – Court acknowledged the need for authentic age verification documents, impacting the application of POCSO Act [Paras 5-7].

Decision: Bail granted with conditions: Petitioner to execute a personal bond of ₹1,00,000 with two sureties of the same amount. Petitioner to avoid tampering with or influencing prosecution witnesses. Petitioner to attend all court hearings and cooperate with the investigation.

Service Law – Termination of Temporary Employee – Petitioner challenged termination from the post of Mali after the reinstatement of the original incumbent, Shyam Besra, who was acquitted of criminal charges – Petitioner argued violation of Rule 67 of the Jharkhand Service Code, which mandates that a permanently vacated post should not be filled substantively until a year has lapsed – Petitioner also contested the termination without notice, arguing it violated natural justice and constitutional rights [Paras 1-10].

Contract Law – Validity of Conditional Appointment – Petitioner’s appointment was conditional, subject to the outcome of an appeal filed by Shyam Besra – Contested the validity of this condition under Sections 16 and 29 of the Indian Contract Act, arguing it created an undue influence and an uncertain tenure – Court held that conditional appointments are valid under specific circumstances, especially when the condition is clearly communicated and accepted [Paras 4-9].

Judicial Review – Scope and Limits – Court examined the scope of judicial review in employment matters, particularly the termination of temporary employees – Emphasized that while the termination was not illegal, there was a need to consider the petitioner’s five years of service and the procedural fairness involved [Paras 11-13].

Decision – Writ Petition Disposed of with Directions – Court directed the petitioner to submit a fresh representation to the respondent no. 2 for reconsideration of his case – Ordered the respondent to consider the petitioner’s service history sympathetically and decide on his reappointment or compensation within twelve weeks – If adverse, a reasoned order must be communicated to the petitioner [Paras 13-14].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138/141 – Acquittal – Trial Court acquitted the accused persons on the grounds that the company was not made a party to the case as required under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The Appellant’s contention was that the company was initially made a party, but due to non-appearance, the prosecution against the company was withdrawn erroneously by the Trial Court, leading to the acquittal of the other accused persons [Paras 1-20].

Procedural Error – Section 299 Cr.P.C. – Appellant argued that the application for withdrawal of the complaint against the company was misconstrued by the Trial Court, resulting in an erroneous order of withdrawal, which affected the merits of the case. The High Court noted that the error of the Court should not prejudice the appellant, emphasizing the need for ex debito justitiae to correct judicial errors [Paras 21-30].

Revisional and Inherent Jurisdiction – High Court’s power to correct errors – Supreme Court in Popular Muthiah v. State held that the High Court can exercise its inherent powers to do substantial justice, even when the error originates from the Court itself [Paras 31-40].

Decision:

Appeal Allowed – The impugned Judgment and Order dated 16^th February 2019 by the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 11^th Court, Calcutta, is set aside. The Trial Court is directed to rehear the arguments on merit and maintainability and to dispose of the original complaint case within three months from the receipt of this order [Paras 41-45].

Divorce – Cruelty – Allegations of Dowry Demands and Physical Abuse – Appellant-wife alleged physical and mental harassment by the respondent-husband and his family due to unmet dowry demands – Family Court dismissed divorce petition citing lack of evidence – High Court referred to Supreme Court judgments on irretrievable breakdown of marriage and cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act – Held that prolonged separation and lack of cohabitation constitutes cruelty – Appeal allowed, marriage dissolved [Paras 1-11].

Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage – Long Separation – Supreme Court precedents on granting divorce on grounds of irretrievable breakdown – High Court emphasized that continuous separation for 7 years indicated an emotionally dead marriage – Referenced Supreme Court cases Rakesh Raman v. Kavita and Munish Kakkar v. Nidhi Kakkar, highlighting the importance of recognizing irreparable marital breakdown as grounds for divorce [Paras 8-10].

Permanent Alimony – Not Claimed – Appellant-wife stated no interest in permanent alimony, seeking only dissolution of marriage – High Court considered both parties’ employment and financial independence – Decreed divorce without alimony provision [Paras 9-10].

Decision: Appeal Allowed – Marriage dissolved by a decree of divorce. The Court acknowledged the prolonged separation and lack of marital harmony as grounds for granting divorce. No order as to permanent alimony given appellant’s express statement of disinterest in such claims.