Criminal Law – Quashing – Commercial Transaction – Alleged Non-Payment of Dues – Petitioner sought quashing of proceeding under Sections 406/420 IPC arising out of business dealings relating to supply of poultry feed – Admitted long-standing commercial relationship since 2012 with regular payments – Dispute arose over alleged outstanding of Rs. 40 lakhs – Held: No averment of dishonest intention at inception – Essential ingredients of cheating and criminal breach of trust not made out – Dispute purely civil in nature – Continuation of criminal proceeding amounts to abuse of process – Proceedings quashed [Paras 18–20, 23, 28–30].

Cheating – Essential Ingredients – Dishonest Intention at Inception – Mere failure to pay outstanding amount or subsequent breach of promise does not constitute offence under Section 420 IPC unless fraudulent or dishonest intention exists at the inception of transaction – Complaint silent as to initial deception or inducement – Business continued for years with regular payments – No prima facie case under Section 420 IPC disclosed [Paras 18, 21–26].

Criminal Breach of Trust – Commercial Dealings – To attract Section 406 IPC, entrustment and dishonest misappropriation must be established – Purely contractual or monetary dispute arising from commercial transactions does not ipso facto constitute criminal breach of trust – Ledger dispute over dues recoverable, if any, gives rise to civil remedy [Paras 19, 26, 28].

Civil Dispute – Criminalisation of – Abuse of Process – Attempt to convert recovery of money arising from business transactions into criminal prosecution deprecated – Where allegations even if taken at face value constitute breach of contract, criminal prosecution not maintainable – Inherent power under Section 482 CrPC exercised to secure ends of justice [Paras 19, 27–30].

Decision: CRR 933 of 2017 allowed – CRAN applications disposed of – Proceedings in Arambagh P.S. Case No. 1066 of 2016 dated 11.11.2016 under Sections 406/420 IPC corresponding to G.R. No. 2090 of 2016 pending before the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Arambagh, Hooghly quashed insofar as the petitioner is concerned – Interim order vacated.

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Dismissal under Section 256 Cr.P.C. – Accused Never Appeared – Magistrate dismissed complaints on 29.09.2014 and recorded acquittal despite accused not appearing from 2012 onwards – Continuous issuance of summons and warrants – Held: Section 256 Cr.P.C. contemplates acquittal when case is fixed for appearance/hearing and accused is before Court – Acquittal of an accused who never faced trial is patently illegal and contrary to scheme of summons trial [Paras 52-54].

Section 256 Cr.P.C. – Scope and Object – Provision intended to protect accused from harassment when complainant defaults despite accused’s presence – Magistrate must consider whether complainant’s personal attendance was essential and whether adjournment justified – In present case, matter was not at hearing stage and accused never appeared – Invocation of Section 256 improper – Order dated 29.09.2014 illegal [Paras 46-49, 54].

Revision vs Appeal – Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. vis-à-vis Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. – Contention that remedy lay in appeal against acquittal rejected – Held: Where so-called acquittal is passed without trial and without evidence at post-cognizance stage, such order is grossly erroneous and amenable to revisional correction – Revisional court competent to set aside patently illegal order – No bar under Section 401(4) attracted in peculiar facts [Paras 56-57].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Scope – Sessions Court empowered to examine correctness, legality and propriety of order – Revisional interference justified where Magistrate exercised discretion arbitrarily and contrary to statutory scheme – Restoration of complaint by revisional court upheld [Paras 56-57].

Summons Trial – Scheme under Sections 251–255 Cr.P.C. – Presence of accused is foundational for framing substance of accusation and proceeding with evidence – Without accused’s appearance, trial cannot commence – Consequently, acquittal under Section 256 without accused facing trial unsustainable [Paras 50-53].

Section 204(4) Cr.P.C. – Dismissal for Non-payment of Process Fee – Record showed complainant continuously took steps for issuance of summons and warrants – Complaints not dismissed for default in process fee – Hence Section 204(4) not attracted [Paras 37-41].

Summoning Order – Challenge – Argument that cheque issued by company and company not impleaded – Complaint disclosed personal transaction and issuance of cheques by accused – No material to show cheques drawn on company account – Section 141 NI Act not attracted – Summoning order dated 25.02.2012 valid [Paras 31-32, 62].

Section 401(2) Cr.P.C. – Opportunity of Hearing – Allegation that accused not heard in revision – Record and conduct showed continuous evasion of process – No prejudice demonstrated warranting interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. [Paras 31, 56].

Expeditious Trial – Section 138 NI Act – Complaints pending since 2012 – Accused repeatedly avoided summons, bailable and non-bailable warrants – In light of Supreme Court directions in In Re: Expeditious Trial of Cases under Section 138 NI Act, trial court directed to expedite proceedings [Para 63].

Decision: All applications filed by accused under Section 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed – Cumulative cost of Rs. 50,000/- imposed payable to complainant within stipulated time – Application filed by complainant allowed – Trial Court directed to expedite disposal of all connected complaints in accordance with law and Supreme Court guidelines [Para 63].

Local Governance – Special Grade Town Panchayat – Applicability of Statute – Karumandisellipalayam being a Special Grade Town Panchayat is governed by the District Municipalities Act and Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act and not by the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 – Arguments based on Panchayats Act held misconceived – Statutory framework under Urban Local Bodies Act applicable [Paras 41–46].

Burial Ground – Long Standing Usage – Revenue Classification as Cart Track – Evidence including 2000 Panchayat Resolution, Government Grant, Cash Book, Road/Street Ledger and Collector’s Report establish existence of burial ground at least from year 2000 and usage for over 70 years – Mere classification in ‘A’ register as cart track does not efface factual and customary use as burial ground – Court holds burial ground exists in S.Nos.621/3 & 628/8 [Paras 50–54].

Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998 – Section 172 – Registration and Licensing of Burial Grounds – Obligation of owner or person in control to register existing burial grounds – Council empowered to regulate and notify – Absence of notification prohibiting burial elsewhere renders plea for total prohibition untenable – Subjective satisfaction of Council required for ban under Section 172(3) [Paras 56–58].

Reclassification – Pending Resolution – Town Panchayat Resolution dated 14.10.2025 seeking measurement and reclassification as burial ground – Matter under consideration by Revenue Authorities – Court declines to interfere at this stage and rejects mandamus to prevent reclassification – Ongoing statutory process not to be interdicted [Para 60].

Right to Dignity – Dead Persons – Disturbance of Graves – Collector’s report reveals levelling of graves and disturbance of burial sites – Held: Right to dignity under Article 21 extends to dead – Temporal sanctity of grave violated – Authorities ought to have initiated criminal proceedings under BNSS/Section 297 IPC – State reminded of constitutional and statutory duty [Paras 62–65].

SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act – Access to Burial Grounds – Denial or destruction of burial sites of Scheduled Caste community amounts to violation of Article 17 and may attract penal consequences under SC/ST Act – District Collector empowered and obligated to act – Failure to protect burial rights deprecated [Para 66].

Municipal Duty – Constitutional Mandate – Article 243W read with XII Schedule mandates Town Panchayat to provide and maintain burial and cremation grounds – Section 172(4) obligates provision and maintenance within municipal limits – Local body directed to secure and maintain burial ground free from encroachment and garbage [Paras 61, 67].

Decision:

W.P.No.37501 of 2025 disposed of with directions –

(i) District Collector to ensure segregation and proper fencing of burial/cremation area in S.Nos.621/3 & 628/8 –

(ii) Town Panchayat to maintain burial ground free from encroachment and garbage –

(iii) Revenue authorities to act on resolution dated 14.10.2025 and exclude burial area from classification as cart track –

(iv) Collector to initiate action against persons responsible for levelling graves –

W.P.Nos.36402 of 2025 and 44377 of 2025 dismissed – No costs.

Educational Institutions – De-affiliation – “Civil Death” – De-affiliation termed as extreme measure having far-reaching consequences on students and staff – Such action must strictly comply with procedural safeguards and principles of natural justice – Court emphasized proportionality in administrative action [Paras 43–44].

SOP for De-affiliation – Timelines – Inordinate Delay – Show cause notice issued on 01.10.2022 – De-affiliation order passed only on 20.09.2024 – SOP contemplated conclusion of process within approximately 95 days – Respondent failed to adhere to prescribed timelines, causing prejudice to petitioner – Delay relevant in moulding relief [Paras 31–33, 38–39].

Portal Blocking – De facto De-affiliation – Respondent blocked admission portal from Academic Session 2023–2024 onwards – Petitioner prevented from admitting students for three consecutive academic sessions – Though formal order passed later, practical debarment commenced earlier – Such preceding period liable to be counted towards de-affiliation penalty [Paras 35–41].

Doctrine of Proportionality – Minimum Three-Year Debarment – Affiliation Norms-2018 provided minimum three-year de-affiliation – Impugned order silent on duration – Court held that counting period from Academic Session 2023–2024 results in completion of three-year debarment – Further continuation of penalty would be disproportionate [Paras 41–42].

Withdrawal of Complaint – Positive Inspection Report – Complaint withdrawn by complainant’s wife – Joint inspection report dated 05.07.2023 found infrastructure satisfactory and recommended continuation – Despite this, SSDEC recommended de-affiliation – Though Court refrained from adjudicating legality of decision, these factors weighed in granting equitable relief [Paras 37, 44].

Judicial Review – Moulding of Relief – Without entering into merits of penal action, Court exercised writ jurisdiction to balance equities and held that de-affiliation till date of judgment meets ends of justice – Direction issued to restore affiliation from Academic Session 2026–27 [Paras 44–45].

Decision: Writ petition partly allowed – De-affiliation period treated as completed – Respondent directed to restore affiliation from Academic Session 2026–27 and reopen portal for fresh admissions – Pending applications disposed of.

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order V Rule 20 – Substituted Service – Prerequisites for invocation – Held: Substituted service is an exception to the normal mode of service. It can only be ordered if the Court, after applying its mind to the facts and circumstances, records a satisfaction based on material on record that the defendant is deliberately keeping out of the way for the purpose of avoiding service, or that the summons cannot be served in the ordinary manner. A mechanical order for publication without exhaustion of primary modes of service is legally unsustainable. [Paras 26, 27, 36]

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order V Rules 17 and 20 – Sequential compliance – Interplay between affixture and publication – Held: The provisions of Order V Rule 17 and Rule 20 must be read conjointly. Before resorting to substituted service under Rule 20, it is mandatory to follow the procedure prescribed under Rule 17 (service by affixture). Where there is no documentary evidence on record to prove that registered notices or process server summons were ever sent, refused, or that the defendant’s residence was identified for affixture, the Court cannot presume service to be sufficient merely on the basis of newspaper publication. [Paras 20, 28, 31]

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order XLI Rule 21 – Recalling ex-parte decree – Sufficient cause – Duty of the Appellate Court – The first appellate court allowed an appeal ex-parte after ordering substituted service despite the lack of evidence of service attempts by registered post or process server. The appellant moved to recall the judgment under Order XLI Rule 21. The lower appellate court rejected the recall, presuming knowledge based on the defendant's subsequent appearance. Held: Such reasoning is a figment of imagination and perverse. Knowledge of the appeal cannot be presumed from conduct if the mandatory provisions for service of summons are breached. The original suit having been dismissed on merits, the defendants were entitled to a fair opportunity to contest the appeal. Impugned order set aside. [Paras 40, 41, 42]

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order V Rule 21 – Service on defendant residing outside jurisdiction – Appellate Court situated in Ghaziabad while defendant resided in Delhi – Held: Under Order V Rule 21, the Court ought to have sent the summons to the competent Court in Delhi for effecting service. Failure to adopt this procedure while simultaneously allowing an application for publication indicates a lack of due diligence and procedural impropriety. [Paras 29, 32, 33]

Decision: Appeal allowed. The impugned order dated 23.05.2024 is set aside. The application under Order XLI Rule 21 CPC is allowed. The ex-parte judgment and decree dated 17.07.2019 in Civil Appeal No. 146 of 2011 is set aside, and the appeal is restored to its original number. The first appellate court is directed to decide the matter afresh on merits within four months. Parties directed to maintain status quo. [Paras 42-44]

Industrial Disputes Act – Public Utility Service – Proposed Strike – Restraint Order – Petitioner Corporation engaged in LPG and fuel supply classified as Public Utility Service under Section 2(n) of ID Act – Union issued strike notice proposing strike on 12.02.2026 – Conciliation proceedings pending and scheduled on same date – Section 22(1)(d) prohibits strike during pendency of conciliation and seven days thereafter – Held: Proposed strike during subsistence of conciliation proceedings is impermissible – Members of respondent Union restrained from proceeding on strike on scheduled date [Paras 13–16, 20–21, 28].

Maintainability – Writ by Employer – Enforcement of Statutory Right – Objection raised that Union not “State” under Article 12 and alternate remedy available under ID Act – Court held writ petition maintainable as employer sought enforcement of statutory protection under Section 22 of ID Act – Distinguished cases where relief sought post-strike or through civil suit – Pre-strike preventive jurisdiction under Article 226 invoked to enforce statutory mandate [Paras 17–18, 23–26].

Right to Strike – Limitations – Though right to strike recognized, it is subject to statutory restrictions – Where strike is in conformity with statutory requirements, Court may not ordinarily restrain – However, where statutory bar under Section 22 operates due to pending conciliation, Court justified in issuing prohibitory order [Paras 19–20].

Public Interest – Essential Services – Disruption of LPG and fuel supply likely to affect public at large – Court considered nature of petitioner’s operations as essential public utility service while granting limited protection – Restraint confined only to members of respondent Union working under petitioner directly or through contractor [Paras 21, 27–28].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed in part – Members of Respondent No.1/Union working under petitioner, directly or through contractor, restrained from holding strike on 12.02.2026 during pendency of conciliation proceedings – No broader prohibitory directions issued.

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Bar of Limitation – FIR under Section 304-A IPC – Alleged medical negligence leading to death during surgery – Incident dated 04.01.2015 – Challan filed in October 2019 – Offence punishable with maximum imprisonment up to two years – Petitioner contended cognizance barred under Section 468 Cr.P.C. as limitation period expired – Held that though challan filed beyond prescribed limitation, exclusion clause under Section 473 Cr.P.C. empowers Court to take cognizance after expiry if delay properly explained or required in interest of justice – Matter remitted to trial Court to consider plea of limitation before framing of charge – Petition disposed of with directions [Paras 5–14].

Limitation – Section 468 Cr.P.C. – Computation – For offences punishable with imprisonment not exceeding three years – Period of limitation three years – In present case offence under Section 304-A IPC punishable up to two years – Cognizance ordinarily barred after expiry of limitation – However subject to Section 473 Cr.P.C. [Paras 10–11].

Extension of Limitation – Section 473 Cr.P.C. – Scope – Court may condone delay if satisfied that delay properly explained or necessary in interest of justice – Investigating Agency cited delay in obtaining Medical Board opinion regarding cause of death – Trial Court yet to apply mind to explanation furnished in final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. – High Court declined to adjudicate issue at pre-cognizance stage – Appropriate course is to permit trial Court to decide question of limitation first [Paras 8, 12–13].

Inherent Jurisdiction – Exercise of Power – High Court held that at this stage it would not be appropriate to record findings on sufficiency of explanation under Section 473 Cr.P.C. – Parties granted liberty to avail remedies against order of trial Court, if aggrieved – No ground made out for quashing FIR at this stage [Paras 12–14].

Decision: Petition disposed of – Learned trial Court directed to hear parties on plea of limitation under Sections 468/473 Cr.P.C. before framing of charge and pass appropriate order in accordance with law.

PIL - Constitution of India – Art. 226 – Judicial Review – Policy Decision – Scope of Interference – Petitioner challenged the closure of fresh registrations and the fixation of age-related eligibility criteria (21 to 60 years) under the Mukhyamantri Ladli Behna Yojana, 2023, alleging arbitrariness and violation of Art. 14 – Held: Judicial review of a policy decision is limited to examining its legality, not its wisdom. Courts do not substitute their opinion for that of experts in policy matters. A policy decision can only be interfered with if it is unconstitutional, arbitrary, malafide, or dehors the provisions of a statute. The fixation of the date for commencement and closure of a scheme, as well as the determination of the age of entitlement, falls squarely within the executive domain of the State. The court found no arbitrariness in the State’s exercise of discretion regarding the implementation and continuation of the policy. [Paras 9, 10, 11]

Constitution of India – Art. 14 – Equality before Law – Hostile Discrimination – Allegation of arbitrary exclusion of newly eligible women from a welfare scheme – Held: The State has the discretion to decide the implementation period and the scope of beneficiaries for a welfare policy. Stoppage of fresh registrations from a specific date does not, per se, constitute hostile discrimination. The fixation of minimum and maximum age limits for entitlement is a policy matter within the domain of the State Government and does not warrant judicial interference unless proven to be manifestly arbitrary. [Paras 10, 11]

Public Interest Litigation – Maintainability – Locus Standi – Enhancement of Financial Benefits – Petitioner sought a direction to enhance the amount provided under the scheme as per alleged promises – Held: The petitioner is admittedly neither an aspirant nor a beneficiary of the scheme. Claims regarding the enhancement of financial benefits under a social welfare scheme cannot be entertained at the instance of a third party in a PIL. Such matters pertain to the discretionary executive functions of the State. [Para 12]

Ratio Decidendi: The Court’s power of judicial review over executive policy is restricted to assessing whether the policy is unconstitutional, contrary to statutory provisions, or ultra vires the powers of the delegatee. The determination of eligibility criteria, including age limits and registration timelines for a welfare scheme, is a matter of administrative policy within the State's domain and does not attract judicial interference under Art. 226 unless it is demonstrated to be palpably arbitrary or malafide.

Decision: The Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Habeas Corpus – Illegal Arrest – Non-supply of Written Grounds of Arrest – Arrest memo merely mentioning crime number and sections without disclosing specific grounds – Separate sheet of “grounds of arrest” not forming part of arrest memo and not attested as required under Section 36 BNSS – Held: Non-compliance with Article 22(1) of the Constitution and mandate of Mihir Rajesh Shah (2026) 1 SCC 500 – Arrest and consequential remand rendered illegal – Petitioner entitled to release [Paras 20-26, 33-34].

Constitution of India – Article 22(1) – Communication of Grounds of Arrest – Constitutional safeguard not a procedural formality – Grounds must be furnished in writing in a language understood by arrestee – Failure to supply written grounds within stipulated time vitiates arrest and remand – Remand order cannot cure foundational illegality of arrest – “Once the edifice goes, the superstructure collapses” [Paras 19-23, 27, 33].

Criminal Procedure – Remand under Section 187 BNSS – Mechanical Remand – Magistrate obliged to apply judicial mind to legality of arrest and compliance with statutory safeguards – Failure to notice non-conformity of arrest memo and absence of duly attested written grounds – Remand held to be passed in a mechanical manner – Habeas corpus maintainable notwithstanding remand [Paras 28-30].

Maintainability – Habeas Corpus after Judicial Remand – Writ lies where remand order suffers from absolute illegality or is passed mechanically – Distinction between judicial review remedies and writ of habeas corpus – Habeas corpus is writ of right granted ex debito justitiae in case of unlawful detention – Petition maintainable despite pendency of criminal proceedings [Paras 28-32].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Arrest of petitioner declared illegal – Remand order dated 29.01.2026 set aside – Petitioner directed to be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case – Liberty granted to respondents to proceed in accordance with law.