Criminal Law - Taking Cognizance - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Sections 190 and 204 - Application of mind - Order taking cognizance for offences involving land record forgery - Tahsildar registered complaint alleging manipulation of pahanis and registers between 1972 and 2000 by a Second Division Assistant - Multiple private individuals and public servants subsequently arrayed as accused based on voluntary statements - Trial court passed a cryptic order stating prima facie case exists and issued process - Petitioners contended that the order reflects non-application of mind - High Court scrutinized the order of the Magistrate and found it lacked detailed reasoning or evaluation of the distinct roles of the accused - High Court relied on Apex Court rulings to emphasize that taking cognizance is a judicial act requiring application of mind to the facts and investigative material - Held - Order of taking cognizance suffered from blatant non-application of mind and is obliterated - [Paras 7-9.2].

Criminal Law - Public Servants - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 197 - Prior Sanction - Mandatory Requirement - Petitioners in several connected cases were public servants acting in official capacity - Cognizance taken by Magistrate without obtaining sanction from the competent authority - State argued sanction not required for offences of cheating and forgery - High Court observed that Section 197 protection is intended to allow officers to perform duties fearlessly - Reasonable connection must exist between the act and official duty - High Court held that offences like cheating and forgery are not automatically excluded from the purview of Section 197 - Held - Taking cognizance against public servants without mandatory sanction under Section 197 CrPC is illegal - Order of cognizance quashed - [Paras 10-11].

Decision: Criminal Petitions allowed in part - Order of taking cognizance in each case obliterated - Matters remitted to the trial court for redrawing orders with application of mind and compliance with sanction requirements for public servants - Liberty reserved to petitioners to approach appropriate fora in future regarding disputed facts - Complaint and charge sheet sustained.

Criminal Law - Discharge - Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 - Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Sections 120-B 420 468 and 471 - Applicants being directors of distillery companies were accused of conspiring with excise officials to evade taxes worth approximately Rs 340 crore during 2005-2010 through forged transport bills and bogus manufacture records - Applicants moved for discharge on the basis that they were fully exonerated by the Excise Commissioner and VAT authority on identical allegations of tax evasion - Special Judge Daman rejected the discharge application at Exhibit-47 - High Court found that while departmental proceedings primarily concerned the validity of show-cause notices - the CBI investigation had collected distinct and prima facie evidence of criminal conspiracy - including forged transport bills - bogus invoices - and confessional statements of witnesses - Held - Exoneration in departmental adjudication proceedings does not automatically warrant discharge in a criminal case if the investigating agency produces substantial and different material establishing a prima facie case - scope of departmental adjudication and criminal trial are vastly different - revision application rejected - [Paras 1-11].

Criminal Law - Parallel Proceedings - Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 - Section 13 - Distinction between departmental adjudication and criminal prosecution - Applicants relied on Radheshyam Kejriwal case to argue that criminal proceedings cannot continue after departmental exoneration on merits - Court distinguished the facts noting that the CBI investigation unearthed evidence of forgery and cheating that was not placed before or considered by the adjudicating authorities - Held - Findings of adjudicatory bodies do not bind the criminal court when the investigating agency produces cogent evidence of conspiracy and forgery - evidence collected by CBI including bogus bills and recorded statements provides a sufficient basis to proceed to trial - [Paras 9-11].

Decision: Criminal revision application rejected – Rejection of discharge application by Special Judge, Daman, upheld.

Civil Law - Declaration of Marital Status - Family Courts Act 1984 - Section 7(1) Explanation (b) - Rejection of Plaint - Appellant-husband challenged the Family Court judgment rejecting his suit for declaration of marital status under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC - Parties married under Shariyat Law and subsequently executed a notarized divorce deed (Mubara’at) and a deed of understanding for alimony and custody - Husband filed suit under Section 7 of the Family Courts Act for a formal declaration of status - Respondent-wife admitted the divorce via pursis - Family Court rejected the suit holding it lacked a cause of action because the defendant did not deny the marital status as required under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act - High Court observed that Explanation (b) to Section 7(1) of the Family Courts Act specifically authorizes the Court to grant declarations as to the validity of marriage or matrimonial status - High Court held that the requirement of denial by the opposite party under the Specific Relief Act does not apply to matrimonial declarations sought under the special jurisdiction of the Family Court - Held - Rejection of plaint was erroneous as judicial certification is necessary for official records and future status even in cases of extra-judicial dissolution - Judgment and decree of Family Court set aside - [Paras 1-14].

Family Law - Dissolution of Marriage - Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act 1937 - Mubara’at - Judicial Endorsement - Parties dissolved marriage through mutual consent under the form of Mubara’at - High Court noted that Mubara’at is an extra-judicial divorce based on mutual consent and is valid under Shariat - Family Courts are duty bound to accept agreements of parties and declare the dissolution of marriage when both parties seek such affirmation - High Court cited precedents from Karnataka and Madras High Courts reinforcing the duty of Family Courts to recognize mutual agreements - Held - Marriage declared dissolved from the date of the agreement - [Paras 10-11, 14].

Civil Law - Cause of Action - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order 7 Rule 11 - Declaratory Relief - Family Court dismissed suit for lack of cause of action as no dispute existed between parties - High Court held that the need for a formal judicial declaration for government records- future marriage- custody- passports- and visas itself gives rise to a cause of action - Held - Absence of a dispute between parties does not preclude the filing of a suit for declaration of status under the Family Courts Act - [Para 4, 12].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and decree dated 21.12.2024 set aside – Marriage between the parties declared dissolved from the date of the Mubara’at agreement – Registry directed to draw necessary decree.

Criminal Law - Bail Procedure - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 - Section 483(2) - Presence of informant - Preliminary objection raised by State that bail hearing cannot proceed without the presence of the informant or authorized person as per Section 483(2) BNSS - Court examined the interplay between Section 483(2) BNSS and Rules 4(13) and 4(15) of the POCSO Rules 2020 - Record indicated that police had duly informed the complainant of the application on 26.05.2026 but no one appeared - Held - The statutory mandate is to provide an opportunity of hearing - If the informant chooses not to appear despite receiving notice and reposes trust in the Public Prosecutor it cannot be said that the bail application cannot be heard - Preliminary objection turned down - [Paras 3-7].

Criminal Law - Rape and POCSO - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 - Section 70(2) - Evidence and Medical Examination - Applicant accused of gang rape of a 14-year-old girl - Victim alleged in FIR that applicant and a co-accused forcibly raped her in a field - Contradictions noted between FIR and statement under Section 183 BNSS regarding the identity of the second person - Medico-legal examination report found no marks of injury on the victim's body - Hymen was found to be intact - Clothes were not torn or stained - Pathological reports were missing from the case diary - Applicant had no criminal history and was in jail since 12.02.2026 - Held - Allegations of use of force and rape were not supported by medical findings - Prima facie case for bail made out - Application allowed - [Paras 8-16].

Decision: Bail application allowed – Applicant Umesh Mali directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties – Standard conditions regarding non-tampering of evidence and cooperation with trial proceedings imposed.

Banking Ombudsman Scheme 2002 - Clause 17 - Review Jurisdiction - Limitation and Natural Justice - Appellant Bank challenged an initial award of the Banking Ombudsman through a review application - The review was filed beyond the prescribed one-month period without an application for condonation of delay - No notice or opportunity of hearing was afforded to the respondent as required under Clause 17(3) of the Scheme - The Reviewing Authority remanded the matter resulting in the subsequent rejection of the complaint - The Single Judge set aside the rejection citing procedural lapses and limitation bar - Held - The mandatory procedural safeguards including notice and hearing are essential - Absence of compliance with these safeguards and the limitation period vitiates the review proceedings and renders consequential orders unsustainable - [Paras 1, 16-17].

Banking Law - Maintainability of Complaint - Banking Ombudsman Scheme 2002 - Clauses 12 and 13 - Definition of Aggrieved Person - Ombudsman rejected the complaint on remand holding it was not maintainable because the respondent was not a customer of the bank - The writ court found this interpretation erroneous based on the language of the Scheme - Held - Clauses 12 and 13 of the Scheme confer a right upon any aggrieved person to lodge a complaint regarding non-payment or delay in payment of cheques - Complaint cannot be rejected solely on the ground that the petitioner was not a customer of the appellant bank - [Paras 7, 15, 18].

Civil Law - Legal Identity of Business Concerns - Partnership vs Proprietorship - Distinction and Continuity - Cheques were issued from a partnership account which was later reconstituted as a proprietorship concern - The account number and authorized signatory remained unchanged - Bank dishonoured cheques with the remark Title of Account Modified - Held - A proprietorship concern does not possess a separate legal identity distinct from its proprietor - Change in the constitution of a business does not automatically render previously issued cheques invalid if the banking relationship continues with the same credentials - [Paras 4, 12, 19].

Banking Law - Deficiency in Service - Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 - Sections 31 and 77 - Wrongful Dishonour - Bank failed to direct the account holder to surrender unused cheque leaves or cancel issued cheques prior to account conversion - The holder presented cheques which were returned despite no stop-payment instructions - Held - Bank had no authority to refuse honouring the cheques merely on account modification - Section 77 is squarely applicable where a banker negligently deals with an instrument causing loss to the holder - Dishonour of the cheques constituted a deficiency in service warranting compensation - [Paras 14, 20-22].

Decision: Writ appeal dismissed – Order of the learned Single Judge dated 12.02.2026 affirmed – No order as to costs.

Civil Law - Permanent Injunction - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 100 - Interference with concurrent findings - Suit for permanent injunction filed by plaintiffs seeking to restrain defendants from interfering with peaceful possession of plaint schedule property - Plaintiff No 1 purchased property from defendant No 6 via registered sale deed and gifted a portion to plaintiff No 2 - Trial Court decreed the suit after examining oral and documentary evidence including revenue records - First Appellate Court dismissed the first appeal confirming the trial court decree - Defendant No 1 preferred second appeal claiming the property was coparcenary and the sale deed was nominal - High Court noted that the partition suit filed by defendant No 1 was already dismissed by lower courts - Physical possession of plaintiffs as on the date of suit was established and recognized by revenue authorities through pattadar passbooks and title deeds - Held - High Court cannot interfere with findings of fact arrived at by first appellate court unless they are erroneous or contrary to law - No substantial question of law involved - appeal dismissed - [Paras 1-20].

Civil Law - Second Appeal - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 100 - Power of High Court - The law is well settled that under Section 100 of CPC the High Court cannot interfere with findings of fact arrived at by the first appellate court which is the final court of facts - Exceptions exist only where findings are erroneous or contrary to mandatory provisions of law or based on inadmissible evidence - Held - High Court cannot substitute its opinion for that of the first appellate court unless the conclusions drawn are found to be perverse or based on no evidence - [Paras 14-19].

Civil Law - Injunction Simpliciter - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 100 - Possession - Suit for injunction simpliciter is concerned only with possession and the issue of title is not directly and substantially in issue - Finding of title cannot be recorded unless there are necessary pleadings and an appropriate issue regarding title - Plaintiffs established settled possession as on the date of suit through registered sale deeds and revenue entries - Defendants failed to produce evidence to prove that the sale deed was a nominal one or that the property was joint family property at the time of transaction - Held - Grant of permanent injunction restraining interference except under due process of law is legally sound - [Paras 16-18].

Decision: Second appeal dismissed – Concurrent findings of the lower courts affirmed – Each party to bear their own costs in the second appeal.

Criminal Law - Quashing of Proceedings - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Sections 397 401 and 482 - Petitioner a pharmaceutical company in Indore supplied goods to opposite party distributor in West Bengal - Dispute arose over outstanding payments of approximately 47 lakhs - Petitioner initiated Section 138 NI Act proceedings in Indore - Opposite party filed counter-complaint in Calcutta alleging cheating and criminal breach of trust after receiving summons - Magistrate took cognizance and issued process under Sections 406 420 120B IPC without conducting mandatory enquiry under Section 202 CrPC despite accused residing outside territorial jurisdiction - High Court observed the dispute was purely commercial involving breach of contract and quality of goods - Held - issuance of process was mechanical and dehors the settled law - allegations in the complaint even if taken at face value do not constitute a criminal offence - proceedings quashed to prevent abuse of process - [Paras 1-18].

Criminal Law - Mandatory Enquiry - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 202 - Specific Catchword - Mandatory enquiry for non-resident accused - Petitioner company based in Indore while complaint filed before Metropolitan Magistrate in Calcutta - Magistrate issued summons without conducting enquiry or investigation as mandated by the 2005 amendment to Section 202 - Purpose of the amendment is to prevent harassment of persons residing at far off places through false complaints - Use of the word shall in the provision makes it obligatory for the Magistrate to postpone issuance of process until enquiry is held - Held - failure to conduct mandatory enquiry for out-of-station accused vitiates the proceedings - [Paras 14-15].

Criminal Law - Cheating and Breach of Trust - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Sections 405 406 and 420 - Distinction between civil breach of contract and criminal offence - Allegations involved delivery of inferior quality medicines and non-settlement of dues - Record established existing business relationship since 2019 and payment of 25 lakhs by complainant towards outstanding dues - No evidence of fraudulent or dishonest inducement at the inception of the transaction - Criminal breach of trust requires entrustment and dishonest misappropriation - Mere failure to keep a promise or breach of contract does not ipso facto constitute a criminal offence - Held - the dispute is civil in nature for which civil remedies lie - criminal prosecution cannot be used for recovery of money or as a counter-blast to legitimate legal proceedings - [Paras 11-13].

Decision: Revisional application allowed – Proceedings in Case No. CS/51484 of 2022 pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate 10th Court Calcutta quashed.

Civil Law - Partition and Succession - Hindu Succession Act 1956 - Sections 6 and 8 - Intestate Succession - Appellants being the legally wedded wife and daughter of the deceased challenged the First Appellate Court judgment which reversed a trial court decree for partition and pension benefits - Deceased male Hindu was survived by a legally wedded wife and a daughter as well as a second wife with whom he maintained a 26 year long relationship and three children born of said union - A previous compromise decree resulted in the daughter relinquishing her 50 percent coparcenary share in ancestral properties in favour of her father - High Court found that the relinquishment converted the ancestral property into the self-acquired property of the father - Upon his intestate death in 2010 the properties became subject to the law of succession under Section 8 of the Act - Children from the second relationship being legitimate under Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 were entitled to shares on par with the daughter from the first marriage - Held - Legally wedded wife and daughter along with three children from the second relationship are each entitled to 1/5th share in Items 1 to 7 of the suit schedule properties - Item 8 found to be the self-acquired property of the second wife mother - appeal partly allowed - [Paras 1-45].

Civil Law - Family Pension - Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules 1980 - Rule 6(a)(i) - Distribution between Widows - Entitlement of a second wife in a void marriage to family pension benefits - Deceased government employee lived with the first respondent for over two decades and nominated her in official service records - The first appellant had lived separately for 26 years and did not care for the deceased during his terminal illness - Court relied on precedents to balance equities between the legally wedded wife and the second wife in social justice matters - Held - Legally wedded wife and the second wife who was the nominee are entitled to receive the monthly family pension in equal shares of 50 percent each - [Paras 30-44].

Civil Law - Compromise Decree - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 11 - Res Judicata - Effect of a compromise decree where a daughter relinquishes coparcenary rights in ancestral property to her father - High Court analyzed whether such relinquishment debars subsequent claims after the father intestate death - Held - Relinquishment made the property the self-acquired property of the father and his death created a fresh cause of action for his heirs to claim shares via succession - [Paras 17-21].

Evidence Law - Long Cohabitation - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 114 - Presumption of Marriage - Deceased lived with the first respondent from 1984 until 2010 and fathered three children - Official records and pension nominations identified the respondent as the wife - Held - While the second marriage was void due to the subsistence of the first marriage the long cohabitation and service records justify the distribution of pensionary benefits to the second wife to balance equities - [Paras 40-43].

Decision: Second Appeal partly allowed – Appellants and children of the second relationship (Respondents 2 to 4) each granted 1/5th share in Items 1 to 7 of the suit schedule property – Family pension to be shared equally between the first Appellant and the first Respondent – Parties to bear their own costs.

Criminal Law - Medical Negligence - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Section 338 – Quashing - Petitioner doctor faced prosecution for causing grievous hurt by a rash or negligent act during a Caesarean delivery - Complainant alleged the infant suffered a scalp injury due to mismanagement - Investigation resulted in a charge sheet filed before the completion of the Medical Council inquiry - West Bengal Medical Council subsequently opined that the scalp injury occurred inadvertently and was properly managed with the baby being discharged in satisfactory condition - Court observed that the standard for criminal negligence of a medical professional requires a high degree of negligence or rashness - Negligence cannot be attributed if the doctor performs duties with reasonable skill and follows an accepted medical practice - Held - No prima facie case of rashness or negligence was established to endanger human life - continuation of proceedings would be an abuse of process - proceedings quashed - [Paras 1-17].

Criminal Law - Quashing of Proceedings - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 482 - Guidelines for prosecuting medical professionals - Jacob Matthew versus State of Punjab followed - Private complaints against doctors should not be entertained unless supported by a credible opinion from another competent doctor - Investigating officers must obtain an independent medical opinion preferably from a government doctor before proceeding - In the present case the police submitted a charge sheet without considering the Medical Council's findings which exonerated the doctor - Held - The investigation was perfunctory as it failed to consider the statutory inquiry under the Bengal Medical Act 1914 - [Paras 11-15].

Criminal Law - Criminal Negligence vs Professional Negligence - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Section 338 - Difference between civil and criminal liability - Mens rea is an essential element for criminal negligence - A doctor is not liable for an error of judgment or for choosing one acceptable course of action over another - The fact that the complainant returned to the same doctor for a second delivery despite a previous minor injury incident manifest faith in the doctor - Held - To prosecute a professional for negligence it must be shown that they did something which no medical professional of ordinary senses and prudence would have done - [Paras 4-13].

Decision: CRR allowed – Proceedings in connection with C.G.R no. 1159 of 2016 arising out of Alipore Police Station case no. 82 of 2016 quashed – Petitioner discharged from bail bonds.