Criminal Procedure – Quashing of FIR – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Principles – Petitioner sought quashing of FIR alleging cheating and breach of trust – Contention that the dispute was purely civil in nature – High Court considered the necessity to prove fraudulent intention at the inception of the transaction for the offence of cheating to be made out – Emphasized the difference between breach of contract and criminal offence – Held that FIR could not be quashed at the investigation stage as allegations indicated prima facie commission of offence [Paras 1-15].

Cheating and Criminal Breach of Trust – Distinction from Civil Dispute – Complaint alleged that petitioner diverted loan amount for personal use – Court noted that mere civil proceedings do not preclude criminal liability if fraudulent intention is evident – Reference to cases highlighting necessity of intention to deceive from the beginning [Paras 4-10].

Inherent Powers of High Court – Scope and Limitations – Quashing FIR – Court highlighted principles for exercising inherent powers to quash FIR, stressing that such power should be used sparingly and in exceptional circumstances – Observed that prima facie evidence supporting allegations warranted continuation of investigation [Paras 11-15].

Decision: Petition to quash FIR dismissed – Court found no merit in petition, noting that further investigation was necessary to uncover the truth of the allegations – Emphasized the importance of allowing criminal proceedings to proceed to ensure justice and prevent abuse of process.

Property Law – Declaration of Title – Appeal against the judgment partially affirming the decision of the lower court – Plaintiff sought declaration of right, title, and interest and recovery of possession – Defendant admitted plaintiffs’ ownership of the land but claimed tenant rights – Trial and first appellate courts ruled in favor of the defendant based on lack of documentary evidence from the plaintiffs – Held, plaintiff failed to prove ownership despite defendant’s admission – Decision of lower courts upheld with specific directions for detailed assessment of tenancy status and property possession [Paras 1-35].

Burden of Proof – Admission by Defendant – Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act – Defendant’s admission regarding ownership insufficient to grant declaration of title without corroborative evidence – Admission can establish facts not requiring proof but does not eliminate the necessity of proving ownership claims – Held, admission by defendant alone not adequate for a decree of ownership without supporting documentary evidence [Paras 28-32].

Tenancy Rights – Eviction – Assam (Temporarily Settled Areas) Tenancy Act, 1971 – Defendant claimed tenancy rights under the Act, contested eviction – Court reviewed compliance with statutory pre-conditions for eviction – Held, defendant’s tenancy status not conclusively established, eviction ordered based on factual findings and inconsistencies in defendant’s claim [Paras 17, 24-26].

Procedure – Local Commission under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC – Court considered need for local commission to ascertain factual details of property – Ruled unnecessary due to clear admission of property identity in pleadings – Relief granted for eviction based on existing evidence [Paras 15, 32].

 Decision:   

Appeal allowed – Plaintiffs granted relief of eviction against the defendant from Schedule B land – Matter remanded for fresh assessment of tenancy status and property possession – Directions issued for proper evaluation and compliance with procedural requirements for eviction under tenancy laws [Paras 33-35].

Service Law - Judicial Review – Departmental Enquiry – Second Enquiry Not Permissible – Petitioner challenged the initiation of a second disciplinary enquiry on the same charges after the first enquiry was completed – Court held that a second enquiry is impermissible under law if the first enquiry decided the allegations on merits – Second enquiry deemed void [Paras 14-16].

Natural Justice – Cross-Examination – Violation – Petitioner was denied the opportunity to cross-examine key witnesses during the second enquiry – Court emphasized the importance of cross-examination to ensure a fair trial – Inquiry conducted without allowing cross-examination held to violate principles of natural justice [Paras 17-20].

Personal Hearing – Decision Making – Decision of Board of Directors challenged as it was made by members who did not hear the petitioner personally – Court held that the authority that hears the arguments must be the same authority to pass the decision – Decision made by members who did not hear the petitioner deemed invalid [Paras 21-26].

Delay in Disciplinary Proceedings – Prejudice – Court noted the 14-year delay in completing the disciplinary proceedings caused significant prejudice to the petitioner, including mental distress and financial loss – Delay attributed to the Opposite Party [Paras 29-30].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Impugned order of compulsory retirement set aside – Opp. Party directed to settle retirement dues and pay interest on delayed payments – Proceedings deemed legally untenable due to multiple violations of natural justice [Paras 31-33].

Civil Procedure – Recovery on Promissory Notes – Defendant appealed against trial court’s decree in favor of the plaintiff for recovery of sums due on two promissory notes – Defendant claimed notes were forged and plaintiff lacked capacity to lend – Trial court’s judgment upheld, appeal dismissed – Defendant’s plea that her name was misstated as Saroja instead of Sarojamma found baseless – Evidence confirmed that defendant signed as Saroja in various official documents [Paras 1-20].

Burden of Proof – Negotiable Instruments – Trial court properly applied presumption under Section 118(a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act – Plaintiff demonstrated execution of promissory notes and capacity to lend – Defendant failed to rebut presumption or provide substantive evidence against consideration – Apex Court precedents emphasized presumption of consideration unless adequately disproved by defendant [Paras 12-18].

Defendant’s Identity and Signature – Plea of Forgery – Defendant’s contention regarding incorrect name and forgery dismissed – Documentary evidence confirmed defendant’s use of the name Saroja – Scribe of promissory notes corroborated plaintiff’s case, while defendant failed to present credible counter-evidence [Paras 16-17].

Decision:

Appeal dismissed – Decree and judgment of the trial court affirmed – No costs awarded – Miscellaneous petitions closed [Paras 19-20].

Electricity Regulation – Limitation – Refund of Excess Charges – Petitioner (MSEDCL) challenged CGRF orders directing refund of excess AEC and FAC charged – Contention that claims were barred by limitation – High Court held that the cause of action arose upon MERC’s clarification order and complaint filed within two years was timely – Regulation 6.6 of MERC Regulations was held to be directory, not mandatory – Appeal dismissed [Paras 61-70].

Regulation Compliance – Refund of Excess AEC and FAC – MERC orders permitted AEC and FAC recovery within specific periods – MSEDCL recovered charges outside permitted periods – High Court upheld CGRF’s order for refund with interest for excess recovery – Emphasized adherence to regulatory orders and consumer protection [Paras 43-50].

Interest on Refund – Applicability of Section 62(6) of Electricity Act – CGRF directed refund with interest for non-compliance of MERC orders – High Court affirmed, noting failure to comply with MERC directions justified interest under Section 62(6) [Paras 52-55].

CGRF Jurisdiction and Procedure – Reasoned Orders – MSEDCL contended CGRF did not provide reasoned findings – High Court found CGRF orders sufficiently detailed, supported by regulations and evidence – Rejected claims of unjust enrichment by respondents [Paras 56-60].

Decision:

Writ Petitions Dismissed – CGRF orders directing MSEDCL to refund excess AEC and FAC charges with interest upheld – Court stayed judgment for eight weeks to allow appeal** [Paras 75-77].

Criminal Law – Conviction – Appeal – Validity of Evidence – Appellant convicted for repeated rape and criminal intimidation of step-daughter, aged 12, leading to pregnancy – Defense argued on grounds of improbable prosecution narrative, unreliable evidence, delay in FIR, and manipulated documents – Prosecution relied on consistent and corroborated testimonies, medical evidence, and timely police action – Conviction upheld [Paras 1-17].

Sexual Offenses – Minor Victim – Testimonies and Corroborative Evidence – Victim’s detailed account of abuse supported by mother’s testimony and medical confirmation of pregnancy – Delay in FIR deemed reasonable under circumstances – Appellant’s behavior patterns supported credibility of allegations – Court found no merit in arguments of unreliable evidence or manipulated documents [Paras 12-16].

Preventive Measures – DNA Test – Considerations for Victim’s Safety – Inquiry on absence of DNA test during pregnancy – Prosecution cited risks to victim and fetus – Court found explanation reasonable, emphasizing safety and well-being of victim and unborn child [Para 16].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence confirmed – Prosecution successfully proved the case beyond reasonable doubt [Para 17].

Criminal Procedure – Section 133 Cr.P.C. – Dismissal of Petition for Non-Prosecution – Revision Petition against dismissal of a petition to prevent obstruction of a road – Petitioner claimed the date of hearing was mistakenly noted as 22.09.2023 instead of 22.08.2023 – Court held that the plea of a mistaken date is inherently improbable and unsupported by evidence – Emphasized the statutory obligation under Section 138 Cr.P.C. to record evidence when cause is shown by the respondent – Held, the petitioner failed to produce evidence or appear, thus, the Magistrate was justified in dismissing the petition [Paras 1-14].

Decision: Petition Dismissed – Held – Dismissal of the petition by the Sub Divisional Magistrate was upheld – No infirmity found in the order – Petitioner’s failure to appear or produce evidence on the date fixed warranted the dismissal for non-prosecution [Paras 14-16].

Banking Law – Declaration of Fraud – Petitioner challenged the classification as 'fraud' by the respondent bank – Argument that such classification must be based on a majority rule among consortium banks with at least 60% share in the total lending as per RBI guidelines – Earlier Show Cause Notice quashed for non-supply of documents and lack of hearing – Petitioner's classification as 'fraud' set aside for lack of jurisdiction and procedural irregularities – Directions to file a report with RBI and CBI/Police without prejudice to the rights of the parties [Paras 1-12].

RBI Master Directions – Jurisdictional Requirements – Emphasized that individual banks can independently audit accounts but cannot unilaterally declare an account as 'fraud' without consortium majority consent – Respondent bank’s failure to follow this directive renders the classification invalid [Paras 8-11].

Due Process – Requirement of Hearing – Highlighted the necessity of providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before adverse classification – Failure to adhere to due process resulted in quashing of the impugned order [Paras 8-10].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Held – Impugned order quashing the classification of the petitioner as 'fraud' set aside – Interim relief granted to the petitioner pending final adjudication – Directions for compliance with RBI guidelines and procedural fairness in future actions [Para 11].

Motor Vehicle Accident – Claim under Section 163A – Entitlement of Legal Representatives – Appeal against the Tribunal’s order denying compensation under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act – Tribunal held the insurance company not liable as the deceased was riding the vehicle owned by his father – High Court converted the claim to Section 166 considering negligence – Compensation awarded with future prospects and general damages [Paras 1-24].

Liability of Insurance Company – Driving by Deceased – Insurance company contended policy did not cover the owner driving the vehicle – High Court noted the insured’s son, as a third party, entitled to claim – Compensation assessed under Section 166 for just compensation [Paras 13-20].

Determination of Compensation – Multiplier Method – Future Prospects – Compensation calculated using the multiplier method – 40% added for future prospects – Deduction for personal expenses at 50% as the deceased was a bachelor – General damages for loss of estate, funeral expenses, and pain and suffering enhanced by 20% since 2017 [Paras 21-22].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Compensation of Rs. 6,88,800/- awarded with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim application till deposit – Respondent insurance company directed to deposit the amount within six weeks – Tribunal judgment set aside [Paras 24-29].