Criminal Law – Rape on the False Promise of Marriage – Prima Facie Evidence – Discharge Application Dismissed – Accused allegedly had sexual intercourse with the victim repeatedly on the false promise of marriage, persuaded her to send explicit photographs, and later retracted the promise – Special Court held that consent, if any, was vitiated under Section 90 IPC, as it was obtained on the basis of a false promise – Supreme Court precedents reiterated: Consent under false pretenses is not valid consent – Held: Sufficient prima facie evidence existed to proceed with trial under Sections 376(2)(n) and (f) IPC – Revision petition dismissed [Paras 3, 6, 8, 9].

Scope of Discharge – Section 227 Cr.P.C. – Limited to Prosecution Records – Accused contended that a complaint by the victim to the Yuvajana Commission, admitting consensual relations, was ignored by the Special Court – High Court held: At the discharge stage, the court must restrict itself to the materials placed by the prosecution and cannot consider evidence produced by the accused – Non-consideration of the document justified – Special Court’s dismissal of discharge application upheld [Paras 6, 10, 11].

Principles of Framing Charges – Prima Facie Case – Judicial Examination at Discharge Stage – High Court reiterated: At the stage of framing charges under Section 228 Cr.P.C., the court must evaluate whether materials placed on record disclose a prima facie case, without delving into the probative value of evidence – Even strong suspicion is sufficient to proceed to trial – Held: The Special Court applied the correct legal principles and rightly concluded that the materials on record disclosed a prima facie case to frame charges [Paras 7, 8].

Promise of Marriage – Vitiation of Consent – Section 90 IPC – Victim’s consent was allegedly obtained under a false promise of marriage, which the accused later retracted – High Court held: Consent obtained by deception regarding marriage is vitiated under Section 90 IPC – Prima facie evidence sufficient to establish that sexual intercourse was non-consensual under law – Application for discharge was rightly rejected [Paras 3, 8].

Judicial Precedent – Reaffirmation of Discharge Principles – Relying on Sheoroj Singh Ahlawat v. State of U.P., (2013) 11 SCC 476, and Sandeep G. v. State of Kerala, (2024 SCC OnLine KER 3564), High Court reiterated: At the discharge stage, the court must presume the prosecution’s materials to be true and evaluate whether there are sufficient grounds to proceed with the trial – Special Court’s decision consistent with settled legal principles [Paras 6–8].

Decision: Criminal revision petition dismissed – High Court upheld the Special Court’s order refusing discharge of the accused under Section 227 Cr.P.C. – Special Court directed to proceed with the trial [Paras 12–13].
 

Eviction Notice - Town Planning – Eviction Under MRTP Act – Rights of Tenants in Redevelopment – Petitioners, long-term occupants of commercial premises, challenged their eviction due to road widening – The Court reiterated that tenants do not have the right to challenge eviction notices under the MRTP Act; only the landlord (owner) can challenge such actions – Held: Petitioners have no right to challenge the Town Planning Scheme; their only remedy lies against their landlord [Paras 9-10].

Public Interest and Implementation of Town Planning Schemes – No Right to Stall Public Projects – The road widening project (18.30 meters) was notified in 2009, but the Petitioners stalled its implementation for over seven years by filing petitions – The Court strongly criticized the delay, stating that private interests cannot override public development projects – Held: Town Planning Schemes are meant for public benefit, and Petitioners cannot indefinitely obstruct them [Paras 12-13].

Claim of Tenancy – Lack of Documentary Evidence – Encroachment Allegations – Petitioners failed to produce tenancy agreements or rent receipts – Respondent No. 3 (Trust) denied their tenancy claims, alleging that they were encroachers running commercial businesses without permission – The Court observed that the Petitioners had no documentary proof of legal tenancy and were allegedly subletting the premises without authorization – Held: In the absence of tenancy proof, Petitioners cannot seek rehabilitation rights over the alternate plot [Para 10].

Alternate Accommodation – Petitioners’ Demand for Rehabilitation on Trust’s New Plot – Legal Standing – Petitioners sought allotment of Plot No. 232(A) in lieu of their existing premises, arguing that their tenancy should transfer to the new plot – The Court noted that Respondent No. 3 (Trust) had already been allotted the alternate plot, and tenants cannot automatically claim rehabilitation unless provided by law – Held: Petitioners have no legal claim over the alternate plot; their rights (if any) are against their landlord, not the municipal authorities [Para 11].

Delay in Challenging Eviction Notices – No Justification for Long Litigation – The eviction notices were issued in July 2016, yet Petitioners delayed legal proceedings for years – The Court criticized the prolonged litigation as a deliberate attempt to prevent public road development – Held: Delaying tactics in public projects should not be encouraged; eviction must proceed immediately [Paras 12-13].

Dismissal of Writ Petitions – Summary Eviction Under MRTP Act Upheld – The Court referred to Vivek Krushna Dode v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 BHC-AS 2854-DB, which held that tenants cannot challenge eviction under the MRTP Act – The Court also cited Anandrao G. Pawar v. MCGM, 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 2534, reaffirming that demolition of a tenanted building does not extinguish tenancy rights but must be pursued separately – Held: Eviction notices under Sections 88, 89, and 90 of the MRTP Act are legally valid and enforceable [Paras 9-10].

Decision: Writ Petitions Dismissed – Eviction Orders Upheld – No Relief Granted – The Court held that Petitioners had no legal basis to challenge the eviction notices or demand alternate accommodation – Their claims were purely against their landlord (Trust), not against the municipal authorities – The Interim Application No. 11643 of 2024 was also dismissed [Paras 14-18].
 

Quashing of FIR – Section 17-A of Prevention of Corruption Act – Procedural Safeguard – Accused as Municipal Commissioner challenged FIR alleging malafides and non-application of mind during approval under Section 17-A – Held: Approval under Section 17-A must be substantive, not ritualistic, requiring application of mind to the materials presented – Court found lack of incriminating evidence and misuse of Section 17-A – FIR quashed [Paras 22-38].

Frivolous or Malicious Proceedings – Guidelines in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal – FIR in Public Servant Decisions – Allegations relating to contracts for municipal services during floods and public health measures – No prima facie evidence produced, prosecution failed to substantiate charges despite seven years of investigation – FIR was found frivolous and vexatious, quashed by Court [Paras 11-13, 37].

Role of Section 17-A PCA – Procedural and Substantive Nature – Approval for Investigation – Section 17-A ensures protection for bonafide public decisions – Court noted improper application of mind by authority granting approval for investigation, undermining legislative intent of Section 17-A – FIR quashed for failure to adhere to statutory safeguards [Paras 20-24].

Evaluation of Malafides – Allegations of Blackmail by Complainant – FIR Initiated by Professional Blackmailer – Petitioners placed materials highlighting personal vendetta – Held: Court recognized the malicious intent of complainant and misuse of legal process – FIR quashed [Paras 6.1-6.2, 30.4].

Decision: FIR No. 2 of 2023 quashed for lack of evidentiary support, procedural infirmities under Section 17-A PCA, and malicious intent of complainant – Petition allowed.
 

Civil Law - Trust Dispute – Removal of Trustees – Absence and Misconduct – Injunction Sustained - Appellants removed as trustees for non-attendance and alleged criminal acts – Court found prima facie justification for removal based on trust deed clauses – Held: Injunction warranted to prevent further harm to trust and its educational institutions [Paras 4, 20, 30-31].

Territorial Jurisdiction – Office Shifted by Resolution – Trial Court Jurisdiction Valid - Though original trust deed located trust in Birbhum, Board resolved in 2014 to operate from Kolkata – Key meetings, including removal, held in Kolkata – Held: Trial court rightly assumed jurisdiction [Paras 13, 16-17].

Notice of Meetings – Disputed Service – Factual Issue for Trial - Appellants denied receiving notice of meetings used to justify removal – Court held this issue requires trial and cannot be conclusively decided at injunction stage [Paras 5, 18, 27].

Trust Fund Mismanagement – Prima Facie Case of Misappropriation – Public Interest Considered - Allegations of forged resolutions, hijacking official email, and misuse of bank accounts found in meeting records and FIR – Court upheld injunction to protect students’ interests and trust assets [Paras 20-22, 25, 31].

Trust Deed Clauses – Removal for Non-Attendance and Detriment – Proper Procedure Followed - Trust deed allowed removal for three consecutive absences or detrimental conduct by two-thirds majority – Court found these requirements satisfied prima facie [Paras 29-30].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Injunction Affirmed - Injunction restraining appellants from trust administration and operating bank accounts upheld – Appeal and connected application dismissed [Paras 32-34].

Preventive Detention – Subjective Satisfaction of Detaining Authority – Judicial Review – Detention Order Quashed – The detaining authority failed to establish a live and proximate link between the grounds of detention and the alleged activities of the detenue – Subjective satisfaction was vitiated due to lack of material evidence and application of mind – Decision: Detention quashed, detenue released [Paras 13, 20, 24].

Grounds of Detention – Vagueness and Ambiguity – Constitutional Safeguards Violated – Held: Grounds of detention lacked specificity, rendering them vague and irrelevant – Non-disclosure of material relied upon by the authority violated the detenue’s right to make an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution – Decision: Detention order set aside [Paras 19, 21-23].

Health Grounds – Preventive Detention and Medical Needs – Constitutional Safeguards Ignored – The detenue’s health condition, including a chronic medical ailment, was overlooked by the detaining authority – Failure to consider medical grounds amounted to a constitutional violation – Decision: Detention order quashed; detenue released [Paras 7, 23].

Role of Advisory Board – Duty to Conduct Independent Review – Held: The Advisory Board failed to provide an independent review of the detention order, reducing its role to a mere formality – Such actions violate constitutional protections – Decision: Detention quashed [Paras 18, 20].

Relevant Material – Non-Disclosure – Constitutional Violation – Non-supply of documents relied upon by the detaining authority invalidated the detenue’s opportunity for an effective representation – Held: Failure to supply essential material violated Article 22(5) – Decision: Detention quashed; immediate release ordered [Paras 21-23].

Decision: The detention order issued under the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978, was quashed on grounds of non-application of mind, vagueness in allegations, and failure to adhere to constitutional safeguards. The Court ordered the immediate release of the detenue unless required in any other case.
 

Civil Law - Export Credit – Interpretation of Maximum Tenure – Paragraph 1.1.2(ii) of the Master Circular – Partial Relief Granted - The Borrowers challenged the reversal of subvention on export credit due to delays in submitting export documents despite fulfilling export obligations within the stipulated period of 450 days. Held: Submission of export documents is a procedural requirement aimed at proving exports. A minor delay in submission does not disqualify the advances as "export credit" when the export obligation is fulfilled within the prescribed period. [Paras 43-47, 56].

Subvention Reversal – Validity of Banking Ombudsman’s Decision – Set Aside for First Lot; Upheld for Second Lot - For the First Lot of export transactions, where exports were effected within 450 days, the reversal of subvention was held to be unjustified. For the Second Lot, where exports did not materialize within 450 days, the reversal of subvention and reclassification of advances as domestic credit were upheld. [Paras 50-56, 62-63].

Beneficial Instruments – Purposive Interpretation of Master Circular – Relief Granted for Procedural Lapses - The Court emphasized that the Master Circular is a regulatory instrument promoting export competitiveness and must be interpreted in letter and spirit to fulfill its objective. Procedural delays in document submission should not undermine the substantive compliance of export obligations. [Paras 23, 47, 55].

Rule of Compliance – Strict vs. Substantial – Beneficial Instruments - Distinguishing between strict compliance (exports within 450 days) and substantial compliance (delayed submission of documents proving exports), the Court held that substantial compliance suffices to uphold the advances as "export credit." [Paras 43, 66-67].

Decision of the Court – The reversal of subvention for the First Lot was set aside, and the Borrowers were entitled to the benefits under the Subvention Scheme. However, the reversal for the Second Lot was upheld due to failure to effect exports within the stipulated period. Directions issued for recalibration of accounts and compliance by the Bank. [Paras 72(a)-(l)].
 

Civil - Partition Law – Final Decree – Termination of Suit – Petitioners sought amendment of the preliminary decree in a partition suit post-final decree, invoking the retrospective effect of Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma – Held: A partition suit terminates with the passing of the final decree engrossed on requisite stamp paper – Once the final decree is passed, no further orders, including modification of shares, can be entertained by the trial court [Paras 7-11, 21].

Hindu Succession Act – Rights of Coparceners – Limitation of Retrospective Application – Retrospective application of amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, is restricted to cases where the final decree has not been passed – Court emphasized that the partition is completed only when the final decree is drawn up and properties are divided by metes and bounds – Held: Petitioners cannot claim enlargement of shares under amended Section 6 post-final decree [Paras 12-19].

Execution Proceedings – Delivery of Property – Impact on Partition Suit – Petitioners argued that the partition suit remains pending as delivery of possession of properties had not occurred – Court clarified that delivery of possession is a matter for execution proceedings and does not affect the finality of the suit – Held: Partition suit is concluded upon passing of the final decree and engrossing it on requisite stamp paper [Paras 22-28].

Role of Preliminary Decree – Amendment Pre-Final Decree – A preliminary decree in a partition suit is interim in character and can be modified before the final decree – Court reiterated that subsequent legislative changes or intervening events can affect shares only before the final decree is passed – Held: Petitioners failed to act before the final decree, and their rights cannot now be reopened [Paras 12-18].

Decision: Revision dismissed – Final decree upheld – Petitioners cannot seek enlargement of shares post-final decree – Suit considered terminated upon passing and engrossing of the final decree [Paras 29].
 

Electrocution – Negligence of Power Department – Compensation Awarded – The victim, aged eight at the time of the incident, suffered severe burns and amputation due to contact with an uncovered 11KV electric wire. The appellants admitted that the victim came into contact with a live wire but argued that he was at fault. Held, it was the duty of the Power Department to ensure public safety, and failure to insulate or secure the transformer amounted to negligence, making them liable for compensation [Paras 6-12].

Government Compensation Scheme – Not a Bar to Judicial Compensation – The appellants relied on Government Order No. 454-F of 2019, which prescribes ex-gratia relief of Rs. 7.5 lakhs for total disability and Rs. 2 lakhs for partial disability. Held, ex-gratia schemes cannot prevent constitutional courts from awarding just compensation to victims of state negligence. Compensation must be determined based on facts and the extent of disability, beyond statutory ex-gratia amounts [Paras 11-12].

No Contributory Negligence by Minor – The victim was eight years old at the time of the incident. Under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, a child below seven years is incapable of committing a crime, and similar principles of incapacity apply under civil law. The doctrine of volenti non fit injuria does not apply to minors. Held, the minor’s actions cannot absolve the appellants of liability [Paras 12-13].

Quantum of Compensation – Based on Disability and Future Needs – The victim suffered 78% disability, including amputation and severe burns. The Writ Court awarded Rs. 20 lakhs in compensation without itemizing heads. The Supreme Court’s principles in Kajal v. Jagdish Chand, (2020) 4 SCC 413, for determining compensation in motor accident cases were applied. Held, considering medical expenses, pain and suffering, loss of future earnings, and cost of an artificial limb, the awarded compensation was reasonable and not excessive [Paras 14-15].

Delay in Filing Writ Petition – Explained and Justified – The incident occurred in 2007, and the writ petition was filed in 2018. The victim, a minor at the time, began pursuing his claim after attaining majority. Held, delay and laches cannot be a ground for rejection when the delay is satisfactorily explained, and the victim was legally incapacitated as a minor [Para 15].

Decision: The appeal is dismissed, and the judgment of the Writ Court is upheld. The Power Development Department is directed to pay Rs. 20 lakhs to the victim along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the writ petition until realization. The court holds that state authorities must ensure public safety and compensate victims fairly in cases of negligence.
 

Criminal Law - Murder Conviction – Circumstantial and Direct Evidence – Appeal Dismissed – The appellants were convicted for the murder of Gehal Singh based on eyewitness accounts and corroborative evidence – The prosecution witnesses, including the deceased’s son, consistently deposed that accused Hira Singh inflicted fatal injuries with a spade while co-accused Jasbir Kaur restrained the victim – The post-mortem confirmed sharp-edged injuries consistent with the weapon recovered at Hira Singh’s instance – Held: Minor discrepancies in testimonies do not affect the credibility of the prosecution’s case – The presence of the eyewitnesses was natural and their testimony was supported by medical and forensic evidence – Conviction upheld [Paras 3-8, 13-17].

Reliability of Child Witness – No Mandatory Corroboration Required – Testimony Accepted – The defense challenged the reliability of Phuman Singh (PW-7), a 10-year-old eyewitness – Held: A child witness’s testimony can be accepted if found credible and not tutored – In this case, Phuman Singh’s presence at the crime scene was natural, and his testimony was consistent with other prosecution witnesses – Courts have upheld child witness testimonies if they withstand scrutiny and show no signs of tutoring – Conviction sustained based on corroborated testimony of PW-7 [Paras 14-17].

Delay in FIR Registration – Not Fatal to Prosecution Case – The FIR was lodged approximately 8 hours after the incident – The defense argued that this delay indicated fabrication – Held: The delay was justified as the key eyewitnesses, being elderly and in shock, waited until morning to approach the police – Courts have held that delay in filing an FIR does not automatically vitiate the prosecution’s case unless there is proof of deliberation and false implication – No such evidence existed here – Conviction upheld [Paras 18-19].

Motive for Murder – Illicit Relationship Between Accused – Established Beyond Doubt – The prosecution established that Jasbir Kaur and Hira Singh were in an illicit relationship, leading to the murder of Gehal Singh – Witnesses confirmed that the deceased had objected to their relationship before his death – Held: Motive was clear and consistent with the circumstances – While motive alone cannot sustain a conviction, its presence reinforced the prosecution’s case – Appeal dismissed [Paras 20-21].

Concurrent Findings of Fact – Limited Scope for Interference – No Substantial Question of Law – Appeal Dismissed – The trial court and first appellate court arrived at consistent findings based on direct and circumstantial evidence – Held: High Court will not interfere with concurrent factual findings unless they are perverse or manifestly erroneous – The conviction was based on sound legal principles and reliable evidence – Appeal dismissed, and accused directed to surrender for serving their remaining sentence [Paras 21-22].