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was that the company was initially made a party, but due to non-appearance, the prosecution against the company was withdrawn erroneously by the Trial Court, leading to the acquittal of the other accused persons [Paras 1-20].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].

Criminal Law – Externment Order – Petitioner challenged the externment order issued by the District Magistrate under Section 3(3) of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002 – Contended that involvement in two criminal cases does not justify being labeled as a habitual offender – High Court held that mere involvement in two cases does not constitute habitual offending under Section 2(d)(i) of the Act – Previous order quashing similar externment for lack of substantial grounds was reiterated – Held that authorities must provide clear evidence of habitual criminal behavior for such orders [Paras 1-24].

Procedure under Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act – Requirement for Detailed Grounds – High Court emphasized that orders of externment must be based on concrete evidence and detailed reasoning – Highlighted the importance of adherence to procedural safeguards and substantive grounds before curtailing personal liberty [Paras 14-20].

Alternative Remedies and Judicial Discretion – Discussed the non-absoluteness of alternative remedy requirement in writ petitions – Highlighted judicial discretion in entertaining petitions under Article 226 even when statutory alternatives exist, especially when fundamental rights are implicated [Paras 21-23].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Held – Externment order set aside – High Court mandated proper procedural adherence and substantiation of habitual behavior in future cases of externment [Paras 24-25].

Criminal Law – Bail Application – Judicial Custody – Applicant accused of forgery and conspiracy – Bail granted under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. considering absence of prior convictions and judicial custody since 29.09.2023 – Co-accused granted bail earlier – Conditions imposed for regular attendance in court and non-interference with witnesses [Paras 1-7].

Forgery – Examination of False Documents – Prosecution alleges forged sale deeds for vacant lands and substitution of original documents in the Sub-Registrar Office – Forensic Science Laboratory report deemed inconclusive by defense – Regular bail granted on conditions [Paras 3-6].

Decision: Bail Application Allowed – Applicant to be released on bail upon furnishing personal bond and sureties, subject to conditions of court attendance and non-inducement of witnesses [Paras 7-9].
 

Service Law – Disciplinary Proceedings – Dismissal from Service – Challenge to Orders – Petitioners challenged their dismissal from service and subsequent rejection of appeals and revision petitions – Allegations included involvement in theft, neglect of duty, and misconduct – Inquiry officer exonerated petitioners of most charges except for neglect of duty – Disciplinary authority disagreed with inquiry officer, issued show cause notices, and eventually dismissed petitioners – High Court upheld disciplinary authority’s decisions as compliant with principles of natural justice and procedural law [Paras 1-22].

Scope of Judicial Review in Disciplinary Actions – Limited Interference – High Court reiterated limited scope of interference in disciplinary proceedings under Article 226 – Interference warranted only for procedural lapses or violation of principles of natural justice – Petitioners failed to demonstrate any such lapses – Evidence of record supported disciplinary authority’s decision [Paras 16-18].

Delay and Laches – Writ Petitions Dismissed on Grounds of Delay – Significant delay in filing writ petitions without satisfactory explanation – High Court dismissed writ petitions citing principles of delay and laches – Reference to several Supreme Court judgments emphasizing prompt action in seeking judicial relief [Paras 18-20].

Effect of Acquittal in Criminal Case on Departmental Proceedings – High Court noted that acquittal in criminal case does not automatically impact departmental proceedings – Different standards of proof apply – Petitioners did not seek reconsideration from disciplinary authorities post-acquittal – Liberty granted to petitioners to file representation for reconsideration based on acquittal [Paras 17, 21].

Decision: Writ Petitions dismissed – Impugned orders of dismissal upheld – Liberty granted to petitioners to seek reconsideration from respondents in light of acquittal in criminal case [Para 22].

Service Law – Reduction of Pay Scale and Recovery of Excess Payment – Petitioner retired as Senior Manager, sought quashment of post-retirement order reducing pay scale and directing recovery – High Court emphasized principle of natural justice, holding reduction without notice invalid – Relied on Supreme Court precedent protecting retirees from undue recovery – Order quashed, direction issued for refund of any recovered amount [Paras 1-11].

Principle of Natural Justice – Requirement of Notice and Hearing – Impugned order reducing pay scale and directing recovery issued without notice or show-cause – Held in violation of natural justice – Cited Supreme Court ruling in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), impermissibility of recovery from retired employees or those close to retirement [Paras 4-6].

Promotion and Seniority – Delay and Discrimination – Petitioner’s promotion delayed due to administrative lapses, resulting in discriminatory treatment compared to similarly situated persons – High Court acknowledged past orders directing notional promotion and corrected seniority – Non-compliance by respondents noted, further delay unjustified [Paras 2-3, 6].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Impugned order dated 01.06.2020 quashed – Respondents directed to refund any recovered amount, restore petitioner’s pay scale as per earlier orders – Emphasized need for procedural fairness in administrative actions affecting employees’ financial rights [Paras 8-11].

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.
 

Maintenance – Restoration of Application – Family Court dismissed restoration application after maintenance petition was dismissed for non-prosecution – Petitioners argued no lack of diligence on their part – Court examined whether Family Court retained jurisdiction to recall orders in maintenance cases [Paras 1-11].

Section 125 Cr.P.C. – Magistrate's Jurisdiction – Statutory provisions indicate Magistrate may pass orders from time to time – Magistrate not functus officio post-final order in maintenance cases – Maintenance orders intended to provide immediate relief and prevent destitution [Paras 17-20, 37-38].

Section 362 Cr.P.C. – Embargo on Altering Judgments – Relaxation in maintenance proceedings – Family Court can entertain recall applications in maintenance cases under Sections 125-127 Cr.P.C. – Embargo of Section 362 Cr.P.C. does not apply strictly in maintenance cases due to their social welfare objective [Paras 21-23, 43-44].

Decision – Petition Allowed – Order by Family Court set aside – Matter remitted for fresh decision on restoration application – Emphasis on beneficent and purposive interpretation of maintenance provisions to achieve social justice [Paras 45-48].

Property Law – Ownership and Possession – Plaintiffs claimed ownership of disputed property through sale-deeds, sought declaration and permanent injunction – Trial court decreed in favor of plaintiffs – Defendants claimed property was state-owned, reserved for Kumbh Mela, and not identifiable – Appeal dismissed, trial court’s decree upheld, plaintiffs held to be rightful owners in possession [Paras 1-39].

Evidentiary Standards – Commission Reports and Boundaries – Plaintiffs provided sale-deeds with clear boundaries, supported by Commission reports and Survey Commissioner’s report – Defendants failed to prove claims of state ownership or that property was unsettled land – Court emphasized preponderance of probabilities standard, upheld plaintiffs’ evidence [Paras 20-37].

Procedural Defenses – Defendants’ objections under Section 15 of the Uttar Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act and Order 7 Rule 11 CPC rejected – Court found no procedural bar to the suit – Detailed analysis of property records and witness testimonies confirmed plaintiffs’ claims [Paras 15-19, 32-36].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – High Court confirmed the plaintiffs’ ownership and possession of disputed property – Defendants’ appeal found without merit, trial court’s judgment and decree affirmed [Paras 38-39].
 

Criminal Law – Unauthorized Abortion – Conviction under Section 314 IPC – Appellant accused of conducting an abortion leading to the death of the victim – Trial court’s conviction based on witness testimony and medical evidence – Appeal filed under Section 374 Cr.P.C. challenging conviction and sentence – High Court upheld the conviction but modified the sentence considering the appellant’s age, lack of criminal antecedents, and societal position [Paras 1-11].

Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 – Application of Section 4 – Appellant’s request for probation based on her first offence, poor socio-economic background, and the trauma of prolonged trial – State counsel did not object to the application of probation – High Court granted probation, releasing the appellant on a bond of good conduct for two years with conditions [Paras 12-20].

Decision – Appeal partly allowed – Conviction affirmed but sentence modified – Appellant released on probation for two years with specific conditions and directed to deposit the fine imposed by the trial court – Failure to comply with conditions would result in the execution of the original sentence [Para 21].