Sexual Offences – Stalking and Sexual Harassment – Ingredients of Offence – Proof Required – Accused convicted under Sections 354A and 354D IPC and Section 12 PoCSO Act – High Court examined whether alleged acts constituted statutory ingredients of sexual harassment and stalking – Held: Mere abusive language, quarrel or threat without sexually coloured remarks, sexual overtures or sexual intent does not attract Section 354A IPC – Prosecution evidence failed to disclose any act falling under clauses (i) to (iv) of Section 354A IPC [Paras 21–22].

PoCSO Act – Sexual Harassment of Child – Sexual Intent – Proof of Minority – Conviction recorded under Section 12 PoCSO Act – Prosecution failed to conclusively establish that victim was a minor on the date of incident – School records based solely on parental disclosure without verification – No birth certificate or independent proof of age produced – Victim and father unable to state date of birth – Held: Minority not proved beyond reasonable doubt – Absence of sexual intent further negated applicability of Sections 11 and 12 PoCSO Act [Paras 18–19, 23–24].

Stalking – Section 354D IPC – Repeated Following – Credibility of Evidence – Allegation of repeated following and harassment for several months – Material contradictions between testimonies of victim (PW2), sister (PW3) and father (PW4) – Father did not support prosecution case and resiled from earlier statement – Monetary dispute between families admitted – Held: Inconsistent and unreliable evidence insufficient to sustain conviction for stalking – Ingredients of Section 354D IPC not proved beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 25–27].

Evidence – Hostile / Resiling Witness – Scope of Section 154 Evidence Act – Father of victim examined by prosecution with leave of Court under Section 154 Evidence Act after resiling from earlier statement – Court reiterated that permission under Section 154 does not amount to declaration of witness as “hostile” nor does it automatically render testimony unreliable – However, in present case, even after such examination, prosecution failed to extract material supporting charged offences [Paras 20–20.2, 27].

Criminal Trial – Benefit of Doubt – Failure to Prove Essential Ingredients – Prosecution evidence indicated that some incident or quarrel may have occurred – However, alleged acts at best suggested use of abusive language or intimidation – Accused not charged for offence of criminal intimidation – Court held that in absence of proof of essential ingredients of charged offences, conviction cannot be sustained – Accused entitled to benefit of doubt [Paras 26–27].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 354A, 354D IPC and Section 12 PoCSO Act set aside – Appellant acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. – Bail bonds cancelled – Appellant set at liberty – Pending applications disposed of.

Arbitration – Section 34 – Scope of Interference – Perversity and Patent Illegality – Court reiterates that it does not sit as an appellate authority over arbitral awards – Reappreciation of evidence impermissible – Interference justified only where findings are based on no evidence, ignore vital evidence, or are so irrational that no fair-minded person would arrive at them – Possible and plausible view of arbitrator must be respected [Paras 30–35].

Public Works Contract – Delay in Execution – Attribution of Delay – Arbitral Tribunal undertook detailed factual inquiry by dividing delay into fifteen sub-heads including bhoomi poojan, approvals, permissions, land availability, drawings, and coordination between authorities – Tribunal’s findings holding Municipal Corporation solely responsible for delay found to be supported by documentary evidence and admissions in cross-examination – No perversity or ignorance of vital evidence established [Paras 36–43].

Admissions in Evidence – Evidentiary Value – Admissions by Municipal Corporation’s witnesses in cross-examination constitute best evidence – Once delay attributable to employer admitted, employer cannot rely merely on internal correspondence alleging contractor delay – Tribunal entitled to rely on such admissions [Paras 42–43].

Penalties in Works Contract – Delay as Foundation – Penalties imposed solely on ground of delay – Once contractor exonerated from delay, penalty orders automatically rendered unsustainable – Tribunal justified in setting aside penalty orders – No independent basis for penalties survives [Para 44].

Termination of Contract – Illegality – Termination effected prior to expiry of contract period solely on allegation of delay – Delay held not attributable to contractor – Termination therefore illegal and unjustified – Tribunal’s finding upheld [Para 45].

Blacklisting – Works Contract – Sub-Contracting – Blacklisting based inter alia on alleged sub-contracting and delay – Clause prohibiting sub-contracting of “whole work” does not bar partial sub-contracting – Large infrastructure contracts permit limited sub-contracting – Delay allegation found incorrect – Blacklisting order rightly set aside [Paras 46–47].

Running Account Bills – Certification of Work – Final RA Bill partly certified by Project Management Consultant and Municipal Corporation – Tribunal correctly awarded only certified amount and rejected excess claim – Withholding certified amount by adjusting penalties held illegal once penalties set aside – No perversity in awarding certified dues [Paras 48–52].

Taxes – Local Body Tax (LBT) – Pre-bid clarification limiting liability of LBT to materials procured within municipal limits – Contractor procured materials outside limits – Tribunal’s view allowing refund of deducted LBT held plausible and within contractual interpretation [Para 53].

Damages – Loss of Profit vs. Loss of Profitability – Distinction reiterated – Loss of profit arises from wrongful termination and does not require proof of actual loss – Loss of profitability due to prolongation requires strict evidence – Tribunal rightly awarded damages for loss of profit on unexecuted work upon finding termination illegal [Paras 54–61].

Damages – Quantum – Conservative Approach – Tribunal awarded 10% of balance work based on tender estimate and not actual contract value – Effective compensation only about 5.5% of unexecuted work – Award held extremely conservative and reasonable – No ground for interference under Section 34 [Paras 62–63].

Decision: Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 444 of 2024 dismissed – Challenge by Municipal Corporation rejected – Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 252 of 2024 dismissed as not pressed – Arbitral Award dated 18 June 2020 upheld in entirety – Directions issued for release/encashment of bank guarantees, stayed for eight weeks post-judgment [Paras 64–67].

Commercial Courts Act, 2015 – Section 12A – Pre-Institution Mediation – Mandatory Nature – Suit instituted after 20.08.2022 without compliance – Liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC unless it genuinely contemplates urgent interim relief – Reliance placed on M/s Dhanbad Fuels Pvt. Ltd. and Novenco Building – Compliance mandatory and not directory [Paras 6, 8, 18].

Urgent Interim Relief – Test – Not dependent on ultimate grant of relief – Court to examine plaint and supporting material from standpoint of plaintiff – Relief must not be moonshine or camouflage to bypass mediation – Urgency must be real, immediate and supported by material – Mere pleading not sufficient [Paras 10, 12, 18].

Order XXXVIII Rule 5 CPC – Attachment Before Judgment – Requirements – Court must be satisfied that defendant is about to dispose of or remove property with intent to obstruct or delay execution – Vague and general allegations insufficient – Particulars and material necessary – Reliance on Onkar Mal Mittal v. State Bank of Patiala [Paras 14, 15].

Attachment Before Judgment – Insufficient Pleadings – Plaintiff alleged defendant was “wandering in village to sell land” – No specific particulars or material indicating intention to defeat decree – Held: Allegations too discrepant and vague to satisfy requirements of Order XXXVIII Rule 5 CPC – Urgent interim relief not genuinely made out [Paras 13, 16, 18].

Section 12A Exception – Not Attracted – Where urgent interim relief claimed is unfounded and unsupported, suit does not fall within exception to mandatory mediation – Plaint liable to rejection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Liberty granted to file fresh suit after compliance [Paras 18, 19, 20].

Decision: Both revision petitions allowed – Order dismissing application under Order VII Rule 11 set aside – Plaint rejected for non-compliance of Section 12A of 2015 Act – Plaintiff at liberty to file fresh plaint in accordance with law – Connected applications disposed of [Paras 19–21].

Criminal Law – Circumstantial Evidence – Chain of Circumstances – Standard of Proof – Conviction recorded by Trial Court under Sections 364 and 302/34 IPC based entirely on circumstantial evidence – No direct eye-witness to kidnapping or murder – High Court reiterated settled principle that each incriminating circumstance must be fully proved and circumstances cumulatively must form a complete chain unerringly pointing to guilt of accused – Suspicion, however grave, cannot substitute proof – Prosecution failed to elevate case from “may be true” to “must be true” – Conviction unsustainable [Paras 23–25, 29].

Last Seen Theory – Evidentiary Value – Requirement of Proximity of Time and Place – Deceased last seen with accused on 07.02.1992 at about 6:00 p.m. at Delhi Railway Station – Dead body recovered near railway track at Ballabhgarh on 09.02.1992 at around noon – Medical evidence indicated death could have occurred any time on 09.02.1992 – Significant time gap between last-seen circumstance and death – Held: Last seen theory applicable only when time gap is so small that possibility of third-party intervention is excluded – Long gap rendered last-seen evidence unreliable – Conviction cannot rest solely on such weak evidence [Paras 26–29].

Medical Evidence – Cause of Death – Possibility of Accidental Death – Post-mortem doctor opined that injuries could have been caused by fall from a moving train – Possibility of railway accident not ruled out – Medical evidence did not conclusively support homicidal death attributable to accused – Held: Where medical evidence creates reasonable doubt, benefit must go to accused [Paras 15, 25(vii)].

Motive – Proof of Motive – Inconsistencies in Prosecution Case – Alleged motive of Rs.7,500/- paid by deceased to accused for securing employment – Contradictory statements regarding amount (Rs.7,000/- vs Rs.7,500/-) – No documentary proof of payment – Accused themselves labourers – Held: Motive not proved convincingly and incapable of strengthening prosecution case in absence of other reliable circumstances [Paras 8(iii), 25(vi)].

Delay in Lodging Missing Report / FIR – Effect on Prosecution Case – Deceased allegedly taken on 07.02.1992 – Missing report lodged only on 12.02.1992 – No satisfactory explanation for delay despite family allegedly knowing who took deceased – Delay weakened prosecution version and cast serious doubt on veracity of allegations [Paras 8(i), 25(ii)].

Handwriting Evidence – Parcha Allegedly Written by Accused – Proof Deficient – Slip allegedly written by accused relied upon by prosecution – No expert opinion or reliable proof establishing handwriting of accused – Witness testimony shaky and recorded after long delay – Held: Alleged parcha could not be treated as incriminating circumstance [Paras 8(ii), 25(i)].

Benefit of Doubt – Accused Entitled Where Two Views Possible – Evidence on record permitted hypothesis consistent with innocence of accused – Possibility of accidental death or third-party involvement not ruled out – Held: In cases of circumstantial evidence, where two views are possible, one favouring accused must be adopted – Appellants entitled to benefit of doubt [Paras 23, 29].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 364 and 302/34 IPC set aside – Appellants Anoop Singh and Ram Kumar acquitted of all charges – Bail bonds cancelled and sureties discharged.

Matrimonial Law - Maintenance – Wife and Minor Child – Section 18 Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act – Partial Modification of Quantum – Family Court granted maintenance to wife and minor son at different slabs for different periods – On appeal, High Court upheld entitlement of wife and child to maintenance but modified quantum payable from the date of order – Held: Wife entitled to Rs.8,000/- per month and minor son to Rs.4,000/- per month from 27.06.2024 instead of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.5,000/- respectively [Paras 11–18].

Maintenance – Entitlement of Minor Child – No Dispute as to Relationship – Minor Son Living Separately from Father – Held: Minor child’s right to maintenance is absolute and unquestionable – No objection can be entertained against grant of maintenance to minor son [Para 11].

Maintenance – Wife Living Separately – Justification – Allegations on Fidelity – Neglect by Husband – Court held that baseless allegations on character of wife and failure to take steps for restitution of conjugal rights justify wife living separately – Entitlement to maintenance upheld [Paras 13–14].

Income of Husband – Determination of Maintenance – Payslip Evidence – Husband employed as Fireman in Naval Dockyard – Gross salary Rs.44,249/- per month – Net salary around Rs.19,160/- – Held: Net salary not decisive as deductions may be voluntary and variable – Husband has sufficient earning capacity to pay reasonable maintenance [Paras 15–16].

Quantum of Maintenance – Reasonableness – Scope of Appellate Interference – High Court found maintenance awarded by Family Court generally reasonable – However, future maintenance from date of order slightly on higher side – Modified keeping in view earning capacity and overall circumstances – Rest of directions confirmed [Paras 16–18].

Maintenance Proceedings – Rajnesh v. Neha Guidelines – Non-filing of Affidavits of Assets – Objection Raised at Appellate Stage – Held: Objection merits no consideration when appellant himself did not comply with disclosure requirements – Plea treated as an attempt to delay or dilute proceedings [Para 14].

Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – Maintenance Reduced Prospectively – Past maintenance and other directions of Family Court confirmed – No order as to costs – Pending miscellaneous petitions closed [Para 18].

Civil Law – Rejection of Plaint – Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Cause of Action – Court reiterated that while considering an application for rejection of plaint, it must confine itself strictly to the averments in the plaint and documents relied upon therein – Test is whether on a plain and meaningful reading, the plaint discloses a cause of action against the defendant seeking rejection – Plaint can be rejected partially against some defendants while surviving against others [Paras 1, 14, 18(A), 18(G)].

Company Law – Directors – Personal Liability – Separate Corporate Personality – Mere designation as director or nominee director does not ipso facto render a director personally liable for acts or contractual obligations of the company – In absence of pleadings showing personal role, benefit, statutory liability, or grounds for lifting the corporate veil, no cause of action lies against directors [Paras 11, 12, 18(D), 18(E)].

Pleadings – Omnibus Allegations – Use of Generic Expression “Defendants” – Plaint making sweeping and omnibus allegations without attributing specific acts, omissions, or roles to individual defendants held insufficient – Use of generic expression “the Defendants” without individualized pleadings fails to disclose cause of action against directors [Paras 10, 18(B)].

Fraud and Collusion – Pleading Requirements – Order VI Rule 4 CPC – Allegations of fraud, collusion, or conspiracy must be pleaded with material particulars – Bald and vague allegations without specific particulars do not meet statutory pleading standards and cannot sustain impleadment of directors [Paras 10, 18(E)].

Order VII Rule 11 – Scope of Enquiry – Affidavit in Reply Irrelevant – Plaintiff cannot rely on averments in affidavit-in-reply to cure defects in plaint – Cause of action must be disclosed in the plaint itself – Material outside the plaint cannot be considered while deciding application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC [Paras 13, 17, 18(F)].

Nominee Directors – Impleadment Without Averments – Nominee directors impleaded solely on basis of designation without any pleaded involvement or wrongdoing – Held that plaint was entirely bereft of any allegation against Defendant Nos. 3 to 8 – Plaint rejected as against them [Paras 3–9, 16, 18(B), 18(C)].

Decision: All Notices of Motion allowed – Plaint rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC as against Defendant Nos. 3 to 8 – Suit to proceed only against remaining defendants – Consequential Notice of Motion disposed of as infructuous [Paras 19–20].

Criminal Law – Quashing of Proceedings – Abuse of Process – Loan Recovery Dispute – Public Servant Acting in Official Capacity – FIR and charge-sheet alleged house trespass, criminal force, insult to modesty and intimidation against senior official of West Bengal Financial Corporation during visit for loan recovery – Materials revealed visit was pursuant to official duty for recovery of substantial public dues – Complaint lodged to stall recovery proceedings – Held: Continuation of prosecution would amount to gross abuse of process of law [Paras 16–21].

Section 354 IPC – Outraging Modesty – Essential Ingredients – Absence of Prima Facie Case – To attract Section 354 IPC, criminal force must be applied with intent to outrage modesty – Allegations did not disclose conduct capable of shocking sense of decency of a woman – No material to infer requisite mens rea – Held: Offence under Section 354 IPC not made out [Paras 14, 16].

Delay in Investigation – Inordinate and Unexplained – Effect on Prosecution – Charge-sheet filed nearly four years after FIR – Case diary silent on investigation progress for long periods – Investigating Officer failed to wait for or consider official reply and did not seek further investigation – Magistrate erred in taking cognizance without considering unexplained delay – Held: Procedural lapses vitiate prosecution [Paras 12–13, 17].

Section 161 & 164 CrPC – Defective Investigation – Non-recording of Crucial Statements – Statements of witnesses recorded twice without explanation – Statement of de facto complainant under Section 164 CrPC not recorded despite long delay – Investigating Officer ignored material documents and official correspondence – Held: Investigation conducted in perfunctory and mechanical manner [Paras 4, 7, 12, 17].

Inherent Powers – Section 482 CrPC – Preventing Harassment and Vexatious Prosecution – High Court empowered to look beyond allegations and examine attending circumstances – Where prosecution is maliciously instituted with ulterior motive, proceedings deserve to be quashed – Held: Case squarely falls within parameters laid down in Bhajan Lal and L. Muniswamy [Paras 13, 19–20].

Decision: Criminal Revision allowed – Charge-sheet and criminal proceedings pending before the 5th Judicial Magistrate, Howrah quashed – No order as to costs.

Criminal Law – Default Bail – Section 187(2) BNSS – NDPS Offence – Accused arrested on 07.05.2025 – Statutory period of 180 days for filing challan – Prosecution sought extension before expiry – Extension granted without presence of accused – Held, extension order passed in absence of accused vitiated – Accused entitled to default bail [Paras 5, 7-9].

Extension of Time – Right to be Heard – Presence of Accused – When Court considers application for extension of time to file challan, accused must be produced physically or virtually – Failure to ensure presence and opportunity to oppose extension amounts to gross illegality – Not a mere procedural irregularity – Violative of Article 21 [Paras 6-8].

Indefeasible Right to Default Bail – Scope – Right accrues on expiry of statutory period if no valid extension granted – Grant of extension without complying with procedural safeguards deprives accused of constitutional protection – Order granting extension without recording presence/submissions of accused unsustainable [Paras 5-8].

Article 21 – Fair Procedure – Deprivation of personal liberty must follow fair and reasonable procedure – Extension of time directly affects right to default bail – Non-production of accused while granting extension infringes fundamental right under Article 21 [Paras 6-7].

NDPS Act – Seriousness of Offence – Gravity of offence cannot override statutory and constitutional safeguards relating to default bail – Compliance with mandatory procedure essential [Paras 4, 7].

Decision: Impugned order dated 04.11.2025 quashed qua petitioners – Petitioners directed to be released on default bail on furnishing bail/surety bonds to satisfaction of trial Court – Clarified that observations shall not affect merits of the case – Petition disposed of.

NDPS Act – Supurdnama of Seized Vehicle – Owner-cum-Driver Accused – Joint Possession of Contraband – Refusal of Interim Custody Justified – Applicant sought interim release of Pick-up vehicle seized in Crime No.397/2025 registered under Sections 8/20 NDPS Act – Vehicle registered in applicant’s name and contraband (18 kg 600 gms ganja) recovered from joint possession of applicant and co-accused – Applicant arrayed as accused and also driver of vehicle – Held: Case falls within first/second category of seizure where owner/driver is accused – Vehicle cannot be released till reverse burden is discharged – Order rejecting Supurdnama not perverse [Paras 9–12, 16–19].

Supreme Court Guidelines – Bishwajit Dey / Denash Case – No Straight-Jacket Formula – Facts Distinguishable – Supreme Court held that release of vehicle depends on factual matrix and is not automatic – In Denash v. State of Tamil Nadu, vehicle released as owner was not accused and contraband carried without owner’s knowledge along with lawful cargo – In present case, owner himself was driving vehicle and no other lawful cargo was being carried – Held: Benefit of Denash judgment not applicable [Paras 13–17].

Section 451 CrPC – Discretion of Trial Court – Limited Scope of Revisional Interference – Interim custody of seized property is discretionary – Revisional Court will interfere only if order is arbitrary or perverse – Trial court considered nature of offence, role of accused and seizure circumstances – Held: No perversity or illegality warranting interference [Paras 8, 19].

NDPS Offences – Reverse Burden of Proof – Impact on Release of Conveyance – Where owner is directly involved in transportation of contraband, presumption under NDPS Act operates – Vehicle forms part of offence and may be liable for confiscation – Held: Release at interim stage would defeat statutory scheme [Paras 14–16].

Decision: Criminal Revision dismissed – Order dated 31.12.2025 rejecting Supurdnama application affirmed – No interference warranted.