Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Petitioner sought quashing of FIR alleging manipulation of tender documents leading to overpayment – Accused involved in printing contract awarded by GCERT – Accusations of conspiracy, forgery, and causing wrongful loss to government – Court examined prima facie evidence of fraudulent activities, unauthorized communications, and tampering of documents – Held allegations sufficient to justify continuation of investigation – Petitions dismissed [Paras 1-9].

Forgery and Cheating – Sections 406, 420, 467, 468 IPC – Petitioner accused of altering tender documents post-approval to secure higher payments – Investigation revealed unauthorized changes and misleading representations – Court highlighted the need to establish wrongful gain and intent to deceive for these offenses – Court determined prima facie case was made out [Paras 8.1-8.6].

Criminal Breach of Trust – Section 409 IPC – Petitioner, a public servant, accused of colluding with contractor to misappropriate funds – Court noted high standards expected from public servants – Accusations of breach of trust supported by evidence of tampered documents and unauthorized actions [Para 8.6].

Decision – Applications dismissed – FIR and ongoing investigation upheld – Court emphasized the importance of allowing the investigation to proceed to uncover full extent of alleged misconduct [Para 9].

Maintenance – Interim Order – Revision Petition by Wife and Child – Trial court ordered the husband to pay monthly interim maintenance from the date of the application. The appellate court modified this date to a later point, considering the pandemic. High Court found this modification based on facts not on record – [Paras 1-15].
Discretion of Court – Maintenance from Date of Application – Supreme Court’s guidance in Rajnesh v. Neha applied – High Court held that maintenance should be from the date of application to ensure justice and fair play – [Paras 13-14].
Legally Wedded Wife and Minor Child – Obligation of Husband to Maintain – Appellate court's modification deemed improper as it relied on unsubstantiated facts – High Court restored trial court’s order for maintenance from the application date – [Paras 14-15].
Decision: Criminal revision case allowed. Order of the appellate court set aside. Maintenance to be paid from the date of the application as originally ordered by the trial court. Arrear maintenance to be deposited within six weeks, and monthly payments to continue as per the trial court’s order – [Para 15].
 

Family Law – Divorce – Grounds of Cruelty and Desertion – Appeal by husband challenging dismissal of his petition for divorce – Appellant alleged cruelty and desertion by wife due to her epilepsy, smoking, drinking, and alleged behavior – Family Court found no evidence supporting appellant’s claims – Appellant had not provided medical evidence of epilepsy or other allegations – Evidence showed appellant’s non-cooperation and refusal to take wife back home – No proof of desertion by wife as appellant failed to attempt reconciliation – Divorce petition dismissed [Paras 2-35].

Criminal Law – Domestic Violence – Maintenance Orders – Evidence of domestic violence and subsequent maintenance orders by the court – Family Court referenced previous judicial findings and maintenance orders favoring respondent – Appellant’s claims countered by judicial findings supporting respondent’s allegations of cruelty and desertion by appellant – Previous maintenance orders upheld [Paras 20-22].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Held: Family Court’s findings upheld – No substantiation of appellant’s claims of cruelty and desertion – Previous judicial findings and evidence support respondent’s case – Divorce petition rightly dismissed – Appeal without merit, dismissed with no costs [Paras 33-35].
 

Quashing of Proceedings – Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Section 3(1)(u) – Petitioners sought quashing of Special Case No. 101 of 2022 arising out of a property dispute, alleging false implication under the SC/ST Act – Court examined the nature of allegations, ongoing civil disputes, and material on record – Found the complaint motivated by personal grudge and property dispute – Held, continuation of proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law [Paras 1-15].

Abuse of Process – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Exercise of Inherent Powers – Court reiterated principles for exercising powers under Section 482 to prevent abuse of process – Highlighted need for close examination of FIR and attendant circumstances – Emphasized that proceedings arising from personal vendetta should be quashed to secure ends of justice [Paras 7-11].

Pending Civil Disputes – Impact on Criminal Proceedings – Court noted several litigations between parties over title and possession of land – Observed that criminal complaint was lodged with malafide intention related to property disputes – Held, mere altercations related to property issues do not constitute an offence under SC/ST Act unless motivated by caste discrimination [Paras 8-12].

Decision: Revision allowed – Special Case No. 101 of 2022 quashed – Proceedings arising out of Patuli Police Station Case No. 235 dated 9^th November, 2022, before Additional District Judge, First Court, Alipore, quashed – No order as to costs [Paras 13-16].

Criminal Law – Conviction for Murder and Destruction of Evidence – Appellants convicted for beating Rajinder Singh @ Bhura to death and disposing of his body – Trial court’s judgment based on testimonies of eyewitnesses, recovery of weapons, and forensic evidence – High Court reverses conviction due to significant inconsistencies and procedural lapses in the prosecution’s case.

Witness Testimony – Reliability and Inconsistencies – Testimonies of key witnesses (PW-1, PW-2, PW-5) found to have material contradictions and improbabilities – Witnesses failed to report the incident immediately despite having the opportunity – Doubts raised about their presence and the credibility of their statements [Paras 11-16, 26-34].

Delay in Lodging FIR – Impact on Prosecution Case – FIR lodged after an unexplained delay of six days – High Court holds that such delay corrodes the credibility of the prosecution’s case and casts doubt on the spontaneity and reliability of the allegations [Paras 19-27].

Recovery of Weapons – Doubtful Evidence – Recovery of danda and fan-belt from the crime scene was questionable due to tampered dates on the recovery memo and improbability of weapons being left in an accessible location – Testimony of recovery witness found unreliable [Paras 36-37].

Forensic Evidence – Blood Sample Analysis – Prosecution failed to link the blood samples found at the scene conclusively to the deceased – Blood was reportedly washed away immediately after the incident, contradicting forensic findings [Paras 38-39].

Burden of Proof – Prosecution’s Failure – High Court emphasizes that strong suspicion cannot replace legal proof – Prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, resulting in the acquittal of all appellants [Paras 41-42].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellants acquitted and ordered to be released forthwith, subject to providing personal bonds as per Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. [Paras 43-44].

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].

Seniority List – Exclusion from List – Claim for Compensation – Respondent excluded from seniority list of Foresters appointed post-1980, allegedly due to not being in service during the list’s preparation. Respondent attained superannuation during litigation. Learned Single Judge directed appellants to pay monetary compensation for wrongful exclusion – Held, direction for monetary compensation set aside; respondent directed to seek redress under applicable Government schemes [Paras 1-8].

Service Law – Regularisation and Superannuation – Appellants argued non-inclusion of respondent’s name due to his absence from service when list was prepared. Court held that exclusion was wrongful but regularisation not possible post superannuation. Monetary compensation ordered by learned Single Judge inappropriate – Direction issued for respondent to seek appropriate relief under Government schemes for senior citizens [Paras 6-7].

Decision – Writ Appeal Partly Allowed – Order for monetary compensation set aside. Respondent directed to apply for benefits under suitable Government schemes. Appellate order does not interfere with the learned Single Judge’s finding on wrongful exclusion from seniority list [Para 8].
 

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].