Civil Law – Decree on Admissions – Partition Suit – Application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC filed by appellant seeking summary decree of partition and rental income – Defendants had abandoned defence of oral family settlement and filed relinquishment deeds – High Court held that such documents did not amount to unequivocal admissions – No clear pleading regarding title in plaint – Significant factual disputes existed as to title, area of property, shares, heirs, and income – Held: Summary decree rightly denied – Full trial warranted [Paras 2, 15–22].

Partition – Requirement of Proof of Title – Plaintiff failed to plead title documents of parents from whom rights claimed – Prior judicial finding that plaintiff had not established that suit properties were part of intestate estate had attained finality – Relinquishment deeds of some defendants did not establish complete or uncontested ownership by parents – Held: In absence of foundational title pleadings, decree on admission cannot be granted [Paras 10, 15–18].

Admissions – Legal Standard – Order XII Rule 6 CPC – Admissions must be unequivocal, unambiguous, and unconditional – Partition suits require detailed evidence on title, possession, and shares – Where disputes exist as to size of property, status of heirs, and rental income, matter not suitable for summary adjudication – Held: Appellant failed to demonstrate requisite admissions for decree [Paras 18–21].

Procedural Relief – Liberty to File Fresh Application – While dismissing appeal, Court granted liberty to file fresh and specific application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC if clear and unqualified admissions are identified – Any such application to be considered by learned Single Judge independently [Paras 23–25].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Decree under Order XII Rule 6 CPC declined – Appellant granted liberty to file a more detailed application identifying specific and unequivocal admissions – All pending applications also disposed of [Paras 24–26].

Criminal Law - POCSO Act – Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault – Proof of Penetration – Conviction under Section 6 r/w 5(m) – Victim aged eight years alleged penetrative sexual assault – FIR contained allegation of penetration – However, statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and medical evidence showed only attempt to rape – Doctors found hymen intact with no injuries – Held: Inconsistent versions and absence of medical corroboration render conviction for penetrative sexual assault unsafe – Conviction under Section 6 r/w 5(m) POCSO set aside [Paras 10–11].

Child Witness – Appreciation of Evidence – Partial Acceptance – Testimony of victim trustworthy to extent of sexual assault and attempt to rape – Evidence of great grandmother (PW2) and sister (PW3) corroborated presence of accused and wrongful confinement – Though penetration not proved beyond reasonable doubt, sexual assault established – Evidence cannot be discarded in entirety [Paras 9, 12].

POCSO Act – Sexual Assault on Child Below 12 Years – Section 9(m) r/w 10 – Victim admittedly below 12 years – Acts proved amount to sexual assault though not penetrative – Conviction altered from Section 6 r/w 5(m) to Section 9(m) r/w 10 POCSO – Sentence of five years rigorous imprisonment with fine imposed [Paras 12–13].

Kidnapping – Section 366 IPC – Sentence – Trial Court imposed seven years imprisonment – Considering nature of proved offence and modified conviction under POCSO – Sentence reduced to five years imprisonment with fine – Held proportionate to facts established [Para 14].

Attempt to Rape – Section 376 r/w 511 IPC – Separate Sentence – Not imposed – Accused already convicted and sentenced under Section 9(m) r/w 10 POCSO for same act – Separate punishment unnecessary [Para 15].

Criminal Appeal – Power of Appellate Court – Modification of Conviction and Sentence – Appellate Court entitled to reappreciate evidence and alter conviction to lesser offence supported by evidence – Benefit of set-off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. granted – Sentences directed to run concurrently [Paras 16(i)–(vi)].

Decision: Criminal Appeal partly allowed – Conviction under Section 6 r/w 5(m) POCSO set aside – Accused convicted under Section 9(m) r/w 10 POCSO and sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment with fine – Sentence under Section 366 IPC reduced to five years – No separate sentence for Section 376 IPC – Sentences to run concurrently – Set-off granted.

Service Law – Disciplinary Proceedings – Review by Higher Authority – Power under Rule 21 of 1970 Rules – Appellant Forest Guard was exonerated by Enquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority – However, Conservator of Forest (Reviewing Authority) reopened the case, issued show cause notice, and imposed penalty of stoppage of two annual increments with future effect – Held: Under Rule 21, reviewing authority is empowered to differ with findings of Enquiry Officer, provided reasons are communicated and opportunity of hearing is granted – In present case, inquiry had already been conducted and due opportunity was afforded – Action held valid [Paras 5-6].

Negligence – Duty of Forest Guard – Liability for Unauthorized Tree Felling – Contractor auctioned 10 shisham trees but felled 12 additional trees – Appellant failed to report or prevent illegal felling despite being in charge of the beat – Two trees were removed and 10 recovered – Compensation was paid but no action against contractor – Held: Appellant failed in duty to monitor forest area – Inference of connivance drawn – Penalty justified [Paras 8-9].

Appeal – Concurrent Findings – No Substantial Question of Law – Both trial and first appellate courts found against appellant after considering oral and documentary evidence – No perversity found – Second appeal dismissed [Paras 9-10].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgments of Trial Court and First Appellate Court upheld – No costs – Decree to be drawn [Paras 10-11].

Criminal Law – Quashing - Complaint Case – BNSS, 2023 – Section 223 – Issuance of Notice to Accused – Cognizance – Magistrate issued notices to accused prior to examination of complainant and witnesses – Held, proviso to Section 223(1) mandates opportunity of hearing to accused before taking cognizance but only after examination of complainant and witnesses on oath – Issuance of notice prior to such examination contrary to statutory scheme [Paras 12–17, 27–28].

Criminal Procedure – Change from Cr.P.C. to BNSS – Section 200 Cr.P.C. vis-à-vis Section 223 BNSS – Legislative Intent – BNSS introduces mandatory pre-cognizance hearing of accused – However, such hearing arises only after Magistrate applies judicial mind upon sworn statements of complainant and witnesses – Mechanical issuance of notice deprecated [Paras 12–16].

Criminal Procedure – Magistrate’s Power to Dismiss Complaint – Section 226 BNSS – Examination of Accused Not Required – Magistrate empowered to dismiss complaint after examining complainant and witnesses – Prior notice to accused before such examination held unnecessary and futile – Harmonious reading of Sections 223 and 226 BNSS explained [Paras 24–25, 27].

Criminal Proceedings – Mechanical Exercise of Jurisdiction – Non-application of Mind – JMFC issued notices without complying with mandatory procedure under Section 223 BNSS – Orders held vitiated and liable to be quashed [Paras 28–29].

Criminal Proceedings Arising from Civil Dispute – Pendency of Title Suit – Liberty to Raise Civil Nature of Dispute – Court observed that parties are at liberty to raise civil disputes before Magistrate during further proceedings – Criminal process not to be used for undue harassment [Paras 8, 30].

Quashing of Proceedings – Remand – Orders issuing notice quashed – Matter remanded to JMFC to proceed afresh in accordance with BNSS after examination of complainants and witnesses – No opinion expressed on merits of allegations [Paras 28–31].

Decision: Criminal Petitions partly allowed – Orders dated 21.02.2025 passed by JMFC, Morigaon in C.R. Case No. 143/2025 and C.R. Case No. 144/2025 quashed – Matters remanded to JMFC, Morigaon for fresh consideration after examination of complainants and witnesses in accordance with Sections 223 and 226 BNSS – Criminal petitions disposed of accordingly.

Service Law – Regularization – Contractual Appointment – Petitioners selected through a proper selection process in 2011 and working continuously as ECG Technicians for 15 years – Government created four posts in 2014 on recommendation of competent authority – Instead of regularizing petitioners, State issued open advertisement in 2015 – Held: Petitioners' appointment, though irregular, not illegal – Petitioners have right to be absorbed against created posts – Delay in regularization amounts to unfair labour practice [Paras 8–19]

Unfair Labour Practice – Industrial Disputes Act – Petitioners engaged in permanent, technical posts in SCB Medical College and Hospital – Continued for years as contractual workers despite sanctioned posts – Held: Employer’s action falls within Item 10 of Fifth Schedule of ID Act – Continuing workmen as temporary to deny regular status constitutes unfair labour practice [Paras 14–17]

Constitutional Law – Article 226 – Judicial Review – High Court found that Single Judge erred in merely directing consideration of representation when clear recommendations and creation of posts were on record – Petitioners’ right to regularization established – Writ of mandamus issued for absorption and service benefits [Paras 18–20]

Decision: W.A. No.3071 of 2023 allowed – State directed to absorb appellants against sanctioned posts of ECG Technician and grant full service benefits within three months –

W.A. No.296 of 2025 filed by State dismissed.

Civil Law – Written Statement – Signature Requirement – Right to Lead Evidence – Trial court denied defendant no.2 permission to lead evidence holding that written statement was unsigned – High Court noted that written statement was signed by defendant no.1 and accepted as written statement on behalf of all defendants by Original Side of High Court – Replication also treated it as written statement of all defendants – Held: Technical objection regarding signature could not defeat substantive right to lead evidence, especially when written statement stood accepted on record [Paras 1–4].

Evidence – Defendant’s Right – Examination of Witness – Petitioners sought permission to examine one witness on behalf of defendant no.2 – Respondent fairly did not oppose setting aside of impugned order – Held: Defendant no.2 entitled to examine one witness subject to trial court schedule and convenience [Paras 4–5].

Supervisory Jurisdiction – Article 227 – Interference with Procedural Orders – Impugned order found to be hyper-technical and causing miscarriage of justice – High Court exercised supervisory jurisdiction to set aside the order and issued directions for expeditious disposal of suit [Paras 4–5].

Decision: Impugned order dated 10.03.2025 set aside – Defendant no.2 permitted to examine one witness – Trial court directed to record evidence on scheduled date or fix fresh date as per convenience – Trial court requested to dispose of suit expeditiously – Petition and applications disposed of by consent of parties.

Constitutional Law – 74th Amendment – Autonomy of Urban Local Bodies – Article 243P to 243ZG, Constitution of India – State Interference – The 74th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1992, introduced Part IXA to the Constitution, granting constitutional status and autonomy to Municipalities to function as vibrant democratic units of self-government, free from State interference – The Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011, was enacted to conform with this mandate, providing for decentralization, autonomy, and accountability of urban self-government – Any direct interference by the State Government in the internal administrative affairs of urban local bodies, such as the Ranchi Municipal Corporation, by deputing ineligible personnel or overriding statutory provisions through executive instructions, constitutes a betrayal of this constitutional mandate and frustrates the very purpose of the 74th Amendment – The Court emphasized that once a statute is enacted and assented to by the Governor, neither the Minister nor the Chief Minister can interfere with its proper execution – The Court found direct interference by the State in the RMC's affairs through the deputation of ineligible engineers as Town Planners and the Principal Secretary's obstruction of the Administrator's undertaking – The Court held that such interference is unconstitutional and detrimental to good governance [Paras 66, 67, 74, 75, 95-100, 104, 108, 109, 119, 121(H), 121(K)].

Service Law – Eligibility Criteria – Deputation – Town Planners – Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011 – Nullity of Decisions – The Court held that engineers deputed from other State departments to function as Town Planners in the Ranchi Municipal Corporation cannot discharge such duties if they lack the requisite eligibility criteria and experience as per the statutory recruitment rules for Town Planners – The Court found that the deputed engineers did not possess the mandatory educational qualifications (Master's Degree in Planning with specialization or Associate Membership of Institute of Town Planners) – Allowing such ineligible persons to participate in the map sanctioning process renders their decisions null and void, leading to impropriety and potential miscarriage of justice for the public – The State's justification based on pay scale differences or lack of experience for regularly appointed Assistant Town Planners (ATPs) was rejected, especially when ATPs were performing similar duties in other urban local bodies – The Court directed the restraint of these ineligible deputed Town Planners and the assignment of duties to the regularly appointed ATPs [Paras 33-36, 39, 86, 87, 121(A), 121(C), 121(E), 121(G), 127(I), 127(II)].

Administrative Law – Statutory Powers – Executive Instructions – Sanction of Building Maps – Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011, Sections 427, 429 – Executive instructions or flow charts cannot override or supplant statutory provisions – The Court ruled that a flow chart conferring power upon Town Planners to sanction building maps up to two storeys cannot prevail over the express statutory provisions of Sections 427 and 429 of the Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011, which vest such power in the Municipal Commissioner or Executive Officer/Authority – Any action taken contrary to the prescribed statutory manner is a nullity in the eye of law – The State failed to demonstrate any statutory provision in the Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011, empowering Town Planners to sanction maps – The Court emphasized that administrative decisions must adhere strictly to statutory provisions, and any deviation or reliance on irrelevant considerations renders the decision unlawful and subject to judicial review – The Court criticized the sanctioning of building plans by individuals without statutory authority, deeming it a "fraud upon the Statute and the Constitution" [Paras 40-45, 79-85, 89-91, 121(B), 121(I), 124].

Contempt of Court – Undertaking to Court – Non-compliance – Rule 393, High Court of Jharkhand Rules – The Court found prima facie contempt by the Administrator, Ranchi Municipal Corporation, for flouting an undertaking given to the Court to issue orders regarding the utilization of services of Town Planners and In-charge Legal Section within a specified time – The Court also found the Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, to be obstructing the implementation of this undertaking – While contempt proceedings were initiated, the Court prioritized exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 to prevent ongoing illegality and constitutional crisis over merely punishing individuals [Paras 25, 26, 53-55, 59, 66, 102, 103, 121(J)].

Judicial Review – Article 226, Constitution of India – Public Interest – The High Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution, has a solemn duty to protect the rights of individuals and act as a defender against illegal intrusion by the State or its functionaries – The Court affirmed that judicial restraint does not amount to judicial abdication, especially when gross illegality or error is committed by the State at the cost of the interest of the people at large – The Court held that it must exercise its extraordinary powers to restrain unconstitutional actions, such as the State's interference in urban local bodies and the sanctioning of maps by ineligible personnel, to prevent the perpetuation of illegality and miscarriage of justice, thereby upholding its constitutional obligation [Paras 93, 94, 100, 120, 123, 125, 126].

Decision: Appeal disposed of – Prohibitory order issued – Paras [127].

Judicial Review – Tender Matters – Disputed Questions of Fact – Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226 – Petitioner sought cancellation of tender and award in his favour alleging higher revised bid and violation of tender conditions – Rival parties produced mutually contradictory documents regarding the amount of revised bid submitted – Held: Where adjudication requires examination of disputed and contested facts and authenticity of documents, High Court would not exercise writ jurisdiction – Parties relegated to civil remedies [Paras 11–14].

Tender Process – Financial Bid – Alleged Non-Consideration of Revised Bid – Petitioner claimed submission of revised bid of Rs. 62,22,222/- whereas tendering authority asserted last valid revised bid was Rs. 11,00,000/- – Both sides relied upon separate acknowledgments and bid documents – Court held that determination of which document was genuine required leading of evidence – Such controversy not amenable to adjudication under Article 226 [Paras 12–13].

Tender Conditions – Clause 6.3 of RFP – Mandatory Notice of 7 Days for Opening of Financial Bids – Admitted infraction by tendering authority – Effect of Violation – Held: Mere violation of tender condition does not ipso facto vitiate tender process unless serious prejudice is demonstrated – Petitioner failed to establish prejudice caused due to non-issuance of notice, especially in light of disputed facts regarding presence of petitioner’s representative and bid amount – No ground for annulment of tender or grant of contract [Paras 15–18].

Natural Justice – Prejudice – Requirement of Proof – Even where procedural lapse is admitted, Court must be satisfied that such lapse resulted in real and demonstrable prejudice to the complaining party – In absence of clear proof of prejudice, extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 ought not to be exercised [Paras 16–18].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – No interference with tender process or award in favour of successful bidder – Liberty implicit to petitioner to pursue appropriate civil remedies – No order as to costs – Pending applications disposed of.

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Section 13(1)(d) – Allegation of Criminal Misconduct – Revenue officials alleged to have illegally compounded offences by collecting lesser amounts – Held: In absence of a prescribed minimum compounding fee during the relevant period, levy of a lesser amount by itself does not constitute criminal misconduct or cause pecuniary loss to the State [Paras 3–5, 15].

Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules – Power to Compound – Change of Competent Authority – Prior to 05.06.2015, revenue officials were empowered under S.R.O. No.860/1995 – After issuance of G.O.(P) No.77/2015/ID dated 05.06.2015, power vested exclusively with officers of the Mining and Geology Department – Revenue officials ceased to have authority thereafter [Paras 5–6, 14].

Repeal and Re-enactment – Saving of Notifications – Sections 6 and 24, General Clauses Act – Continuation of earlier notifications only if not inconsistent with the re-enacted provisions – Held: On introduction of KMMC Rules, 2015 and issuance of fresh Government Order, earlier notification stood superseded and ceased to operate from 05.06.2015 [Paras 6–7, 14].

Quashment of FIR – Accused Nos.4 and 7 – Acts Prior to 05.06.2015 – Offences compounded before coming into force of new Government Order – Held: Accused Nos.4 and 7 were competent authorities at the relevant time and no minimum fee existed – No offence made out – Proceedings quashed [Paras 12, 17].

Quashment of FIR – Accused No.2 – Acts After 05.06.2015 – Compounding of offences after loss of authority under new Government Order – Held: Compounding in seven cases without jurisdiction – Investigation justified – Quashment refused [Paras 13, 16–17].

Absence of Minimum Compounding Fee – Effect – Minimum compounding fee prescribed only in 2017 – Even duly authorised Geologists levied nominal amounts prior thereto – Held: No automatic inference of pecuniary loss or corrupt intent in such circumstances [Paras 4, 11, 15].

Inherent Powers of High Court – Section 528 BNSS – Partial Quashment – Court entitled to distinguish between accused based on period, authority and nature of acts – Partial quashment permissible and justified [Para 17].

Decision – Petition partly allowed – Entire proceedings quashed against Accused Nos.4 and 7 – Quashment declined in respect of Accused No.2 – Interim stay vacated – Investigation to proceed against Accused No.2 in accordance with law [Paras 17–18].