Criminal Law – Parole – Petition for parole based on familial needs due to the hospitalization of petitioner’s mother-in-law – Petitioner previously convicted under IPC and Arms Act and serving a life sentence with a minimum of 20 years without remission – Released on first spell of furlough which ended on 26.04.2024, followed by an immediate application for parole, conflicting with Rule 1212 requiring a month’s gap between furlough and parole – Court finds no ground to grant parole as other family members are available for caregiving roles – Dismissal of petition for lack of compelling reasons and non-compliance with prison rules [Paras 1-9].

Family Law – Maintenance – Enhancement and Cancellation – Criminal Revision against Family Court order –

Maintenance to Wife and Son – Section 125 of Cr.P.C. – Challenge by Husband – Allegation of Suppression of Employment – Wife employed in private service earning Rs. 12,000 to Rs. 15,000 per month – Family Court rejected husband’s application for cancellation of maintenance – Held: Mere employment of wife does not disentitle her to maintenance – Maintenance awarded earlier was insufficient considering current cost of living – Trial court’s order enhancing maintenance justified – No perversity in impugned judgment – Revision application dismissed. [Paras 1-15]

Maintenance – Enhancement under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. – Application by Wife – Increase in Cost of Living – Wife and son required more funds for sustenance and education – Trial Court enhanced maintenance – Contention that wife suppressed income rejected – Employment and earnings of wife do not bar her right to maintenance – Husband’s financial capacity considered – Enhanced maintenance amount of Rs. 3,500 per month justified – Revision dismissed with costs of Rs. 5,000. [Paras 2-13]

Income and Employment – Relevance in Maintenance Claims – Evidence Act – Consideration of Financial Status – Court’s Role – Income of parties assessed – Evidence of employment and salary considered – Applicant husband’s claim of being economically poor not substantiated – Respondent wife’s financial need and son’s educational expenses recognized – Maintenance amount fixed considering all circumstances. [Paras 9-12]

Decision – Maintenance Enhanced – Revision Application Dismissed – Costs Imposed – The Court found no merit in the revision application – Upheld Family Court’s decision – Directed payment of Rs. 5,000 as costs to respondents – Imposition of 9% p.a. interest on arrears justified to expedite maintenance payments. [Para 13]

Criminal Law – Unlawful Detention and Bail - Illegal Detention – Detention beyond 24 hours without justification – Petitioner detained for 13 hours beyond statutory limit – Contradictory affidavits from respondents explaining delay – Justifications for delay found to be prima facie unconvincing and an afterthought – Court emphasized the importance of prompt production before a magistrate to avoid misuse of detention powers – Petitioner’s cooperation and prior compliance with investigations noted – Interim bail granted pending final hearing [Paras 1-7].

Procedural Irregularities – Delay in production before magistrate – Respondents' affidavits reveal process took excessive time – Court criticized overnight detention under guise of recording statements – Detention deemed arbitrary and high-handed – Detention practices condemned as they impact individual liberty and reputation [Paras 3, 5].

Decision – Interim Bail Granted – Petitioner granted interim bail on a cash bond of Rs.25,000 for six weeks – Requirement to furnish PR Bond and sureties within six weeks – Next hearing scheduled for 24th June 2024 – Court emphasized the necessity for judicial oversight to prevent misuse of detention by authorities [Paras 7-9].

Restitution of Conjugal Rights – Validity of Marriage – Appeal challenging the Family Court's decree for restitution of conjugal rights in favor of the respondent – Appellant contended that no marriage took place and that the respondent's claims were fabricated – Respondent provided evidence of marriage through testimonies and documents – Trial court found the marriage to be valid – High Court upheld the Family Court's decision based on consistent and credible evidence supporting the respondent's claims – Appellant's arguments regarding non-maintainability and lack of valid marriage were rejected [Paras 1-40, 100-110].

Evidence – Burden of Proof – Allegation of Non-Marriage – Appellant's denial of marriage contradicted by respondent's detailed evidence including marriage certificate, witnesses' testimonies, and photographs – High Court emphasized the importance of examining all evidence in matrimonial disputes – Family Court's reliance on consistent testimonies and documentary evidence deemed appropriate – Appellant's failure to provide credible rebuttal noted [Paras 50-90].

Decision: Appeal dismissed. Judgment and decree of the Family Court, Bhagalpur, affirmed. Appellant directed to restore conjugal rights with the respondent as per the decree.

Criminal Procedure – Quashing of proceedings – Revision application against proceeding initiated under Sections 403, 406, 420, 120B, 34 IPC based on allegations of fraudulent property sale – Court finds petitioner to be a bona fide purchaser with no prior knowledge of or involvement in the alleged fraud – Anticipatory bail granted to other accused confirms repayment with interest to complainant – No evidence of petitioner’s involvement or knowledge of prior transactions – Proceeding against petitioner quashed as abuse of court process. [Paras 1-10]

Decision – Quashing of Proceedings – High Court quashes criminal proceedings against petitioner, Tushar Manna, holding no prima facie case was made out against him as he was a bona fide purchaser unaware of previous fraudulent agreement – Application allowed, ensuring justice not miscarried by continuation of baseless criminal charge. [Paras 10-12]

Criminal Law – Quashing of Proceedings under Sections 420/406/34 IPC – Criminal Revisional  – Petitioners sought quashing of proceedings in  alleging deception and financial loss related to a cancelled marriage arrangement – High Court examined allegations under Sections 420 (Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property) and 406 (Criminal breach of trust) – Arguments centered on whether actions constituted inducement under IPC and if entrustment of property was proven – High Court concluded that the FIR and subsequent proceedings failed to disclose any cognizable offence under the stated sections, leading to quashing of proceedings [Paras 1-32].

Legal Interpretation – Distinction between Sections 415, 420, and 417 IPC – Analysis of statutory provisions and judicial precedents related to definitions of cheating, inducement, and entrustment – High Court elucidated the specific legal requirements for offences under Sections 415 and 420 IPC, highlighting legislative intent to differentiate between acts of cheating involving property delivery and other deceits causing harm – Case under scrutiny did not meet criteria for Section 420 due to absence of property delivery element, fitting more closely with definitions under Section 417 for general cheating [Paras 19-27].

Procedure – Investigation of Non-Cognizable Offences – Discussion on procedural improprieties in handling a non-cognizable offence under Section 417 IPC without requisite magistrate’s order – High Court underscored procedural mandate of Section 155(2) Cr.P.C, which restricts police investigation in non-cognizable cases without judicial directive, influencing decision to quash proceedings due to improper initiation of case under Sections 420/406 IPC [Paras 28-30].

Decision – Quashment of Criminal Proceedings – Held – High Court allowed the criminal revision application and quashed the proceedings, concluding the FIR did not substantiate the alleged offences under the specified IPC sections – Connected applications disposed of and procedural directives issued regarding case diary and urgent copies of the order [Paras 32-37].

Cooperative Societies – Test Audit Appointment – Quasi-Judicial vs. Administrative Orders – Revisions: The High Court examined whether the order appointing a special auditor under Section 81(3)© of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 was quasi-judicial or administrative, and whether such an order could be challenged under Section 154 of the said Act. The court held that the order under Section 81(3)© is administrative in nature, primarily directed at the supervision of society’s affairs without deciding on the substantive rights of parties. Consequently, it was concluded that a revision under Section 154 of the Act challenging the administrative order is not maintainable. [Paras 1-34]

Nature of Order – Quasi-Judicial vs. Administrative – Analysis: The court outlined the distinctions between quasi-judicial and administrative orders, emphasizing the necessity of a quasi-judicial body to act judicially, provide parties the opportunity to present their cases, and make decisions based on objective considerations. In this case, the order appointing a special auditor did not require such judicial conduct, hence classified as administrative. [Paras 23-31]

Revisional Jurisdiction – Scope and Limitations: The court elaborated on the scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 154 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, highlighting that it pertains to quasi-judicial orders. The examination of ‘regularity of proceedings’ cannot extend to quashing or setting aside administrative orders but is confined to ensuring the legality and propriety of quasi-judicial decisions. [Paras 7-22, 32]

Decision: The impugned stay order by respondent No. 2 was set aside, and it was clarified that respondent No. 6 may challenge the initial order appointing the special auditor through appropriate legal proceedings if desired. [Para 33]

Criminal Law – Appeal against conviction in dowry death case – Challenge to the sufficiency of evidence regarding cruelty and dowry demands leading to the wife’s suicide – Key witnesses, including family members and neighbors, provide conflicting testimonies about the nature of the relationship and alleged cruelty – Prosecution fails to establish a direct connection between cruelty by the appellant and the suicide of the deceased [Paras 1-11].

Evidence Evaluation – Inadequacy of Evidence to Prove Dowry Death or Suicide Abetment – The appellate court highlighted significant gaps in the prosecution's case, particularly the lack of direct evidence linking the accused to the victim's suicide and the failure to prove ongoing cruelty or specific demands for dowry proximate to the time of death. Key witnesses either did not support the prosecution or were declared hostile, undermining the credibility of the allegations [Paras 4-11, 18-20].

Legal Principles – Application of Section 113-A of the Evidence Act in Dowry Death Cases – The court discussed precedents and the application of legal principles concerning the presumption of abetment of suicide in dowry deaths. It emphasized the need for clear evidence of cruelty linked directly to the victim's death to uphold such convictions. The decision referenced several Supreme Court judgments that set the standards for interpreting these legal provisions [Paras 12-17].

Decision – Conviction under Sections 498(A), 304(B), and 306 IPC set aside due to insufficient evidence of cruelty or harassment connected to the demand for dowry and direct abetment of suicide – Appeal allowed [Paras 21-22].

Service Law – Pay Revision and Recovery Notice – Petitioner, initially appointed as a daily wager and later receiving a fixed salary, challenged the recovery of alleged excess salary based on audit objections. High Court quashed the impugned order and recovery notice, directing proper pay revision and payment of arrears [Paras 1-12].

Procedure under Articles 14, 16, and 226 – Petitioner’s rights under constitutional provisions were examined, focusing on the due process for salary recovery and pay revision – Court emphasized the importance of following established procedures and providing fair opportunity for representation [Paras 3-10].

Decision – Petition allowed – Held – Impugned order and recovery notice set aside – Respondents directed to revise the petitioner’s pay and disburse arrears in accordance with established procedures [Paras 11-12].