Criminal Law – Quashing of Private Complaint – Section 406, 420, 465, 468 of the IPC - Suppression of Material Facts – Multiple complaints filed with varying allegations – First complaint disclosed only a monetary transaction involving transfer of Rs.36,05,066/- and repayment of Rs.8,85,000/- – Subsequent complaints suppressed the earlier complaint and introduced improved allegations claiming cheating of Rs.96,00,000/- involving additional victims – Held: Suppression of the earlier complaint and improvement of allegations to give criminal colour constitutes abuse of process of law – Criminal proceedings liable to be quashed [Paras 13–17, 23].

Cheating – Ingredients of offence – Requirement of dishonest intention at inception – Allegations reveal investment made with expectation of profits and later non-payment – No material to indicate fraudulent or dishonest intention of the accused at the inception of the transaction – Mere breach of promise or failure to repay investment does not constitute cheating – Dispute essentially civil in nature [Paras 18–20, 23].

Civil Dispute – Criminal Colour – First complaint indicated claim only for recovery of balance amount allegedly due – Later complaints inflated the claim amount and added additional victims while suppressing earlier complaint – Held: Criminal law cannot be invoked to settle monetary disputes arising out of investment transactions when basic ingredients of criminal offences are absent [Paras 15–17, 23].

Inherent Powers of High Court – Prevention of abuse of process – Where allegations taken at face value do not constitute offences and proceedings appear to be maliciously instituted to harass the accused – High Court justified in exercising inherent powers to quash the proceedings [Paras 21–24].

Decision: Criminal Miscellaneous Case allowed – Private complaint, final report and all further proceedings in C.C. No.78 of 2023 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Kollam quashed as against the petitioner – Registry directed to return the fixed deposit submitted by the petitioner after lifting the lien.

Preventive Detention – Subjective Satisfaction – Likelihood of Bail – Non-Application of Mind – Detention order passed on ground that petitioner was taking steps to secure bail for detenu and that in a similar case bail had been granted by High Court – Statement produced to show steps for bail was unsigned and undated – No material to establish likelihood of imminent release – Bail order in unrelated case relied upon without establishing similarity or relevance – Held: Grounds vague and unsupported by material – Detention order vitiated for non-application of mind [Paras 2–8].

Preventive Detention – Reliance on Similar Case – Mere grant of bail in another case cannot justify detention unless factual similarity and relevance established – No nexus shown between Crl.O.P.No.27950 of 2024 and present ground case – Reference to unrelated bail order of no avail – Detention unsustainable [Para 8].

Preventive Detention – Public Order – Adverse Cases – Though detenu had two adverse cases and had been granted bail therein, present detention based solely on apprehension of bail in ground case – Apprehension not supported by credible material – Subjective satisfaction not based on relevant material – Order set aside [Paras 5, 7–9].

Decision: Habeas Corpus Petition allowed – Detention Order in Memo No.121/TNPD/APC/2025 dated 06.08.2025 set aside – Detenu Vinoth, S/o. Aruldoss, aged 22 years, directed to be released forthwith unless required in connection with any other case.

Criminal Law – Rash and Negligent Driving – Acquittal – Appeal Against Acquittal – Accused alleged to have driven a truck at high speed causing it to hit an auto resulting in it falling into a gorge and causing injuries to a passenger — Trial Court acquitted the accused finding material contradictions in prosecution evidence and non-establishment of identity of the driver — High Court on appeal finds no perversity in the view taken by the Trial Court — appeal dismissed [Paras 6–31].

"Appeal Against Acquittal – Parameters of Interference – Double Presumption of Innocence"

Interference with a judgment of acquittal by the High Court is warranted only if the judgment is patently perverse, is based on misreading or omission to consider material evidence on record, and no two reasonable views are possible — after acquittal, the accused is entitled to a reinforced or double presumption of innocence — if two reasonable views are possible on the basis of the record, the acquittal should not be disturbed — Appellate Court must address the reasons given by the Trial Court for acquittal before reversing — relying on Surendra Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, (2025) 5 SCC 433; P. Somaraju v. State of A.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2291 [Paras 12–14].

"High Speed – Relative Term – Insufficient to Prove Rash and Negligent Driving – Section 279 IPC"

Mere use of the expression "high speed" by a witness is not sufficient to establish rash and negligent driving unless the approximate speed of the vehicle is also stated — high speed is a relative term and what one person understands by high speed may differ from another — prosecution must bring on record material to establish what is meant by "high speed" in the facts and circumstances of the case — negligence and rashness cannot be presumed and criminality is not to be inferred — speed alone is not a criterion for judging rashness or negligence; the deciding factor is the situation in which the accident occurs — relying on Mohanta Lal v. State of West Bengal, 1968 ACJ 124; State of Karnataka v. Satish, (1998) 8 SCC 493; State of H.P. v. Madan Lal, 2003 Latest HLJ (2) 925; State of H.P. v. Parmodh Singh, 2008 Latest HLJ (2) 1360 [Paras 22–26].

"Witness Cannot Depose on Negligence – Opinion on Negligence Not Relevant Evidence"

A witness can only depose about facts which occurred in his presence and is not permitted to draw inferences or express opinions thereon — it is for the court to draw inferences from proved facts — a witness's opinion that an accident occurred due to the negligence of a driver is not relevant evidence — the issue whether a vehicle was driven rashly and negligently is a conclusion to be drawn by the court on the basis of evidence led — statement of witnesses that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the accused cannot, by itself, advance the prosecution's case — relying on Hollington v. Hawthorn, 1943 KB 507; State of H.P. v. Niti Raj, 2009 Cr.LJ 1922 (HP) [Paras 27–29].

"Corroboration by Mechanical Report and Photographs – Absence of Damage to Truck and Rear of Auto – Prosecution Version Doubtful"

Prosecution case was that the truck hit the auto from the rear causing it to fall into a gorge — mechanical inspection report does not mention any damage to the rear of the auto — photographs also do not show any damage to the rear of the auto or the front of the truck — site plan prepared on the date of the accident records that the front tyres of the truck were punctured at the spot, casting doubt on whether the truck was moving at the time — oral testimony of eyewitnesses that the truck hit the auto from behind not corroborated by documentary evidence — prosecution version rendered doubtful [Paras 18–21].

Decision: Appeal dismissed — acquittal of the respondent under Sections 279, 337 and 201 IPC upheld — Trial Court's view held to be a reasonable view warranting no interference — respondent directed to furnish bail bonds of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety under Section 437-A Cr.P.C. (Section 481 BNSS) effective for six months [Paras 30–32].

Industrial Land Allotment – Cancellation and Resumption of Unutilised Portion – SIPCOT – Clause 14(i) of Lease Deed – Appellant allotted an industrial plot on 05.12.2005 for manufacture of Forged/Machined Auto Components and a Lease Deed executed on 02.03.2006 – SIPCOT found 3.70 acres of allotted land lying unutilised – Appellant declined to surrender the unutilised portion upon notice – SIPCOT invoked Clause 14(i) and cancelled allotment of unutilised land and ordered resumption – Single Judge upheld the cancellation and directed refund of deposit – Writ Appeal dismissed – Order of Single Judge confirmed [Paras 1–7].

"Unutilised Industrial Land — Clause 14(i) — Right of SIPCOT to Cancel and Resume"

Industrial Plot – Lease Deed – Clause 14(i) – Cancellation – Clause 14(i) of the Lease Deed unequivocally confers upon SIPCOT the right to cancel the allotment and resume land, at any time, if the allotted land is not put to use for the purpose for which it was allotted or is found to be in excess of actual requirements – Upon resumption of excess land, allottee is entitled only to refund of plot deposit – Development charges, additional development charges, lease rent, interest and enhanced interest paid or due are not refundable – Appellant having agreed to the terms and conditions of the Lease Deed is bound by Clause 14(i) [Paras 3–4].

"Installation of Solar Panel Does Not Constitute Industrial Use — Purpose of Allotment Must Be Fulfilled"

Industrial Allotment – Purpose of Allotment – Utilisation – Appellant contended that a Solar Panel had been installed on the subject portion of land and produced a photograph in support – Held: A Solar Panel is not an industrial structure – Installation of a Solar Panel does not amount to utilisation of allotted land for the purpose of setting up a unit for manufacture of Forged/Machined Auto Components as stipulated in the Lease Deed and Project Report – Clause 14(i) mandates utilisation of allotted land strictly for the purpose for which it was allotted – Authorities rightly found that the land had not been utilised for any industrial purpose – Photograph produced is of no avail [Paras 5–6].

"Writ Court's Findings on Facts and Scope of Clause 14(i) — No Infirmity Found"

Writ Appeal – Scope of Interference – Single Judge elaborately considered the admitted facts between the parties in the context of the Lease Deed and Clause 14(i) – Writ Court directed refund of deposit amount as stipulated under Clause 14(i) – Division Bench found no infirmity in the Writ order – Impugned order confirmed – SIPCOT bound to refund the deposit amount as directed [Paras 5–7].

Decision: Writ Appeal dismissed – Order of the Single Judge dated 22.07.2022 in W.P. No. 13565 of 2012 confirmed – No costs – Connected Miscellaneous Petition closed.

Execution Proceedings – Arbitral Award – Judgment Debtor a Company – Arrest Warrant Against Director – Executing Court issued warrant under Order XXI Rule 37(2) and invoked Order XXI Rule 41(3) CPC for non-disclosure of assets – Petitioner contended he was not party to award or execution – Held: Where judgment debtor is a corporation, officers can be examined and directed to file affidavit of assets under Order XXI Rule 41(1) & (2) CPC – However opportunity to comply must be afforded before coercive steps – Arrest warrant set aside with liberty to proceed afresh [Paras 2–4, 9–12].

Order XXI Rule 41 CPC – Scope and Consequences of Non-Compliance – Sub-rule (1) permits examination of officer of corporation – Sub-rule (2) enables Court to direct filing of affidavit of assets – Sub-rule (3) provides detention for disobedience – Invocation of sub-rule (3) permissible only upon established disobedience – Procedural safeguards must be adhered to [Paras 9–11].

Refusal of Notice – Due Process – Notice to petitioner returned as refused – Executing Court proceeded further – High Court held that as petitioner has now appeared and is willing to subject himself to jurisdiction, he must be granted opportunity to show cause and file affidavit of assets of judgment debtor company [Paras 2, 12].

Corporate Liability in Execution – Director/Shareholder – Though not party to arbitral award, officer of judgment debtor company amenable to examination regarding assets of company – Execution Court empowered to secure disclosure of assets to satisfy decree – No opinion expressed on merits of liability [Paras 10, 12].

Relief Granted – Impugned order dated 27.01.2026 insofar as issuance of arrest warrant against petitioner set aside – Petitioner directed to appear before executing Court and comply with Order XXI Rule 41(2) CPC – One week’s time granted to file affidavit of assets – Executing Court to proceed in accordance with law [Order portion].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Arrest warrant against petitioner set aside – Petitioner directed to appear before executing Court on 03.03.2026 and file affidavit of assets within one week, if so advised – Executing Court to proceed in accordance with law – No opinion expressed on merits.

Criminal Procedure – Quashing of FIR – Allegation of Multiple FIRs – Petition under Section 528 BNSS read with Article 227 of the Constitution seeking quashing of FIR registered at Kohima North Police Station on ground that earlier FIR on same transaction had already been registered at Hare Street Police Station, Kolkata – Petitioners contended that continuation of second FIR violates “test of sameness” and amounts to abuse of process – Held: Second FIR permissible where allegations arise from different perspectives and disclose additional offences including forgery of official logo, forging signature of Director of Nagaland State Lotteries and misuse of confidential government documents – FIR lodged by Director of Nagaland State Lotteries revealed wider factual matrix and distinct offences causing financial loss to State – Petitioners failed to make out case for exercise of inherent jurisdiction – Petition dismissed [Paras 15–29].

Multiple FIRs – Test of Sameness – Applicability of principles laid down in T.T. Anthony and Babubhai – Court examined whether the FIR registered at Kohima North P.S and the FIR registered at Hare Street P.S Kolkata related to identical occurrence – Held: Test of sameness not satisfied as complainants, allegations and scope of offences were different – Second FIR disclosed offences relating to forging official logo of Nagaland State Lottery, forging signature of Director and causing loss to State revenue – Such allegations formed a broader factual matrix and were not merely repetition of earlier FIR – Therefore registration of second FIR legally sustainable [Paras 21–25].

Criminal Law – Rival Versions of Same Transaction – Permissibility of multiple FIRs – Court relied on Supreme Court rulings holding that rival versions or different perspectives of same incident may lead to separate FIRs – When FIR is lodged by a different aggrieved person disclosing additional offences and wider conspiracy, second FIR does not violate criminal procedure jurisprudence – Investigation cannot be curtailed merely because earlier FIR exists if new facts and victims are disclosed [Paras 16–20, 24–25].

Forgery and Fraud – Lottery Tickets – Allegations of forging official logo and signature of Director of Nagaland State Lotteries – Charge sheet and witness statements under Section 161 CrPC disclosed prima facie involvement of accused in manufacturing fake lottery tickets and evading GST and TDS causing financial loss to Government of Nagaland – Such allegations constitute distinct offences warranting investigation and trial – Court declined to interfere at preliminary stage [Para 23].

Quashing of FIR – Scope of High Court’s Inherent Powers – Reliance on Bhajan Lal principles – Power to quash criminal proceedings must be exercised sparingly and only where allegations are inherently improbable, malicious or fail to disclose any offence – In present case allegations disclosed prima facie offences and did not fall within categories warranting quashing – High Court refused to exercise inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS read with Article 227 of the Constitution [Paras 27–28].

Non-Cognizable Offence – Defamation under Section 500 IPC – Effect of Section 155(4) CrPC – Even though Section 500 IPC is non-cognizable, when combined with other cognizable offences the entire case is treated as cognizable – Issue regarding applicability or dropping of Section 500 IPC to be considered by Trial Court at appropriate stage [Para 26].

Decision: Criminal Petition dismissed – Prayer for quashing FIR in Kohima North P.S Case No. 009/2023 rejected – Investigation and trial proceedings permitted to continue.

Civil Procedure — Rejection of Plaint — Order VII Rule 11 CPC — Unregistered Gift Deed — Suit for Declaration — Plaint rejected on revision — Plaintiff filed suit for declaration as owner of suit property relying on an unregistered gift deed dated 27.04.2021, executed by her husband 15 years after he had already transferred title to the defendant by registered sale deed dated 08.01.2007 — Trial court dismissed the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC — On revision, High Court holds that an unregistered gift deed of immovable property is void ab initio under Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act and inadmissible under Section 49 of the Registration Act — No cause of action can arise from a void document — Suit is manifestly vexatious — Plaintiff failed to seek cancellation of the registered sale deed of 2007 — Held: Plaint is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC — Impugned order set aside [Paras 12–17].

Transfer of Property — Gift of Immovable Property — Mandatory Registration — Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act requires that a gift of immovable property must be effected by a registered instrument signed by the donor and attested by at least two witnesses — An unregistered gift deed is a nullity in law and cannot be the foundation of a declaration suit — Courts should not permit a suit to be maintained on a document that has no evidentiary value — Accepting the respondent's argument that the trial court may impound the document for stamp duty would open floodgates of vexatious litigation [Paras 12–16].

Limitation — Limitation Act, Article 59 — Circumvention by Clever Drafting — Plaintiff aware of registered sale deed of 2007 yet failed to seek cancellation thereof — Plaint averments themselves disclose the bar — Court not to allow circumvention of Article 59 by suppression of circumstances giving rise to limitation [Para 5].

Decision: Civil Revision Petition allowed — Order dated 25.07.2022 in I.A. No. 651 of 2021 in O.S. No. 670 of 2021 set aside — Plaint in O.S. No. 670 of 2021 rejected — No order as to costs — Pending miscellaneous petitions stand closed.

Criminal Law – Grievous Hurt – Dangerous Weapon – Scope of Section 326 IPC – Petitioners convicted under Section 326/34 IPC for assaulting victim with bamboo stick and iron rod resulting in fracture at right elbow – Courts below held fracture proved by medical evidence and X-ray report – High Court held that though fracture attracts “grievous hurt” under Section 320 Seventhly and Eighthly IPC, bamboo stick/rod used at elbow cannot by its very nature be termed an instrument “likely to cause death” within meaning of Section 326 IPC – Conviction altered to Section 325 IPC [Paras 13–18, 19].

Evidence – Injured Witness – Minor Contradictions – Effect – FIR lodged within 55 minutes naming all accused – Testimony of injured (PW1) corroborated by PW2 and PW3, who were also present and sustained injuries – Minor discrepancies regarding time and place of occurrence not material – Concurrent findings of fact not perverse – No ground for interference in revision on factual appreciation [Paras 10–12].

Medical Evidence – Proof of Fracture – Exhibit Marked Without Objection – Injury report prepared on date of occurrence noted fracture in X-ray – Doctor examined as PW4 and report marked as Exhibit 4 without objection – Victim underwent surgery and remained hospitalized beyond 20 days – Held: Injury squarely falls within clauses Seventhly and Eighthly of Section 320 IPC – Grievous hurt established [Paras 14].

Common Intention – Section 34 IPC – Assault in Furtherance of Common Intention – Evidence showed accused persons jointly dragged victim out and assaulted him – Presence and participation proved by ocular testimony – Even if specific blow not attributed individually, liability under Section 34 attracted – Conviction sustainable for causing grievous hurt in furtherance of common intention [Paras 11, 12].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Interference with Concurrent Findings – High Court reiterated that interference permissible only in exceptional cases of perversity or compelling circumstances – Where two courts concurrently appreciated evidence and found guilt, re-appreciation not warranted merely because another view possible [Para 12].

Sentence – Alteration of Conviction – Since grievous hurt not caused by dangerous weapon as contemplated under Section 326 IPC, conviction modified to Section 325 IPC – Sentence reduced to simple imprisonment for six months with fine of Rs. 5,000/- each, in default simple imprisonment for two months – Petitioners directed to surrender within four weeks [Paras 19–20].

Decision: Revision partly allowed – Conviction under Section 326/34 IPC set aside – Altered to Section 325/34 IPC – Sentence modified to six months’ simple imprisonment with fine – Petitioners directed to surrender within four weeks.

POCSO – Bail Rejected – Rape and Attempt to Murder of Minor – Sections 118(1)/75(2)/76/61(2)(a)/65(1)/109(1) of BNS, 2023 and Sections 4, 8 & 12 of POCSO Act – The accused, known to the victim as "Dadu (grandfather)", lured her to an abandoned house, throttled her, struck her head with a brick, administered organophosphorus poison and sexually assaulted her – SFSL report confirmed presence of Chlorpyrifos and Organophosphorus group of pesticide in victim's stomach wash – Victim referred to AIIMS, Delhi with acute liver failure – Held: "Considering the nature and gravity of the accusations as well as the mode and manner of commission of alleged offences", bail refused [Paras 3–18].

Bail Jurisprudence – Gravity of Offence Overrides Socio-Economic Status of Accused – "Grant of bail calls for exercise of discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course" – Submission that accused being a poor fish-seller had lesser capacity to influence witnesses was rejected – Held: "The gravity and heinousness of the offence and punishment prescribed therefor are also relevant to decide the bail application" – Chance of influencing witnesses is not the sole criterion [Paras 13, 17–18].

Forensic Evidence and Victim's Statement – Prima Facie Case Established – Medical Officer found ligature marks on victim's neck – SFSL report prima facie confirmed Organophosphorus in stomach – Held: "Even if documents regarding treatment at AIIMS are not part of the chargesheet, still the accusations are very serious and grave in nature" [Paras 5–6, 11, 16].

Witness Protection – Victim's Psychological Trauma – Release of accused at this stage would send "a wrong message to society" and cause the victim to "suffer further psychological trauma" – Reliance placed on 198th Law Commission Report as cited in Ramesh & Ors. vs. State of Haryana, (2017) 1 SCC 529 [Paras 12, 14].

Decision: Bail application dismissed – CD along with SFSL report directed to be returned to the learned PP – Trial Court record to be re-consigned with a copy of this order.