Anticipatory Bail – Allegation of Rape and Circulation of Intimate Images – Applicant alleged to have forcibly had sexual intercourse with victim and later recorded and shared her nude videos – FIS revealed subsequent consensual relationship and victim’s earlier statement before Magistrate in missing case that she accompanied applicant voluntarily – Applicant married and victim aware of same – Mobile phone allegedly used produced before Investigating Officer – Held: In the circumstances, further custodial interrogation not necessary – Applicant has no criminal antecedents – Pre-arrest bail granted with stringent conditions [Paras 3, 6].

Custodial Interrogation – Necessity – Allegation of sharing videos through BOTIM and WhatsApp – Applicant produced mobile phone as directed by Court – Investigation can proceed without custodial detention – Cooperation ensured through conditions including regular appearance before Investigating Officer – Held: Custodial interrogation not warranted at this stage [Para 6].

Conditions of Bail – Safeguards – Court imposed conditions including execution of bond with two solvent sureties, weekly appearance before Investigating Officer, cooperation with investigation, prohibition on contacting witnesses or tampering with evidence, restriction on leaving State without permission, and liberty to seek cancellation/modification before jurisdictional court – Held: Conditions sufficient to protect prosecution interest [Final Order].

Decision: Application allowed – Applicant granted pre-arrest bail subject to conditions (i) to (vii) specified in order.

Family Courts Act — Section 7 — Code of Civil Procedure — Section 24 — Power of Transfer — Family Court — Whether Vested — Family Court No. 1, Bharatpur transferred four pending matrimonial cases to Family Court No. 2 relying on general view expressed by learned Single Judge of Rajasthan High Court in order dated 24.04.2017 — Family Court No. 2 expressed doubt as to whether such power vested in the Family Court and referred the matter to the High Court — Held: Section 7 of the Family Courts Act governs the jurisdiction of Family Courts and does not envisage or confer any power upon the Family Court to transfer cases from one Family Court to another, even within the same city or district — Power of transfer under Section 24 CPC is distinct, exclusive, and independent and vests only in the High Court or the District Court — Such power is exerciseable only in respect of proceedings pending before a Court subordinate to it — One Family Court is not subordinate to another Family Court in the same district — Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, being a special statute, prevails over the general provision of Section 24 CPC — Question No. 1 answered in the negative: Family Court lacks jurisdiction to transfer cases from one Family Court to another under Section 24 CPC [Paras 15–24].

Family Courts — Transfer of Cases — Which Court Competent — High Court or District Court — Whether Family Court Is Subordinate to District Court — Family Court established under Section 3 of the Family Courts Act exercises jurisdiction equivalent to that of the District Court or subordinate civil court in respect of matters under Section 7(1)(a) — By virtue of Section 7(1)(b), Family Court is deemed to be a District Court for purposes of exercising such jurisdiction — However, a Family Court cannot be considered subordinate to the Principal District Court for purposes of Section 24 CPC — Held: Transfer of cases from one Family Court to another, whether within the same district or between two districts within the same State, can be exercised by the High Court alone under Sections 22, 23 and 24 CPC — Power of transfer under Section 21A of the Hindu Marriage Act also exerciseable only by a Court empowered under Section 24 CPC, not by the Family Court — Administrative allocation of work among Judges of the same Family Court is distinct from judicial power of transfer [Paras 19–22].

Single Judge's General View — Per Incuriam — Binding Precedent — Whether Single Judge Can Vest Transfer Power in Family Court by Judicial Order — Learned Single Judge, while deciding a transfer application in 2017, expressed a general view that Family Courts situated in the same city may exercise power of transfer suo motu or on an application by parties — Held: Such view cannot be held to be in conformity with Section 7 of the Family Courts Act or Section 24 CPC — The Single Judge's view was expressed without considering that Section 7 of the Family Courts Act does not confer transfer power on Family Courts and without appreciating that transfer under Section 24 CPC is exerciseable only in respect of subordinate courts — The general view expressed in para Nos. 4, 6 and 9 of the order dated 24.04.2017 is held to be per incuriam and does not constitute a binding judicial precedent — No judicial order of a Single Judge of the High Court can vest in the Family Court a power of transfer not conferred by its special statute — Questions Nos. 2 and 3 answered accordingly [Paras 25–26].

Decision: Civil Reference disposed of — Order dated 06.12.2025 passed by Family Court No. 1, Bharatpur transferring cases without jurisdiction declared non-est — Parties at liberty to invoke jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 24 CPC — General view expressed in para Nos. 4, 6 and 9 of order dated 24.04.2017 of learned Single Judge declared per incuriam and not binding on Family Courts — Copy of order directed to be sent to Family Court Nos. 1 and 2, Bharatpur and circulated to all Family Courts in the State of Rajasthan where more than one Family Court has been established [Paras 27–29].

Service Law – Departmental Enquiry – Scope of Judicial Review – Tribunal reappreciated oral and documentary evidence and substituted its own findings for that of Enquiry Officer – Held: In disciplinary matters Court/Tribunal is concerned with decision making process and not sufficiency of evidence – Once findings are supported by some evidence and enquiry is conducted in accordance with rules, reappreciation is impermissible – Tribunal exceeded jurisdiction [Paras 19-22, 59].

Natural Justice – Alleged Non-Supply of Fact Finding Report and Audio Transcript – Preliminary fact finding report prepared without notice – Regular enquiry thereafter conducted with charge sheet, cross examination and defence evidence – No demonstrable prejudice shown regarding audio recording – Held: No violation of principles of natural justice – Mere irregularity without proof of prejudice does not vitiate enquiry [Paras 23-29, 59].

Service Misconduct – Issuance of Tender Forms to Ineligible Contractors – Junior Engineer processed and endorsed scrutiny sheets despite absence of valid registration and solvency certificates – Duty Chart (Exh. C-12) assigned responsibility of issuance and opening of tenders – Plea of acting under superior’s instructions rejected – Obedience to superior is no defence to ex facie violation of mandatory procedure – Finding based on documentary material not perverse [Paras 30-37].

Tender Procedure – Opening of Financial Bids of Ineligible Contractors – Two-envelope system violated – Respondent admitted opening both envelopes and preparing comparative statements – Misconduct not confined to final decision making authority – Participation in breach of prescribed procedure sufficient – Tribunal erred in treating Respondent as mere ministerial assistant [Paras 38-43].

Corruption in Service – Acceptance of Gratification – Specific oral testimony of contractor supported by recorded conversation – Standard of proof in departmental enquiry is preponderance of probabilities – Absence of final authority to award contract not determinative – Finding of guilt not based on no evidence nor perverse [Paras 44-51].

Punishment – Compulsory Retirement – Proportionality – Misconduct involved breach of tender norms and acceptance of illegal gratification – Compulsory retirement a major but permissible penalty – Not shockingly disproportionate – Reinstatement with full back wages unwarranted in absence of pleading and proof of unemployment – Tribunal’s interference unsustainable [Paras 52-58].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Judgment and Order dated 14/07/2006 of University and College Tribunal set aside – Order dated 20/04/2005 imposing penalty of compulsory retirement restored – Respondent not entitled to back wages – No order as to costs [Paras 59-60].

Service Law – Suspension on Arrest – Acquittal in Criminal Case – Claim for Full Pay and Allowances – Petitioner ANM placed under suspension from 1/9/1999 after arrest in criminal case under Sections 307, 294, 341 & 34 IPC – Convicted by Trial Court and later acquitted by High Court in appeal – Suspension period treated as on duty for all purposes except pay and allowances – Held: Suspension was under deeming provision of Rule 9(2)(a) of Rules, 1966 on account of custody beyond 48 hours – Such suspension cannot be termed wholly unjustified merely because of subsequent acquittal – Full pay and allowances admissible only when competent authority records finding that suspension was wholly unjustified under FR 54-B(3) – No such finding recorded – Petition dismissed [Paras 8-11, 19].

Fundamental Rule 54-B – Scope and Interpretation – Payment of Back Wages – FR 54-B(3) mandates payment of full pay and allowances only if suspension is found wholly unjustified – Discretion lies with competent authority – Where suspension is statutory consequence of arrest and prosecution not initiated at instance of department, denial of full back wages justified – Employer cannot be burdened for period services were not rendered due to employee’s involvement in criminal case [Paras 9-11, 15-16].

Back Wages after Acquittal – Criminal Prosecution not at Department’s Instance – Supreme Court Precedents – Relied on Ranchhodji Chaturji Thakore v. Gujarat Electricity Board and Union of India v. Jaipal Singh – Held: If employee involved in criminal case in personal capacity and department not responsible for prosecution, reinstatement on acquittal does not automatically entitle employee to back wages – Each case to be considered on its own facts – Suspension during pendency of trial and appeal not wholly unjustified [Paras 12-16].

Long Suspension – Stages of Proceedings – Gurpal Singh Case Distinguished – Apex Court held that suspension during trial and pendency of appeal cannot be termed wholly unjustified – Only suspension beyond reasonable stage without justification may attract full pay – In present case, suspension continued till retirement due to criminal proceedings – No stage shown where suspension became wholly unjustified [Para 17].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – Impugned order dated 25/1/2019 treating suspension period as on duty except for full pay and allowances upheld – Petitioner not entitled to full pay and allowances for suspension period.

Employees’ State Insurance – Damages under Section 85-B – Limitation – No express limitation prescribed for passing order under Section 85-B – Contribution for period 1972–1989 paid on 07.09.2000 – Damages imposed on 16.04.2014 – Delay of 14 years – Held: Even in absence of express statutory limitation, power must be exercised within reasonable period – Five years considered reasonable based on scheme of Act – Order passed beyond reasonable period unsustainable [Paras 21–26, 33].

Reasonable Period – Determination – Penal civil liability – Where statute confers power without prescribing limitation, such power must be exercised within reasonable time – Second proviso to Section 45-A (five-year limit), Regulation 32 (five-year record retention) and proviso to Explanation (b) to Section 77(1A) provide legislative guidance – Five years treated as reasonable benchmark for Section 85-B proceedings [Paras 23–25].

Interest Proceedings – Distinction from Damages – Pendency of interest proceedings and litigation regarding rate of interest does not justify delay in initiating damages – Damages levied for delayed contribution, not for interest – Hence, independent cause – Fourteen-year delay unexplained and unreasonable [Paras 27–28].

Welfare Legislation – Penal Provisions – Deterrence – Though ESI Act is beneficial social legislation, penalty provisions cannot be invoked after inordinate delay – Certainty in litigation required – Deterrent effect diluted if invoked after long lapse of time [Para 30].

Scope of Judgment – Court proceeded on assumption that no express limitation exists for Section 85-B – Question whether express limitation is otherwise provided kept open for adjudication in appropriate case [Para 32].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Substantial question of law answered against the appellant-Corporation and in favour of respondent-Gymkhana – Order of ESI Court quashing damages upheld – Statutory authorities expected to act within reasonable time henceforth.

Commercial Suit – Order VI Rule 15A CPC – Statement of Truth – Non-compliance – Whether fatal – Trial Court dismissed suit as not maintainable for failure to file Statement of Truth and proper attestation – However, after full trial, evidence led and findings on merits returned in favour of plaintiff for principal sum – Held, requirement though mandatory is procedural and defect is curable – Procedural law is handmaid of justice – In absence of prejudice and after adjudication on merits, dismissal solely on technical defect unsustainable [Paras 21-25].

Order VI Rule 15A(5) CPC – Discretion to Strike Out Pleadings – Use of expression “may” confers discretion – Striking off pleadings not automatic consequence of non-compliance – Judgment in M/s A.V. Industries distinguished as rendered in context of ex parte decree and different factual matrix – In present case, plaintiff undertook to cure defect – Held, discretion ought to have been exercised to permit rectification [Para 26].

Commercial Dispute – Conversion from Summary Suit – Suit initially filed under Order XXXVII CPC and later treated as commercial suit – Omission to file Statement of Truth attributable to change in procedural regime – Defect does not go to root of jurisdiction nor render proceedings void ab initio – Held, opportunity to comply with Order VI Rule 15A to be granted [Paras 25, 27].

Recovery Suit – Findings on Merits – Trial Court, on appreciation of ledger, invoices, dishonoured cheques and oral evidence, held plaintiff entitled to principal sum of Rs. 29,64,404/- but denied relief solely due to procedural non-compliance – Held, once merits adjudicated in favour of plaintiff, dismissal of suit on curable defect amounts to elevating form over substance [Paras 13-14, 24, 27].

Decision: Impugned judgment dated 06.10.2023 set aside – Plaintiff granted four weeks to file appropriate application to comply with Order VI Rule 15A CPC – Trial Court directed to pass fresh decree in terms of findings on Issue Nos. 3 and 4 and determine pendente lite and future interest in accordance with law – Appeal disposed of.

Devaswom Board – Temple Administration – Welfare of Temple Animals – Complaint regarding deplorable condition of Gosala at Vaikom Mahadeva Temple – Allegation of starvation, inadequate shelter, poor drainage, lack of veterinary care and non-appointment of full-time cowherd – Ombudsman’s Report No.48/2025 placed before Court – Photographs and Advocate Commissioner’s report revealed pathetic condition of bulls and cows donated by devotees through ritual ‘nadayiruthal’ – Held: Travancore Devaswom Board has shown little priority to welfare of animals and systemic lapses require immediate corrective measures [Paras 2–9].

Animal Welfare – Religious Significance of Nandi – Court referred to Nandi Upapurana describing Nandi as vahana and foremost devotee of Lord Shiva – Observed that bulls and cows in temple premises are objects of reverence and their neglect is shocking and disturbing – Temple authorities bound to ensure dignity, hygiene and proper care of animals donated by devotees [Paras 10–11].

Administrative Accountability – Directions to Devaswom Board – Court directed designation of specific Administrative Officer responsible for Gosala maintenance – Mandated repairs to cowshed, separate feeding spaces for bulls and cows, proper drainage and ventilation, appointment of full-time cowherd (Gopalakan), enhancement of fodder arrangements and opening of separate bank account exclusively for Gosala maintenance – Officer made directly answerable to Court and liable for lapses – Ombudsman directed to conduct regular and surprise inspections [Paras 12–14].

Policy Direction – Long-term Measures – Board permitted to retain one bull symbolically at Vaikom and shift others to Kalikavu Bull Protection Centre – Directed to complete repairs at Kalikavu within three months – Board advised to prepare comprehensive master plan for establishment and maintenance of Gosalas in Siva temples using dedicated funds and sponsorships [Paras 13–14].

Decision: DBP disposed of with detailed mandatory directions – Compliance affidavit to be filed within three months – Matter posted for compliance report on 25/05/2026.

Criminal Law – Murder – Conviction Confirmed – Accused Nos.1 and 2 convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC for inflicting multiple sword blows on vital parts of deceased – Ocular evidence of wife (PW-2) corroborated by independent witness (PW-5) regarding chase with blood-stained swords – Medical evidence established homicidal death due to penetrating chest injury sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death – Recovery of swords under Section 27 Evidence Act and FSL report confirming deceased’s blood on weapons and clothes of accused – Held: Complete and unbroken chain of circumstances proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction and life sentence upheld [Paras 23, 26, 29, 36].

Ocular Evidence – Related Witness – Minor Contradictions – Testimony of complainant-wife found substantially reliable despite minor discrepancies regarding sequence and attribution of blows – Such variations held natural in traumatic incident – Core prosecution case remained intact and corroborated by independent evidence – Principle of “sifting grain from chaff” applied [Paras 14, 26-27].

Section 27 Evidence Act – Recovery of Weapon – Swords recovered at instance of accused from bushes – Even though some panch witnesses partly hostile, recovery sustained through panchnama, Investigating Officer’s testimony and FSL corroboration – Discovery distinctly connected with information given by accused – Recovery held reliable incriminating circumstance [Paras 20, 30-31].

FSL Evidence – Blood Stains – Serological report established deceased’s blood group on clothes of accused Nos.1 and 2 and on recovered swords – Accused failed to explain incriminating circumstance in Section 313 CrPC statements – Adverse inference drawn – Scientific evidence formed clinching link in chain [Paras 22, 32].

Common Intention – Section 34 IPC – Prior quarrel and threats established motive – Accused Nos.1 and 2 jointly chased and assaulted deceased with deadly weapons on vital parts – Acts done with knowledge and intention likely to cause death – Offence squarely falls under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC – No Exception to Section 300 attracted [Paras 13, 23, 29].

Appeal Against Acquittal – Limited Interference – Accused No.3 acquitted of charge under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC – Evidence insufficient to establish shared common intention to commit murder – Her role limited to quarrel and assault on complainant – Applying principles in Chandrappa and Rajesh Prasad, no perversity found in acquittal – State appeal dismissed [Paras 33-35, 36.1].

Decision:

Criminal Appeal No.1515 of 2013 (by accused Nos.1 and 2) dismissed – Conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentence of life imprisonment with fine confirmed – Accused to surrender within six weeks.

Criminal Appeal No.1315 of 2013 (by State against acquittal of accused No.3) dismissed – Acquittal confirmed.

Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act – Deemed Conveyance – Scope of Section 11 – Promoter’s obligation to convey “his right, title and interest” – Developers contended that only leasehold rights were contemplated under allotment letters and development agreements – No registered lease ever executed – Land continued to vest in owner who obtained IOD and Commencement Certificate and caused construction – Held: Under Section 11(1), promoter must convey entire interest actually held by him – If promoter holds ownership, ownership must pass to society – Private contractual clauses cannot dilute statutory mandate – Deemed conveyance of ownership upheld [Paras 46-52, 79-82].

Promoter – Wide definition under Section 2(c) MOFA – Includes person who constructs or causes construction – Owner obtaining development permissions and enabling construction through developer falls within definition – Promoter cannot avoid statutory obligations by splitting roles between owner and developer – Substance of transaction to prevail over form [Paras 36-43, 77-79].

Contractual Clauses vs Statutory Mandate – Allotment letters and flat agreements repeatedly referring to “lease” – Municipal condition initially prohibiting leasing for ten years – No executed lease deed in existence – Held: Mere intention to grant lease does not create leasehold estate – Unexecuted proposal cannot restrict statutory entitlement of society – Section 11 read with Rule 5 and Form V overrides contrary drafting [Paras 64-66, 75-79].

Deemed Conveyance – Nature of estate transferable – Society entitled to entire estate held by promoter – If promoter holds freehold, ownership must be conveyed – If promoter holds leasehold, full leasehold must be assigned – Promoter cannot retain superior interest and transfer fragmentary rights – Legislative intent is to secure collective ownership for flat purchasers [Paras 48-52, 56-57, 61-63].

Precedent – Reliance on earlier order granting only assignment of lease in another society (Mahavir CHS) – Held: Deemed conveyance proceedings are fact specific – Outcome depends on nature of title in each case – Earlier order not determinative without identical title position [Paras 68-73].

Consumer Protection Objective – MOFA enacted to prevent promoters from indefinitely retaining title after sale of flats – Statutory scheme mandates formation of society and transfer of full interest within prescribed period – Interpretation must advance protective purpose of legislation [Paras 28-35, 46-47].

Decision: Writ Petitions dismissed – Impugned orders granting unilateral deemed conveyance in favour of respective respondent societies upheld – Authorities directed to complete consequential steps – No order as to costs.