Through: -

Mr. Furqan Yaqoob, GA CORAM:

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH SEKHRI, JUDGE (ORDER) 08.11.2024 The subject matter of this petition falls within the definition of 'service matters' as contained in Section 3(q) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), which has become applicable to the Union Territories of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh, after coming into force of the Jammu and Kashmir Re-

08-11-2024

1. The petitioner-unit through its proprietor by the medium of present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has challenged order no. 187 JK PCC of 2024 dated 15th October, 2024, whereby respondent no. 5 has directed to close down the stone crusher of the petitioner-unit under the name and style of M/s Goodluck Stone Crusher, Lasjan Chadoora B.K. Pora, District Budgam. In terms of the said order, respondent no. 5, has also directed the other respondents to take further action against the unit of the petitioner as mentioned in the impugned order.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, places reliance on an order dated 13th July, 2024 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in an identical matter being WP(C) No. 1418/2024 and submits that the case of the petitioner is identical to the aforesaid case and accordingly prayed that the same order be passed in the present writ petition as well with a view to maintain parity.

Through: -

Mr. Furqan Yaqoob, GA CORAM:

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH SEKHRI, JUDGE (ORDER) 08.11.2024 The present petition in terms of Section 482 Cr.PC came to be preferred by the petitioner namely Farooq Ahmad Dar through his brother Ali Mohammad Dar.

At the motion stage this Court vide order dated 17.11.2023, called upon the petitioner to address regarding maintainability of the present petition. thereafter, none has turned up for further prosecution of the case.

Through: -

Mr. Furqan Yaqoob, GA CORAM:

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH SEKHRI, JUDGE (ORDER) 08.11.2024 Vide common Judgment dated 26.05.2022, passed by this Court in SWP No. 1002/2018 titled Tasleema Jan Vs. State and Ors., and SWP No. 876/2015, titled Roomi Akhter Vs. State and Ors., following directions were passed against the resondents.

"i) The respondents shall consider the claim of both the candidates, Roomi Akhter and Tasleema Jan, in respect of their engagement as Angan Wari Worker for the Anganwadi Centre in question. Both the petitioners shall be associated with the consideration process by allowing them to put forward their stand effectively.

11.11.2024 Ms. Rasheeda Shaheen, Advocate was appearing on behalf of the contesting respondents No. 1 to 3. Learned counsel submits that the respondent No. 2-Showkat Ali Para has expired and is now representing the respondent No. 1 & 3.

Let requisite application along with death certificate for bringing on record the legal representatives of the respondent No.2-Showkat Ali Para be submitted by the legal representatives of the respondent No. 2 for the purpose of contesting the case of the petitioners.

In the meantime, an application CM 733/2024 has come to be preferred on behalf of the respondent No. 1 & 3 with respondent No. 2 being no more, as such, cannot be referred for the purpose of being an applicant seeking release of the awarded amount as awarded by the Assistant Labour Commissioner under Minimum Wages Act, 1948.

08.11.2024 None appears for the respondent despite service. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

1. In the instant petition, the petitioner has challenged order dated 11th April 2022 passed by the court of Forest Magistrate, Srinagar, in the complaint filed by the respondent herein against the petitioner herein for commission of offences under section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881.

2. Perusal of the impugned order ex facie tends to show that the trial court has passed the impugned order in a casual and cursory manner, overlooking the mandate of the Apex court laid down in case titled as "Pepsi Food Ltd. and another vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and others reported in (1998) 5 SCC 749 wherein at para 28 following has been laid down:

Through: -

Mr. Furqan Yaqoob, GA CORAM:

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH SEKHRI, JUDGE (ORDER) 08.11.2024 The petitioner is aggrieved of order dated 195-JKPCC of 2024 dated 16.10.2024, by virtue of which the stone crusher unit of the petitioner has been directed to be closed by respondent No. 2 on the ground that the petitioner has failed to produce the requisite documents from the revenue department as per Rule 10 of S.O. 60 of 2021 dated 23.02.2021 without valid consent from the J&K Pollution Control Committee and that the unit of the petitioner is being run in violation of Section 25/26 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Section 21 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. By virtue of the impugned order, respondent No. 3 has also been directed to de-register the stone crusher of the petitioner.

Through: -

Mr. Furqan Yaqoob, GA CORAM:

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH SEKHRI, JUDGE (ORDER) 08.11.2024 The petitioner is aggrieved of order dated 212-JKPCC of 2024 dated 18.10.2024, by virtue of which the stone crusher unit of the petitioner has been directed to be closed by respondent No. 2 on the ground that the petitioner has failed to produce the requisite documents from the revenue department as per Rule 10 of S.O. 60 of 2021 dated 23.02.2021 without valid consent from the J&K Pollution Control Committee and that the unit of the petitioner is being run in violation of Section 25/26 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Section 21 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. By virtue of the impugned order, respondent No. 3 has also been directed to de-register the stone crusher of the petitioner.

Accused Nos1, 2, 12 and 15 are before this Court in these three petitions under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., with a prayer to grant anticipatory bail in Crime No.98/2024 registered by Seshadripuram Police Station, Bengaluru City for the offences punishable Sections 120B, 409, 420, 465, 467, 468 & 471 of IPC R/w 149 of IPC.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

3. FIR in Crime No.98/2024 was registered by Seshadripuram Police Station, Bengaluru City against Smt Puttamma and others, on the basis of first information dated 04.10.2024 received from Sri Mallesh M, DYSP, attached to BDA, Bengaluru. Apprehending arrest in the said case, the petitioners had filed Crl.Misc.No.9338/2024, Crl.Misc.9367/2024 and Crl.Misc.No.9337/2024 before the jurisdictional Sessions Court, which was rejected on 21.10.2024. Therefore, they are before this Court.

Accused Nos1, 2, 12 and 15 are before this Court in these three petitions under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., with a prayer to grant anticipatory bail in Crime No.98/2024 registered by Seshadripuram Police Station, Bengaluru City for the offences punishable Sections 120B, 409, 420, 465, 467, 468 & 471 of IPC R/w 149 of IPC.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

3. FIR in Crime No.98/2024 was registered by Seshadripuram Police Station, Bengaluru City against Smt Puttamma and others, on the basis of first information dated 04.10.2024 received from Sri Mallesh M, DYSP, attached to BDA, Bengaluru. Apprehending arrest in the said case, the petitioners had filed Crl.Misc.No.9338/2024, Crl.Misc.9367/2024 and Crl.Misc.No.9337/2024 before the jurisdictional Sessions Court, which was rejected on 21.10.2024. Therefore, they are before this Court.

Heard Sri.Madhavachar M., learned Counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri. Kashyap N. Naik, learned Counsel for the respondent.

2. The accused, who suffered an order of conviction passed in C.C.No.52961/2017 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'N.I.Act', for short) and confirmed in Crl.A.No.25159/2021, has filed present revision petition.

3. The facts in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the revision petition are as under;

A complaint came to be lodged under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., by the complainant alleging the commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act, against the accused contending that the complainant had entered into a Partnership Agreement dated 10.07.2014 NC: 2024:KHC:44402 with the accused for a period of one year commencing from 14.07.2014 to 30.06.2015 to engage and run the business of sale, marketing of alcoholic and non-alcoholic drinks, etc, in the name of and style of "Quality MRP Shop", which was licenced in the name of Sri.C.M.Kumar, at Madikeri. A sum of Rs.10,00,000/- was invested by the complainant as capital for running the said business in the partnership and also additional amount was paid by the complainant at the request of the accused.

Accused Nos1, 2, 12 and 15 are before this Court in these three petitions under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., with a prayer to grant anticipatory bail in Crime No.98/2024 registered by Seshadripuram Police Station, Bengaluru City for the offences punishable Sections 120B, 409, 420, 465, 467, 468 & 471 of IPC R/w 149 of IPC.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

3. FIR in Crime No.98/2024 was registered by Seshadripuram Police Station, Bengaluru City against Smt Puttamma and others, on the basis of first information dated 04.10.2024 received from Sri Mallesh M, DYSP, attached to BDA, Bengaluru. Apprehending arrest in the said case, the petitioners had filed Crl.Misc.No.9338/2024, Crl.Misc.9367/2024 and Crl.Misc.No.9337/2024 before the jurisdictional Sessions Court, which was rejected on 21.10.2024. Therefore, they are before this Court.

Accused No.3 in Special C.C.No.17/2024 pending on the file of learned XXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Court for NDPS, Bengaluru arising out of NCB Crime No.48/1/29/2023/BZU, registered by Narcotics Control Bureau, Bengaluru Zonal Unit, Bengaluru for the for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) read with Sections 20(b)(ii) (A), 22(c), 23(c), 27, 27A, 28 and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act'), is before this Court under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent, who has filed statement of objections.

Accused No.1 in Crime No.321/2024 registered by Jayanagara Police Station, Bengaluru City, for the offences punishable under Sections 376 & 406 r/w 34 of IPC, is before this Court under Section 439 of Cr.P.C, seeking regular bail.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

3. FIR in Crime No.321/2024 was registered by Jayanagara Police Station, Bengaluru city, against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences on the basis of the first information dated 14.09.2024, received from Victim girl, aged about 25 years. During the course of the NC: 2024:KHC:45395 investigation of the case, the petitioner herein was arrested on 15.09.2024 and remanded to judicial custody.

(PER: THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI) Petitioner who is arraigned as accused No.3 has filed this petition under Section 482 Bharatiya Nagarika Surksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') to grant him anticipatory bail in Crime No.126/2024 of respondent Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections of 406, 419, 420 r/w 149 of Indian Penal Code.

2. In support of his petition, petitioner has contended that he has not committed the alleged offences and has been falsely implicated. He is innocent and law abiding citizen. He has not involved in any other criminal case. Though the alleged offences are non bailable, they are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The complaint is an after thought cock and bull story created by the complainant. The alleged incident has taken place on 27.06.2024, but complaint is filed on 10.07.2024. The inordinate delay in filing the complaint is not explained.

Petitioners are seeking quashing of the charge-sheet filed in C.C.No.503/2023 and the order dated 08.06.2023 passed by the Court of Civil Judge and JMFC, Deodurga, taking cognizance of offences punishable under Section 171 (f) of IPC, Sections 177 and 192 (A) of IMV Act, 1988 and Section 3 of the Karnataka Open Places (Prevention of Disfigurement) Act, 1981.

-3-

NC: 2024:KHC-K:8071

02. In brief, the charge-sheet allegations are that, petitioners being the driver and owner of an Ambulance bearing Reg.No.KA-05-AK-6853 has exhibited a photo of one Sri. Shivanagouda Nayak, a BJP candidate and the said Ambulance was parked in front of Nadagoud Hospital, Arakera.

Petitioners who were arrayed as accused Nos.2 to 6 in CC No.15405/2005 as per the order dated 05.12.2014 passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, are NC: 2024:KHC:44458 seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them.

2. Brief facts of the case are that, respondent No.2 as complainant filed the private complaint in PCR No.3599/2004 against accused Nos.1 to 5 alleging commission of the offence punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 506(2) R/w Section 34 of IPC. It is alleged by the complainant that accused No.1 was working as village accountant. He was having real- estate dealings in the name of his wife, sons, son-in-law and daughter. Accused No.1 is the brother-in-law of the complainant and he induced the complainant and his colleagues to invest in the land in Sy.No.152 of Yelahanka village. He executed General Power of Attorney in favour of his son- accused No.4. Accused Nos.1 to 4 took the complainant and his wife to the land in Yelahanka and induced the complainant to purchase a site. Accordingly, the complainant agreed to purchase the site and paid Rs.1,00,000/- to accused No.1 during May 1998. Later, the accused have shown a brochure pertaining to the land situated at Ramanagara, near Mysore road and promised to develop the same as a resort under the name of Aradhya Scientific Farms and Resorts International.

The judgment and order dated 18.12.2017 passed by the Court of Sessions Judge, Special Court at Yadagiri in NC: 2024:KHC-K:8145 Special Case No.45/2015 is assailed in this appeal by the accused.

2. Heard the learned counsel for appellant, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent/State and perused the evidence and material on record.

3. Charges were framed against the accused/ appellant for offences punishable under Sections 323, 354(A)(1), 504 of IPC and Section 3(1) (xi) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

4. The case of the prosecution is that on 09.06.2015 at about 11.00 a.m., when the complainant/PW-1 was proceeding towards the canal in Nagaral village to wash the clothes, the accused held her hands, abused her as 'le holeya sule' and called her to sleep with him and when she resisted, he dragged her by holding her tuft, assaulted on her back with his hands and thereby committed the charged offences.

This appeal is filed by the sole accused praying to set aside the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 29.06.2017 passed in S.C.No.762/2014 by the LIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, whereunder the appellant -accused has been convicted for offences punishable under Sections 376 and 417 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "IPC" for brevity) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 07 years and pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/- for offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 01 years offence punishable under Section 417 of IPC.

Heard the learned Senior counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the caveator-respondent Nos.1 to 9.

2. This miscellaneous first appeal is filed praying this Court to set aside the order of status-quo granted by the Trial Court dated 05.10.2024 in O.S.No.7166/2024 passed on I.A.No.2 filed by respondent Nos.1 to 9 and grant such other relief as deems fit in the circumstances of the case.

3. The respondents/plaintiffs before the Trial Court also sought for the relief of temporary injunction restraining the defendant Nos.1, 2 and 3 from enforcing or acting upon the invocation notice dated 28.09.2024 and from taking any further action regarding transfer or encumbrance of the pledged shares of Mantri Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (100%), Mantri Developers Pvt. Ltd. (51%) or Agara Techzone Pvt. Ltd. (12%) or from enforcing any security under the Bond Trust Deed and Pledge Agreements, until final adjudication of the rights of the parties by the Trial Court and inter alia sought for the relief on I.A.No.2 to restrain the defendant Nos.1 to 3 from enforcing or acting upon invocation notice dated 28.09.2024. The respondents also filed applications and order is passed only on I.A.Nos.2 to 4. It is also borne out from the records that caveat was also filed and learned counsel for both the parties were heard and suit was filed before the Vacation Court and I.A.No.1 was filed under Section 11(3) of Bengaluru City Civil Court Act to take up the matter before the Vacation Court and the same was allowed.

1. This First Appeal is filed by defendants No.2 to 4 in O.S.No.145/2014, on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gokak. The suit for declaration and injunction is decreed with cost.

2. The declaration granted by the Court reads as under:

i. Suit of the plaintiffs is decreed with costs. ii. It is declared that, the decree passed in O.S.No.58/2008 is partially canceled to the extent of suit property.

iii. Defendants No.2 to 4 are hereby restrained by an order of permanent injunction from entering their names in record of rights of suit property on the basis of compromise decree passed in O.S.No.58/2008.

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI) This appeal is filed by the appellant /accused seeking to set aside the order of conviction and sentence dated 14.09.2023 and 16.09.2023 passed by the Special Judge and Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bidar, in Special Case (PC) No.25/2015 convicting him for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of P.C. Act, 1988 and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 4 years for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of P.C. Act, 1988 and fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and to undergo simple imprisonment for period of 3 years and to pay fine of Rs.50,000/- for the offence punishable NC: 2024:KHC-K:8245 under Section 7 of P.C.Act, 1988, with adequate default sentences and that he may be acquitted.

IN RE: B.K.NAGARAJAPPA

6. The petitioner Sri B.K.Nagarajappa had served the Corporation between 05.04.2021 to 30.06.2022 as General Manager. Previous approval has been granted for the purpose of investigation as regards the following:

NC: 2024:KHC:45706 PÀæ.¸ÀA ¥Éưøï oÁuÉ C¥ÀgÁzsÀ ¸ÀASÉå 1 PÀ®§ÄVð f¯Éè, PÁ¼ÀV ªÉÆ.¸ÀA.79/2022 gÀ PÀ®A ¥Éưøï oÁuÉ 406, 409, 420, gÉ/« 34 L¦¹ 2 ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀ ¹zÁÝ¥ÀÄgÀ ªÉÆ.¸ÀA.56/2023, PÀ®A ¥Éưøï oÁuÉ 406, 420 ¸ÀºÀ 149 L¦¹ 3 ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ UÁæªÀiÁAvÀgÀ f¯Éè ªÉÆ.¸ÀA.07/2023, PÀ®A-

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA) The present writ petition is filed by the plaintiff challenging the order dated 16.07.2024 passed in M.A.No.7/2023 by the Court of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kalaghatagi1.

2. The relevant facts leading to the present writ petition are that the plaintiff instituted a suit in O.S.No.11/2023 before the Civil Judge and JMFC, Kalghatagi2 wherein the respondents herein arrayed as defendants. The reliefs sought for in the suit are extracted herein for ready reference.

"14. Prayer: That, the most respectfully and graciously prayed that, this hon'ble Court be please to pass decree in favour of plaintiff as under:-

IN RE: B.K.NAGARAJAPPA

6. The petitioner Sri B.K.Nagarajappa had served the Corporation between 05.04.2021 to 30.06.2022 as General Manager. Previous approval has been granted for the purpose of investigation as regards the following:

NC: 2024:KHC:45706 PÀæ.¸ÀA ¥Éưøï oÁuÉ C¥ÀgÁzsÀ ¸ÀASÉå 1 PÀ®§ÄVð f¯Éè, PÁ¼ÀV ªÉÆ.¸ÀA.79/2022 gÀ PÀ®A ¥Éưøï oÁuÉ 406, 409, 420, gÉ/« 34 L¦¹ 2 ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀ ¹zÁÝ¥ÀÄgÀ ªÉÆ.¸ÀA.56/2023, PÀ®A ¥Éưøï oÁuÉ 406, 420 ¸ÀºÀ 149 L¦¹ 3 ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ UÁæªÀiÁAvÀgÀ f¯Éè ªÉÆ.¸ÀA.07/2023, PÀ®A-

(PER: THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI) Petitioner who is complainant before the trial court has filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. challenging the order dated 13.12.2017 passed by the trial court dismissing the complainant as against accused Nos.8 to 11, by which the trial court has ordered for issuance of process against accused Nos.1 to 7, but refused to proceed against accused Nos.8 to 11 who are revenue officials.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to by their ranks before the trial court.

NC: 2024:KHC-D:16229

3. In support of the petition, complainant has contended that the refusal by the trial court to take cognizance against the accused Nos.8 to 11 is opposed to law, facts and probabilities of the case. The trial court has failed to appreciate that accused Nos.8 to 11 have failed to act in accordance with law. They have altered the boundaries of the property of the complainant in a manner advantageous to accused Nos.1 to 7, without issuing notice to the complainant. There are specific allegations in para 8 of the complaint regarding illegal acts of accused Nos.8 to 11 which is sufficient to take cognizance against them. Not only accused Nos.8 to 11 guilty of not providing opportunity to the complainant by issuing notice, but also in altering boundaries of the property of the complainant contrary to the documents. Complainant is required to be provided with an opportunity to establish the allegations made against accused Nos.8 to 11 and hence, the petition.

The petitioner - accused is before this Court calling in question proceedings in Spl.C.No.1338/2024 registered for offences punishable under Sections 417, 420 and 313 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (the 'IPC' for short).

-3-

NC: 2024:KHC:44321

2. Heard Sri. Hemanth Kumar K., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. R. Rangaswamy, learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri. K.A. Prathap, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

3. Facts adumbrated are as follows:

The second respondent is the complainant, registers a complaint on 28.03.2024 for the afore quoted offences. The crux of the complaint is that the complainant and the petitioner get acquainted to each other in the year 2021, while they were working together. The narration in the complaint that the friendship blossomed into relationship and the relationship was physical as well. Further allegation in the complaint is that the petitioner had physical relationship with the complainant on the pretext of marriage or on the promise of marriage. The promise having been broken is what leads the complainant to register a complaint with the jurisdictional police for the aforesaid offences. The police after investigation filed a charge sheet and the matter is presently pending as a special case in 1338/2024 for the afore quoted offences.

Petitioners are co-accused in Special Case No.741 of 2024 pending on the file of VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural, Bengaluru.

2. Heard Sri Mayur D Bhanu, learned counsel for petitioner and Smt Rashmi Patil, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent.

3. This Court, qua two of the accused i.e., accused Nos.23 and 69 in W.P.No.29510 of 2024 disposed on 4-11- 2024 has held as follows:

"........

- 14 -

NC: 2024:KHC:45326 Against the petitioners, non-bailable warrant is issued as is issued against several of the accused who were not present. Whether a non-bailable warrant could be issued or not for securing the presence of the accused, need not detain this Court for long or delve deep into the matter. The Apex Court in the case of TARSEM LAL V. ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE reported in (2024) 7 SCC 61, considers the very issue and holds as follows:

SEBI and Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies have not filed their reports.

2. Investigating Officer is directed to communicate this order to the officer concerned of SEBI as well as Mr. P. K. Dutta, learned Advocate who ordinarily represents SEBI as well as the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies for due compliance.

3. Let the matters appear on 25.11.2024.

4. Interim order passed earlier shall continue for a period of four weeks from date or until further orders, whichever is earlier. (Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)

4. In brief, the present appeal arises out of the dismissal of the appellant's suit under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in the event the divorce suit subsequently initiated by the wife is decided, the same may prejudice the outcome of the present appeal.

6. That apart, the divorce suit was initiated by the wife subsequent to the initiation of the husband's suit for restitution of conjugal rights.

7. Accordingly, apart from the husband otherwise being entitled to an order of stay in lieu of the circumstances as indicated above, the principle of Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure may also be deemed to be applicable in the present case.

Petitioner is in custody for 11 months. He submits there was a romantic relationship between the parties. Victim has already been examined. Accordingly, he prays for bail.

2. Learned Advocate for the State opposes the bail prayer.

3. Inspite of notice nobody appears for the victim.

4. We have considered the deposition of the victim. Though she is a minor, she admitted there was friendly relationship between the parties. Her deposition is complete. There is little possibility of trial concluding in the near future.

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner he is in custody for about 170 days. It is further submitted no specific overt act is attributed to the petitioner. Co-accused viz. Jinarul Sk. @ Bucha and Sujauddin Sk. @ Md. Sujauddin have been enlarged on bail. Accordingly, he prays for bail on parity.

2. Learned Advocate for the State opposes the prayer for bail.

3. We have considered the materials on record. Statements of witnesses show petitioner was present at the spot. However, allegations against the petitioner are general and omnibus and no specific overt act has been attributed to him. He stands on the same footing with co- accused viz. Jinarul Sk. @ Bucha and Sujauddin Sk. @ Md. Sujauddin who have been enlarged on bail. Under such circumstances and in view of the period of detention suffered by the petitioner, we are of the opinion further detention of the accused/petitioner is not necessary.

Heard learned lawyers for both parties.

2. Petitioner submits there was a romantic relationship between two young persons. He is in custody for about more than four and half months. He prays for bail.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the bail prayer.

4. Inspite of notice, nobody appears for the victim.

5. We have considered the materials on record. Statement of victim supports the version of the petitioner that there was a romantic relationship between two young persons. Petitioner is in custody for a considerable period of time. There is no chance of trial concluding in the near future, we are inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner he has been falsely implicated in the instant case. Investigation is complete. Accordingly, he prays for anticipatory bail.

2. Learned Advocate for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits victim was a minor.

3. Learned Advocate for the de-facto complainant also opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail.

4. We have considered the materials on record. Victim was a minor and the petitioner subjected her to sexual assault. However, investigation is complete. Under such circumstances, we are of the opinion custodial interrogation of the accused/petitioner is not necessary and he may be granted anticipatory bail however, subject to strict conditions.

Heard learned Advocates for both the parties.

2. We have considered the materials on record. The dispute arose out of a commercial transaction. Mere failure to comply with the terms of a commercial arrangement per se would not attract the ingredients of the alleged offence. Under such circumstances, we are of the opinion though custodial interrogation of the accused/petitioner is not necessary and he may be granted anticipatory bail, he requires to cooperate with the investigation.

12.11.2024 jb.

jdt.

Allowed C.R.M. (SB) 150 of 2024 In Re : An Application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/ Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed in connection with Chandipur Police Station Case No. 31/2022 dated 06.02.2022 under Section 380 with added Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code.

And In Re : Prasanta Jana ... Petitioner.

Mr. Ayan Basu Mr. Sandip Kr. Mondal Mr. Sumit Routh ... For the Petitioner.

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner he is in custody for about two years and seven months. It is further submitted there is inordinate delay in trial. Accordingly, he renews his prayer for bail.

2. Learned Advocate for the State opposes the prayer for bail.

3. We have considered the materials on record. Though narcotics above commercial quantity was recovered from the petitioner, we find petitioner has suffered incarceration for more than 2½ years. His bail prayer was rejected in December, 2023. Thereafter only two out of nine witnesses have been examined till date. There is no possibility of trial concluding in the near future. Under such circumstances, we are of the opinion petitioner has been able to make out a case of breach of his fundamental right to speedy trial and he is entitled to bail on this score. Bail prayer on the ground of inordinate delay in trial is not fettered by restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Reference in this regard may be made to Rabi Prakash vs. The State of Odisha1. 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1109 Signed By : ARUP KUMAR DAS High Court of Calcutta 12 th of November 2024 03:58:09 PM

1. Petitioner/defendant challenged herein order no. 91 dated 12.02.2020 passed by learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division), 2nd court Ranaghat, Nadia in Title Suit No. 78 of 2010. By the order impugned learned court below accepted local investigation Commission report provisionally and fixed the next date for hearing argument of the suit.

2. The brief background of the present case is that one Kumar Krishan Mondal since deceased, father of the petitioner and the original opposite party no. 1 (predecessor of present opposite parties) was the absolute owner of the land measuring about 8.25 decimal in plot no. 452 by way of deed of conveyance dated 24th August, 1955. The said opposite party no. 1, since deceased purchased 5 decimal of the land of the suit property out of said 8.25 decimal of the land from his father aforesaid Kumar Krishna Mondal by a registered deed dated 10.07.1969. Thereafter the said Kumar Krishna died intestate leaving behind legal heirs i.e. the plaintiff/opposite party no.1 herein, defendant/petitioner herein and another son Bimal Mondal and his widow and two daughters who jointly inherited the remaining 3.25 decimal of land of their father in the suit plot.

Nobody appears for the petitioner.

2. Accordingly, the application for anticipatory bail is dismissed for default.

(Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.) Signed By : ARUP KUMAR DAS High Court of Calcutta 12 th of November 2024 03:58:09 PM

Heard the learned Counsels for the parties.

2. We have considered the materials on record. Petitioner is involved in trafficking women for sexual exploitation. Date has been fixed for recording evidence. Under such circumstances we are not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

3. Application for bail is, thus, rejected. (Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)

Nobody appears for the petitioners.

2. Accordingly, the application for anticipatory bail is dismissed for default.

(Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.) Signed By : ARUP KUMAR DAS High Court of Calcutta 12 th of November 2024 03:58:09 PM

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits there was an intimate relationship between two young persons. They had eloped and married voluntarily. He prays for anticipatory bail.

2. Learned Counsel for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits victim is a minor.

3. We have considered the materials on record. Statement of the minor supports the contention of the petitioner. Under such circumstances, we are of the opinion no worthwhile purpose would be served in committing the petitioner to custody. Accordingly, we are inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

FAT 191 of 2020.

Mr. Sudvasattva Banerjee Mr. Shounak Mukherjee, Mr. Shubradip Roy, Advs.

..........for the appellant/ plaintiff/decree holder in FAT 191 of 2020 and for the respondent in FAT 194 of 2020.

2

1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. The matter arises out of a judgment on admission passed by the Trial Court and the consequential decree.

Mr. Satyam Mukherjee, Ms. Sayani Ahmed Hearing concluded on : 07.11.2024 Judgment on : 12.11.2024 Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.:-

1. The present first appeal has been preferred against the grant of probate of the Will of one Late Shanti Shaw. The appellant is the son of the testatrix whereas, by virtue of the Will, the testatrix bequeathed her properties to her daughter Smt. Sabitri Shaw (the respondent's wife).

2. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the inordinate delay in filing the probate application is itself to be construed as a suspicious circumstance vitiating the application. It is contended that the Will was purportedly executed on January 6, 1997, and the testatrix died on July 16, 1997. A previous probate application was filed on January 6, 1999 but the same was dismissed on April 17, 2002 due to non-

1. Challenging the impugned proceeding being GR Case no. 1238 of 2021, arising out of Lake Town police station case no. 263 of 2021, petitioners have preferred the present Application with a prayer for quashing the said proceeding, qua the petitioners herein.

2. Petitioner contended in the Application that complainant stated in the FIR (First Information Report) that the opposite party no.2/FIR maker was introduced to Mr. Sanjoy Kumar Agarwal by one Subhash Kumar Roy and one Samaresh Das and relying upon the representation that the said Sanjoy Kumar Agarwal is a developer, the petitioner expressed his desire to join Mr. Agarwal as partner in his firm and thereafter Mr. Agarwal took the opposite party as a partner with him in his partnership firm namely "Shree Krishna Realtors". It is alleged that relying upon said representation the opposite party no.2 along with aforesaid person entered into a registered development agreement dated 18.12.2016 and it is further alleged that when the construction work commenced, said Sanjay Kumar Agarwal took control of the project and also taking advantage of the same took custody and control of the bank account, cheque books, vouchers papers etc. It has been further alleged that the opposite party No. 2 from time to time deposited money in the accounts of his said partner Sanjoy Kumar Agarwal but he did not cooperate with the opposite party no.2 herein /FIR maker and not only that said Sanjay had made huge withdrawal of funds and also misappropriated the funds of the firm amounting to Rs. 40 lacs in between August 2016 to March 2020 on the basis of false and fabricated documents and thereafter retired from the said firm on 17th November, 2020. The allegation against the present petitioners is that said Sanjay and the petitioners are jointly fraudulently took advance money from different buyers pertaining to the said project but neither executed deed nor refunded refundable money.

1. The present revisional application has been preferred by the petitioner against an order dated 22.04.2022 passed by the learned Judge, 5th Special Court, Kolkata, in the proceeding being Special Case No. SEBI/39/2018.

2. The petitioner's case is that the petitioner had joined in Amrit Bio Energy and Industries Limited as an executive director on 27.04.2004, for the erection and commissioning of renewal energy power project. The said Amrit Bio Energy and Industries Limited is a group of companies under Amrit Projects Ltd. a company incorporated under the provisions of the companies Act, 1956. After being satisfied with the performance of the petitioner, Kailash Chand Dujari, the Managing Director of Amrit Projects Ltd. and its group of companies had offered the petitioner to become director of several other group companies of Amrit Projects Ltd. After joining the said Amrit Group the petitioner was to look into the development and set up of a power project of 10 M.W. in the District of Bankura, West Bengal. The said project was successfully completed under the supervision of the petitioner. The said Amrit Project Limited had started a business receiving deposits from the public at large without consulting with the petitioner. The petitioner had tendered resignation and resigned from the said Amrit Projects Limited and all its group of companies in the year 2013.

1. The present revisional application has been preferred by the petitioners praying for quashing of the proceeding being GR No. 1173 of 2022 arising out of Shyampukur P.S. Case No. 85 of 2022 dated 29.09.2022, pending before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Calcutta, under Sections 354A/354B/323/506/509/188/427/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The petitioners' case is that G.R. No. 1173 of 2022 arising out of Shyampukur P.S. Case No. 72 of 2022 dated 29.09.2022 was registered on the basis of a complaint lodged by one Smt. Mita Roy, wife of Shri Pradip Roy, residing at 8B, Abhoy Mitra Street Police Station-

as follows. The writ petitioners namely, Everrise Housing Private Limited being the Petitioner No. 1 and one Sanjay Agarwal, Director Everrise Housing Private Limited came forward before this Hon'ble Court prayed for declaring the purported proceeding initiated in terms of the alleged notification bearing no. 9817-LA (II) /5 M-1/88 Pt. dated 30th December, 1989 as lapsed. The issue was whether a Post-Acquisition Purchaser or a purchaser after the issuance of a notice under Section 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 had any legal right to challenge the acquisition proceeding on the ground of lapse or any other grounds. The answer was 'No'. There was no single instance or any case which had been successfully challenged by the Post Acquisition Purchaser or after the issuance of a notice under Section 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, since 1894 till July, 2024 and or the same had been declared as Good Law. On the contrary, there were hundreds of decisions that Post Acquisition Purchaser had no legal standing to the question of acquisition or to its lapse. The reason was that the legal precedent of jurisprudence surrounding the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 had established that a purchaser a land after issuance of notice under Section 4 and 6 of the Act did not have any locus Standi to challenge the acquisition or the lapse of the acquisition proceeding. This was because the right of the original land owner was extinguished upon the acquisition and the purchasers' right were derivative and limited to the extent of their purchase. They were not aggrieved parties therefore, lacked legal capacity to question the acquisition or its lapse. In the case of Shiv Kumar and Another Vs. Union of India and others reported at (2019) 10 SCC 229, it had been clearly stated that admittedly Power under Section 17(4) was exercised dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5A and on service of notice under Section 9 possession was taken since urgency was acute viz pumping station house to be constructed to drain out flood water. Consequently, the land stood vested in the State under Section 17(2) free from all encumbrances. It was further settled law that once possession was taken by operation of Section 17(2) the land vested in the State free from all encumbrances unless a notification under Section 48(1) was published in the gazette withdrawing the acquisition. Section 11A as amended by Act 68 of 1894 therefore, did not apply and the acquisition did not lapse. The said Judgment held, "It has been laid down that purchasers on any ground whatsoever cannot question proceeding for taking possession. A purchaser after Section 4 notification does not acquire any right in the land as the sale is ab-initio void and has no right to claim the land under policy". Paragraph 22 of the said Judgment stated," a nullity is inoperative and a person cannot claim the land or declaration once no title has been conferred upon him to claim the land should be given back to him". The said judgement was of Three Judges' Bench and had been affirmed the case of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal reported at (2020)8 SCC 129. In the case of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal reported in (2020)8 SCC 129 it had been held by the Five Judges' of the Hon'ble Supreme Court "It does not visualise a situation where possession has been taken under the urgency provision of Section 71, but the award has not been made in such case under Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act, there is no lapse of entire proceeding but compensation is to be determined in accordance to the provisions of the 2013 Act. In case of urgency possession is usually taken before the award is passed. Thus, where no award is passed, where urgency provisions under Section 17(1) of the 1894 Act had been invoked, there is no lapse". In this instant case the provision of Section 17(4) of 1894 Act had been invoked and as such, there could not be any lapse of the proceeding under Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act in any manner whatsoever. In the case Delhi Development Authority Vs. Godfrey Philips (1) Limited and Others reported at (2022) 8 SCC 771 stated that still further the purchaser had purchased the property after vesting of the land with the State. In fact, none of Dharam Trust earlier Three Judges Bench Judgement in M. Venkatesh was not even referred to the purchaser had no right to claim lapsing of acquisition proceeding in view of the recent Larger Bench Judgement of this Court in Shiv Kumar Vs. Union of India reported in (2019)10 SCC 229 it had been held the purchaser had no right to claim a declaration sought for. In very recent judgement in the case of Delhi Development Authority Vs. Narendra Kumar Jain and Others reported at (2024) 3 SCC 721, it had been held deemed lapse of acquisition proceedings none payment of compensation was not a ground, where possession of land taken furthermore writ petition by subsequent purchaser claiming lapse of proceeding, held not maintainable as such person did not have locus standi to challenge acquisition proceeding and/or pray for deemed lapse of acquisition proceeding. In paragraph 4 of the said judgment it was stated "however, it is required to be noted that the decision of this Court in Manab Dharam Trust which has been relied by the High Court while passing the impugned judgement and order, is held to be not a good law in view of the decision of this Court in Shiv Kumar Vs. Union of India and subsequent decision of this Court in DDA Vs. Godfrey Philips (1) Limited reported in (2022)8 SCC 771". In paragraph 5 it stated "In Shiv Kumar Vs. Union of India and DDA Vs. Godfrey Philips (1) Limited, it is specifically observed and held that the subsequent purchaser has no locus Standi to challenge the acquisition and/or pray for deemed lapse acquisition". The petitioner relied upon a decision (reportable) in M/S Delhi Airtech Services Pvt. Vs. State of U.P. on 14th October, 2022 by Two Judges Bench without referring and considering the ratio of the Judgment of Shiv Kumar Vs. Union of India reported in (2019)10 SCC 229 which was a larger bench decision. In paragraph no. 26, the concluding paragraph (ii) if the requirement was compiled and possession was taken after tendering and paying eighty per centum, though there was need to pass an award and pay the balance compensation within a reasonable time, the rigor of section 11A of Act, 1894 would not apply so as to render the entire proceedings for acquisition to lapse in the context of absolute vesting. The right of land loser in such case was to enforce passing of the award and recover the compensation. The ratio of this case was distinguishable in the facts and circumstances of the case of the petitioner as the right of land loser in such case was to enforce passing of the award and recover the compensation, but the same could not be the right of a Post Acquisition Purchaser under any circumstances and as such, the judgement relied upon by the petitioner was distinguishable and had no manner of application in the facts and circumstances of this case. First of all, it had not considered the judgement passed in the case of Shiv Kumar Vs. Union of India reported at (2019)10 SCC 229 a judgement of Three Judges' Bench and the judgment did not consider paragraph 123 of the case reported in Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal reported at (2020)8 SCC 129 which was a judgement of Five Judges and as such, the writ petition was liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs solely on the ground that the land in possession of the government and notice under Section 17 Sub Section (4) had been invoked and the judgment relied upon by the petitioner was of the judgement of Two Judges Bench without considering the ratio of Three Judges and Five Judges Bench. Furthermore, in the recent judgment of (2024)3 SCC 721 it had affirmed the judgment of Shiv Kumar Vs. Union of India and DDA Vs. Godfrey Philips (1) Limited and as such, the instant writ petition was devoid of merit and was liable to be dismissed with costs. In the case reported at (2011) 5 SCC 394 it was held that once possession had been taken under section 17 section 11A could not be sustained and elaborate explanation had been given.

Darogi Yadav @ Bhupati, aged about 40 years, S/o. Shri Bodhan Yadav, R/o. Vill.- Dudhania Tola, P.O.- Khaira Block, P.S.- Cherko Pathar, Dist.- Jamui, Bihar.

... ... Petitioner

-Versus -

The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opposite Party

------

CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH

------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Sumit Prakash, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Mahto, A.P.P.

------

02/12.11.2024 Heard the parties.

Moola Satyanarayan Reddy, aged about 49 years, s/o late Rama Reddy, r/o House No.4-150/1, Janambhumi Nagar, Mancherial, PO, PS & District- Mancheril, Telengana-504208 ... Appellant Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Superintendent of Police, Chief Investigating Officer, NIA ...... Respondents

-------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR

-------

For the Appellant : Ms. Chandana Kumari, Advocate For the Respondent-NIA : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Spl. PP Mr. Saurav Kumar, Adv.