***

Rape -- Promise to marry -- Consensual physical relationship continuing for three years -- No clear assurance or promise of marriage from inception -- Consent not shown to be obtained by coercion or misrepresentation -- Proceedings quashed.

***

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 90, 376 -- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 528 -- Quashing of criminal proceedings -- Consensual relationship -- Allegation of physical relationship on pretext of marriage -- Relationship continued for about three years -- Marriage proposal mooted by both families subsequently fell through -- No clear assurance or promise of marriage made from the beginning -- Consent under fear or misconception cannot be loosely inferred to fasten criminal liability -- No material showing that consent was coerced or obtained by misrepresentation -- No criminal culpability made out -- Criminal prosecution cannot be reduced to a strong-arm tactic -- Charge-sheet quashed and pending sessions proceedings closed.

(Paras 4-10)

***

Quashing of criminal proceedings -- Matrimonial dispute -- General and omnibus allegations against in-laws -- No specific, cogent and credible allegations -- No independent material supporting allegations of dowry demand, cruelty or criminal intimidation -- Proceedings quashed.

***

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 498A, 406 & 506 -- Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961), Sections 3 & 4 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Quashing of criminal proceedings -- Matrimonial dispute -- Allegations of cruelty, dowry demand, criminal breach of trust and criminal intimidation against in-laws -- No material indicating that appellants caused grave injury to complainant’s life, limb or mental or physical health, or independently harassed her for any property or valuable security -- No specifics of property entrusted to appellants or misappropriated by them -- No details of threats made -- General and omnibus allegations without any specificity -- Allegations not specific, cogent and credible -- Complaint and investigation do not disclose sufficient material to warrant subjecting appellants to rigours of criminal trial -- High Court ought to have quashed entire proceedings against appellants -- Criminal proceedings quashed qua appellants.

(Paras 19-29)

***

Specific Performance -- Agreement to sell -- Failure to prove execution and payment of earnest money -- Plaintiffs also failed to establish readiness and willingness -- Concurrent findings of Courts below upheld -- Regular second appeal dismissed.

***

Specific Performance -- Agreement to sell -- Fraud and misrepresentation -- Particulars not pleaded -- Stamp paper purchased for affidavit -- Surrounding circumstances created serious doubt regarding execution of agreement to sell -- Plaintiffs failed to establish genuineness of agreement.

***

Regular Second Appeal -- Concurrent findings of Courts below -- No perversity shown -- No valid reason for interference -- Judgments and decrees upheld -- Appeal dismissed.

***

A. Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 20 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 100 -- Specific performance -- Agreement to sell -- Regular Second Appeal -- Plaintiffs failed to prove execution of agreement to sell and payment of earnest money of Rs.15 lacs -- Stamp paper purchased by defendant was stated to be for affidavit and not agreement to sell -- Other marginal witness denied execution of agreement and payment of earnest money -- No endorsement or separate receipt regarding payment of Rs.15 lacs -- Mere withdrawal of money from bank accounts did not establish payment of earnest money to defendant -- Plaintiffs also failed to establish readiness and willingness, having remained silent for about eight months before issuing legal notice -- Concurrent findings of Trial Court and First Appellate Court dismissing suit found neither perverse nor requiring interference -- Regular second appeal dismissed.

(Paras 10-15)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 6 Rule 4 -- Specific performance -- Agreement to sell -- Fraud and misrepresentation -- Defendant alleged agreement to sell to be result of fraud and misrepresentation, but particulars thereof were not given in written statement -- Stamp paper purchased by defendant was for purpose of affidavit and not agreement to sell -- Evidence and surrounding circumstances considered -- Serious doubt regarding execution of agreement to sell -- Plaintiffs failed to establish genuineness of agreement to sell.

(Paras 11 & 14)

C. Punjab Courts Act, 1918 (Punjab Act VI of 1918), Section 41 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 100 -- Regular Second Appeal -- Concurrent findings of Trial Court and First Appellate Court -- Appellants failed to point out any perversity in the consistent findings of the Courts below -- No valid reason to interfere with consistent findings -- Judgments and decrees of Trial Court and First Appellate Court upheld -- Regular second appeal dismissed.

(Paras 15)

***

Proclaimed Person -- Mandatory procedure not followed -- Accused residing abroad before registration of FIR -- Proclamation order quashed.

***

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 482 -- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 84, 528 -- Proclaimed person -- Quashing of proclamation order -- Petitioner had left India before registration of FIR and was residing abroad -- No material showing that petitioner had absconded or concealed himself to evade arrest -- Trial Court failed to record requisite judicial satisfaction and did not adhere to mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 82 Cr.P.C. -- Mere non-execution of warrant, when accused was known to be residing abroad, could not ipso facto establish abscondence -- Statutory mechanism for securing presence of person residing abroad was not resorted to before initiating proclamation proceedings -- Proclamation order and consequential proceedings held legally unsustainable -- Petition allowed and order declaring petitioner proclaimed person along with consequential proceedings quashed.

(Paras 7, 8, 11-14)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82 -- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 84 -- Proclaimed person -- No person can be declared a proclaimed person unless the procedure prescribed under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is strictly and meticulously adhered to -- Provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C. are mandatory in nature -- Before issuing proclamation, Court must have reasons to believe that such person has absconded or is concealing himself so that warrant cannot be executed -- Failure to adhere to provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C. vitiates subsequent order declaring accused as proclaimed person.

(Para 7)

***

Superintending Canal Officer -- Failure to apply independent mind and reliance on Panchayat resolution -- Impugned order set aside.

***

Northern India Canal and Drainage Act, 1873 (8 of 1873), Section 30 --  -- Superintending Canal Officer – Quasi-judicial duty – Superintending Canal Officer was performing quasi-judicial duties and should have applied mind to analyze evidence on record instead of being influenced by the Panchayat resolution -- Matter remanded for fresh decision on evidence and documents on record – Writ petition disposed of.

(Paras 2-4)

***

Bhaichara watercourse -- Dismantled – Restoration -- Existence and restoration of watercourse within exclusive domain of Canal Authorities.

***

Northern India Canal and Drainage Act, 1873 (8 of 1873), Section 2(15) -- Bhaichara watercourse -- Restoration of dismantled watercourse -- Notification dated 12.05.2023 recognizes bhaichara watercourse as sanctioned watercourse for all intents and purposes -- Existence and restoration of watercourse is a question within exclusive domain of Canal Authorities -- Concurrent findings regarding existence and dismantling of watercourse not shown to be perverse -- No interference warranted -- Writ petition dismissed.

(Paras 2-6)

***

Canal watercourse -- Irrigation -- Petitioner cannot impose conditions on watercourse granted by canal authorities.

***

Northern India Canal and Drainage Act, 1873 (8 of 1873), Section 30A --  Watercourse -- Irrigation -- Petitioner objected to the watercourse and offered an alternate route subject to construction through underground water pipes -- Held, once the canal authorities found the watercourse necessary for proper irrigation of the private respondents' land, petitioner could not impose such conditions -- Canal authorities rightly granted the watercourse -- No interference warranted -- Writ petition dismissed.

(Paras 2 & 3)

***

Transfer of custody from Jammu jail to Kathua – Trial pending at Kathua – Rejection merely on ground that accused/family are not residents of the district held unsustainable – Matter remanded for fresh consideration.

***

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 397, 401 – Undertrial prisoner – Transfer of custody from one jail to another – District Jail, Jammu to District Jail, Kathua – Accused facing trial before Additional Sessions Judge, Kathua – Family residing at Mandi Govindgarh, Punjab – Application rejected merely on ground that neither accused nor his family members were residents of District Kathua and accused was being produced through virtual mode – Held, convenience of family and accused facing trial were relevant and paramount considerations – Accused was required not only to appear physically or virtually before the trial court but also to assist his counsel in conducting the trial in a fair and impartial manner – Rejection of application merely on ground of non-residence in Kathua was unsustainable – Impugned order set aside and matter remanded to trial court for fresh consideration of all attending factors after affording opportunity of hearing to both sides.

(Paras 7–9)

***
NDPS -- Regular Bail -- Recovery of 10.310 grams heroin from vehicle -- Petitioner driving the vehicle -- Conscious possession prima facie established -- Criminal antecedents -- Bail declined.

***

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 21, 29, 35 & 54 -- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 483 -- Regular Bail -- Recovery of heroin -- Conscious possession -- 10.310 grams heroin recovered from front console tray of vehicle driven by petitioner -- Petitioner failed to rebut statutory presumption of conscious possession u/s 35 and 54 -- Quantity being below commercial quantity did not make bail a matter of right -- Non-communication of grounds of arrest, without prejudice shown, also did not entitle petitioner to bail -- Previous NDPS case indicated likelihood of reoffending -- Bail declined.

(Paras 11-22)

***

Quashing of complaint u/s 138 NI Act -- Civil suit and private criminal complaint instituted subsequently by petitioner -- Multiple proceedings initiated to derail prosecution -- No case for invocation of inherent jurisdiction -- Petition dismissed.

***

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Sections 138, 142 -- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 528 -- Quashing of complaint u/s 138 NI Act -- Petitioner instituted civil suit for recovery of Rs.45,00,000/- only after filing of complaint under Section 138 -- Private criminal complaint also instituted subsequently -- Multiple proceedings initiated with a view to derail prosecution -- No case for invocation of inherent jurisdiction to quash proceedings -- Petition dismissed.

(Paras 5)

***

RERA -- Registration of project -- Disputed questions of title -- TNRERA not required to decide disputed questions of title -- Parties to approach competent Civil Court -- Mere grant of registration not prejudicial to petitioner -- Writ petition disposed of.

***

Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (16 of 2016), Section 4(2)(l) -- Project registration -- Legal title and encumbrances -- Disputed questions of title -- Promoter required to make declaration with reference to legal title and land being free from encumbrances -- TNRERA may reject registration where, prima facie, project proponent does not qualify as having title or nature of encumbrance is such that registration cannot be granted -- However, when there are disputed questions of title, it is not for TNRERA to go into the same and decide the issue itself -- Parties to approach competent Civil Court -- Civil Court having found a prima facie case in favour of project proponent and injunction operating against petitioner -- Mere grant of registration by TNRERA will not prejudice petitioner in canvassing plea before Civil Court -- TNRERA cannot revoke registration already granted and reconsider the issue -- Writ petition disposed of with liberty to petitioner to approach Civil Court.

(Paras 12-13)

***

SARFAESI -- Recovery of loan/debt acquired from NBFC -- Original lender not covered by SARFAESI at time of creation of debt -- Debt acquired by bank covered by SARFAESI -- Bank entitled to invoke SARFAESI Act for recovery.

***

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (54 of 2002), Sections 2(1)(c), 2(1)(m), 2(1)(zd), 13 & 14 -- Recovery of secured debt -- Assignment/ acquisition of loan account -- NBFC not a notified financial institution when loan was created -- Loan subsequently acquired by bank covered by SARFAESI Act -- Acquisition of non-performing secured loan account by such institution immediately clothed the loan account with the attributes of a secured debt covered by SARFAESI Act -- Once a claim is "live and owing", provisions of SARFAESI Act available for effecting recovery -- Bank entitled to invoke SARFAESI Act for recovery of loan/debt -- Borrowers cannot dissect and nit-pick definitions in Section 2(1) to claim that loans/debts cannot be subjected to recovery measures.

(Paras 30-38)

***

NDPS -- Arrest memo and inventory reports bearing FIR number rendered the documentation prima facie ante-timed and back-dated, casting doubt on procedural sanctity of search and seizure – Bail granted.

***

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 8, 21 & 60 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 483 – Regular Bail – Recovery of Smack – Arrest Memo and Inventory Report purportedly prepared prior to FIR registration bearing FIR number – Documentation prima facie ante-timed and back-dated, rendering arrest, search and seizure procedurally suspicious – Bail granted.

 (Paras 8-11)

***

NDPS -- Leave to Appeal against Acquittal – Recovery of Charas – Trial Court’s acquittal based on non-compliance of Section 50 and absence of independent witnesses found plausible and logical – No perversity warranting interference.

***

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 8, 20 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 419(1)(b) & (3) – Leave to Appeal against Acquittal – Recovery of Charas – Scope of Appellate Interference – Trial Court’s acquittal based on non-compliance of Section 50 and absence of independent witnesses – Finding of Trial Court found plausible and logical, with no perversity or miscarriage of justice warranting interference – Special leave application and Government Appeal dismissed – Acquittal upheld.

(Paras 3-6)

***

NDPS -- Inventory not certified by Magistrate in manner prescribed under Rules, coupled with prolonged incarceration and no prosecution witness examined – Bail granted

***

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 8, 22, 52A – Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal), Rules, 2022, Rule 8 -- Bail – Recovery of Prohibited Drugs and Injections – Inventory – Inventory not certified by Magistrate in manner prescribed under Rule – Applicant in custody for more than two years and no prosecution witness examined despite commencement of trial – Bail granted.

(Paras 6, 7)

***

NDPS -- Recovery of Charas – FIR number found on inventory report and arrest memo stated to have been prepared prior to registration of FIR –Raised doubt regarding preparation of recovery documents.

***

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 8, 20 & 37 – Recovery of 2 kg of Charas – Commercial quantity -- FIR Number mentioned on Antecedent Recovery Documents – Inventory Report and Arrest Memo prepared prior to registration of FIR shown to bear FIR/crime number – Prima facie inconsistency in chronology of proceedings casting material doubt on sanctity of recovery – Applicants entitled to bail – Bail applications allowed.

(Para 12-17)

***

NDPS -- Recovery of Ganja – Search and Seizure – Non-compliance of Section 50 – Absence of independent witnesses – Prosecution failed to prove recovery beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction set aside and accused acquitted.

***

A. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 8, 20 & 50 – Recovery of Ganja – Search and Seizure – Compliance of Section 50 – Independent witnesses – Benefit of doubt – Acquittal – Prosecution failed to establish that accused was informed of his legal right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate; independent public witnesses were not examined despite their availability and evidence regarding weighment, sampling, sealing and safe custody of seized contraband was also found doubtful – Prosecution failed to establish the identity and untampered condition of seized contraband with requisite certainty – Conviction under Sections 8/20 set aside – Accused acquitted by extending benefit of doubt.

(Paras 17–28)

B. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 50 – Search and Seizure – Right to be searched before Gazetted Officer or Magistrate – Prosecution failed to establish that accused was meaningfully informed of his statutory right or consciously waived the same – Mere formal assertion by police witnesses insufficient to satisfy mandatory requirement of law -- Failure to establish due compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act, in itself, goes to the root of the state case and renders the alleged recovery legally suspect.

 (Para 20, 21)

***

Prosecution of Managing Director – 138, 141 NI Act -- Company not arraigned as accused – Complaint against Managing Director, who was neither drawer nor signatory to cheque, held not maintainable and quashed.

***

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Sections 138, 141 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 528 -- Dishonour of Cheque – Vicarious liability – Quashing -- Prosecution of Managing Director – Company not arraigned as accused – Cheque issued on behalf of company and signed by its authorised signatories – Petitioner arraigned only in capacity of Managing Director and was neither drawer nor signatory to cheque – Arraigning of company as an accused is imperative for maintaining prosecution against its Directors or persons responsible for conduct of its business – Without impleading the company as an accused, complaint against Managing Director held not maintainable – Impugned complaint and proceedings against petitioner quashed – Petition allowed.

(Paras 9-19)

***

MACT -- Motor Accident Claim – Functional disability – Claimant suffering 100% permanent physical impairment and 100% visual impairment due to post-traumatic bilateral cortical blindness – Continued employment with specially created software and accommodations did not negate loss of earning capacity in open competitive market -- Functional disability assessed at 100% -- Compensation enhanced to Rs.3,77,84,297/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a.

***

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Motor Accident Claim – Compensation – Functional disability – Claimant suffered 100% permanent physical impairment, post-traumatic bilateral cortical blindness, pelvic fracture and permanent stoma – Continued employment with specially created software and accommodations did not negate loss of earning capacity in open competitive market – Career Growth Letter established loss of normal career growth and promotional progression due to accident – Functional disability enhanced from 80% to 100% – Future prospects at 50% and multiplier of 16 applied – Compensation for loss of future earning capacity enhanced to Rs.2,42,08,416/- – Attendant charges, future medical expenses, pain and suffering, loss of marriage prospects and other heads of compensation reassessed – Total compensation enhanced to Rs.3,77,84,297/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from date of claim petition till realisation – Insurer's appeals dismissed and claimant's appeal partly allowed.

(Paras 17-23)

***

Interim Compensation – Sections 138, 143-A NI Act – Discretionary power – Order directing payment of 10% of cheque amount as interim compensation under Section 143-A, after considering conduct of accused, stage of proceedings and possibility of delay, held reasoned and within statutory limit.

***

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Sections 138, 143-A – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 528 – Interim Compensation – Discretionary power of Court under Section 143-A is not mandatory or automatic – Court is required to exercise discretion judiciously after prima facie considering merits of complaint, nature of defence, conduct of accused and likelihood of delay in trial – Trial Court, after noticing that cheque, dishonour memo and statutory notice stood proved, accused admitted cheque and signature, had repeatedly defaulted in appearance and had obtained permission to travel abroad, directed payment of 10% of cheque amount i.e. Rs.8,00,000/- as interim compensation – Order contained reasons and reflected due application of mind – Amount awarded was within statutory limit of 20% of cheque amount – No arbitrariness, perversity or jurisdictional error found – Orders of Trial Court and Revisional Court upheld and petition dismissed.

(Paras 21-39)

***

NDPS – Habeas Corpus – Illegal detention – NCB failed to conduct quantitative analysis of seized contraband and destroyed/disposed of the case property without court order or notice to accused, rendering further quantitative analysis impossible – Detention held illegal and petitioners directed to be released.

***

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 36-A(4), 52-A – Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022, Rules 13, 14 – Constitution of India, Article 226 – Habeas Corpus – Illegal detention – Recovery of 95.501 kgs of alleged contraband – No quantitative analysis conducted by FSL – Contraband destroyed/disposed of without order of competent court or notice to accused – Qualitative FSL test found Mephedrone whereas NCB's initial test indicated Amphetamine – Complaint filed without quantitative analysis report – Extension of investigation set aside and no fresh extension obtained – Complaint filed beyond permissible period – Repeated procedural violations under NDPS Act and Rules rendered detention illegal – Petitioners directed to be released forthwith on furnishing personal bond and two sureties.

(Paras 4, 6, 7, 11, 22, 29-35, 40)

***

NDPS – Regular Bail – Recovery of 2.3 kgs hydroponic weed being below commercial quantity, applicant having no criminal history and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, bail granted.

***

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 8, 20, 23 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 483 – Regular Bail – Recovery of 2 kgs 300 grams of hydroponic weed – Applicant in custody since 09.06.2026 – No criminal history – Hydroponic weed is cannabis and its cultivation through a water-based medium does not alter its legal status – Contraband recovered being below commercial quantity – Considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment and facts and circumstances of the case, applicant held entitled to bail – Bail application allowed.

(Paras 3-14)

***

NDPS – Sentence – Appellant convicted under Section 8 r/w Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act and sentenced to 12 years’ rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,20,000/- – Sentence reduced to statutory minimum of 10 years’ subject to payment of fine.

***

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 8, 20(b)(ii)(C) – Conviction – Sentence – Appellant was convicted and sentenced to 12 years’ rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,20,000/- – Appellant had already undergone sentence for almost 9 years -- Sentence reduced to statutory minimum of 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment subject to payment of fine of Rs.1,20,000/-.

(Paras 13–19)

***

NDPS – Bail – Appellant in custody since 28.12.2024 – Considering period of incarceration and totality of circumstances, bail granted.

***

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 21(C), 29 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 483 – Bail – Appellant arrested for offences under Sections 21(C), 29 of NDPS Act – Appellant had remained in custody since 28.12.2024 – Considering totality of circumstances and period of incarceration, direction given to release the appellant on bail on terms to be fixed by Trial Court – Trial expedited.

(Paras 3–10)

***

NDPS -- Bail – No recovery was effected from petitioner and his role was confined to driving the vehicle in which co-accused was travelling from whom recovery of Rs.2,50,000/- was made – Bali allowed.

***

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 20(B), 29 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 483 – Bail – Recovery of contraband – Petitioner was allegedly driving a car in which co-accused was sitting from whom recovery of Rs.2,50,000/- was made – Another co-accused had named petitioner and co-accused as suppliers – No recovery of money was made from petitioner and his role was confined to driving the other car – Without expressing any opinion on merits, petitioner was held entitled to bail.

(Paras 1–5)

***

SCST Act -- Anticipatory bail – Bar under Section 18 – FIR not suggesting accused’s awareness of complainant’s caste, absence of intention to insult or humiliate on caste basis – Bar under Section 18 not attracted – Interim anticipatory bail made absolute and appeal allowed.

***

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Section 18 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 482 – Anticipatory bail – Bar under Section 18 – Prima facie case – Intention is the sine qua non of the offence under Section 3 and has to be gathered from the first report to the police – FIR does not suggest that accused was aware that complainant belonged to Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes and, therefore, intention to insult and humiliate on the basis of caste would be missing – Bar under Section 18 would not apply and anticipatory bail can be granted – Appellant joined investigation pursuant to interim anticipatory bail – Interim anticipatory bail made absolute and appeal allowed.

(Paras 2-5)

***

Cruelty – 498A IPC-- Vague and general allegations, lacking specific instances of cruelty, demand for dowry and harassment, cannot constitute a prima facie case under Section 498-A IPC – Complaint and summoning order quashed.

***

Cruelty – Prosecution under Section 498-A should not be initiated in a routine manner and is warranted only where complaint discloses a coercive dowry demand or life-endangering cruelty, not where parties are locked in an acrimonious but civilly resolvable conflict over assets or marital breakdown.

***

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 498-A, 120-B – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Cruelty -- Quashing of criminal complaint – Petitioner No. 1 is the father-in-law, who is now 82 years of age and petitioner No. 2 is the husband of the complainant/ respondent No. 2 – Marriage was solemnized 30 years ago and the couple is blessed with three children – First complaint on similar allegations was filed but was withdrawn soon thereafter – Second complaint, subject matter of the present litigation was filed subsequently – Allegations in the complaint appear to be vague, lacking specific instances of cruelty, demand for dowry and harassment at the hands of the petitioners – The allegations are rather generic and ambiguous in nature – Scrutiny of the allegations does not prima facie make out any case against the petitioners justifying the ordeal of criminal trial – Complaint and summoning order quashed.

(Paras 12-21)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 498-A – Cruelty – ‘Cruelty’ alone is not enough to constitute the offence – It must be done with the intention to cause grave injury or drive the victim to commit suicide or inflict grave injury to herself – Where allegations levelled in the complaint do not reveal existence of any such intention, offence under Section 498-A is not made out.

(Para 16)

C. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 498-A – Cruelty –Prosecution under Section 498-A should not be initiated in a routine manner and is warranted only where the complaint discloses a coercive dowry demand or life-endangering cruelty, not where the parties are locked in an acrimonious but civilly resolvable conflict over assets or marital breakdown.

(Para 19)

***

Forensic examination of cheque -- 138 NI Act -- Once cheque bears admitted signatures of drawer, it is immaterial who filled up its amount/details and forensic examination for that purpose is a superfluous exercise.

***

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Sections 138, 139 – Cheque -- Presumption in favour of holder – Forensic examination of cheque – Once cheque is admitted to bear signatures of drawer, it is immaterial as to who filled up the amount/details in the cheque – Question as to who filled up blanks would be a superfluous exercise and forensic examination cannot establish defence that cheque was issued under coercion – Application seeking forensic examination of writing on the body of the cheques dismissed.

(Paras 1, 7-9)

***

Quashing of complaint – 138 NI Act -- Whether cheque was issued against a legally recoverable debt and whether the underlying transaction was barred by law involved disputed questions of fact which could not be adjudicated in quashing proceedings – Petition dismissed.

***

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Section 528 – Quashing of complaint – Legally recoverable debt – Petitioner sought quashing on the ground that the cheque in question was not issued for any enforceable debt and that the transaction pursuant to which the cheque was issued was barred by law – Respondent/ complainant stated in the complaint that the petitioner/ accused borrowed Rs.6.00 lakhs for purchase of walnuts with the condition that the same would be supplied to him – Petitioner refused to supply the walnuts and thereafter issued the cheque, which was dishonoured – Petitioner relied upon the statement of respondent recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. to contend that no legally recoverable debt existed – Held, the facts pleaded and the contentions raised by the petitioner fall within the realm of factual disputes and cannot be adjudicated while exercising jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS (Section 482 Cr.P.C.) – Petition dismissed.

(Paras  1, 5 & 8)

***

MACT – Negligence -- Registration of FIR and the Chargesheet discharged the primary onus, thereby strengthening the case that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the accused.

***

MACT– Multiplier is to be determined by the age of the deceased and not by the age of the dependents.

***

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Motor accident claim – Negligence – MACT proceedings are summary in nature and negligence is assessed on the “preponderance of probabilities” rather than the strict criminal standard of “proof beyond reasonable doubt” – Registration of FIR and the Chargesheet discharged the primary onus, thereby strengthening the case that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the accused.

(Paras 11-12)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Motor accident claim – Compensation – Multiplier – Age of deceased – Multiplier is to be determined by the age of the deceased and not by the age of the dependents – Deceased aged 33 years – Multiplier of 16 correctly applied by MACT and High Court in determining compensation.

(Paras 13-14)

***

Appeal to NCLAT – Limitation – E-filing delayed beyond the maximum statutory period due to technical glitch in NCLAT’s e-filing system – First bona fide attempt to e-file to be treated as the date of presentation.

***

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (31 of 2016), Section 61(2) – Appeal to NCLAT – Limitation – E-filing delayed beyond the maximum statutory period due to technical glitch in NCLAT’s e-filing system – NCLAT ought to have invoked the principle of actus curiae neminem gravabit and treated the date of the first bona fide attempt to e-file as the date of presentation – Impugned order set aside and appeal restored.

(Para 13-24)

***

Hypothecated vehicle – Repossession without seven-day notice and by breaking open steering lock at dead of night amounted to unauthorised and arbitrary seizure, violating Articles 14 and 21 – Sale not set aside as vehicle already sold – Financier directed to close loan accounts, refund Rs.4,50,000/- with 6% interest and pay Rs.10,00,000/- compensation for mental agony and loss of livelihood.

***

Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949), Section 35-A – Indian Contract Act, 1872 (9 of 1872), Section 39, 74 – Constitution of India, Articles 14 & 21 – Repossession of hypothecated vehicle – Financier’s right of self-help repossession – Such right being contractual, cannot be exercised by force, deceit or in violation of contractual and RBI safeguards – Repossession clause providing for unilateral waiver of notice and absence of procedure for taking possession or sale held contrary to RBI Guidelines and requirements of fairness – Vehicle repossessed without seven-day notice and by breaking open steering lock in the dead of night – Unauthorised and arbitrary seizure violated borrower’s rights under Articles 14 and 21 – High Court’s order set aside – Sale not set aside as vehicle had already been sold – Financier directed to close loan accounts, refund sale proceeds of Rs.4,50,000/- with 6% interest and pay Rs.10,00,000/- compensation for mental agony and loss of livelihood.

(Para 15-33)

***

Hindu Law – Alienation of ancestral/coparcenary property by father – Sale supported by legal necessity – Plaintiffs failed to establish alleged undervaluation, bad vices or absence of necessity; non-examination of material witness and other circumstances justified upholding the sale and dismissal of partition suit.

***

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (30 of 1956), Section 6 – Hindu Law –Alienation of coparcenary property by father – Legal necessity – Plaintiffs alleging undervaluation of property, gambling and drinking habits of father and absence of legal necessity – Allegations not supported by pleadings or evidence – Sale deed containing recital regarding financial difficulty of father – Sale proceeds found to have been utilised towards discharge of loan raised for construction of house – Material witness not examined, warranting adverse inference – Plaintiffs also failed to satisfactorily explain selective challenge to only two out of six alienated properties – Trial Court’s finding dismissing suit being based on plausible and reasoned appreciation of evidence, High Court erred in reversing the same – Judgment of High Court set aside and judgment of Trial Court dismissing partition suit restored.

(Para 18-30)

***

Territorial jurisdiction – Petition under Section 34 of Arbitration Act -- Seat and venue – Mere conduct of arbitral proceedings at a particular place cannot per se determine the juridical seat; in absence of express designation, such place is only the venue.

***

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Sections 11, 34, 42 – Petition under Section 34 – Territorial jurisdiction – Seat and venue of arbitration – Mere conduct of arbitral proceedings at a particular place does not make it the juridical seat of arbitration; in absence of an express designation or agreement as to seat, such place is only the venue, and petition under Section 34 is maintainable before the competent Court having territorial jurisdiction over the subject work.

(Para 26-31)

***

Arbitration – Proceedings under Section 37 cannot be remitted to the Arbitral Tribunal to be treated as proceedings under Section 17, as appellate jurisdiction under Section 37 is exclusively vested in the Court.

***

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Sections 9, 17, 37 – Interim relief – Appeal against rejection of application under Section 9 – Remission of proceedings to Arbitral Tribunal – High Court cannot remit proceedings under Section 37 to Arbitral Tribunal to be treated as an application under Section 17, as appellate jurisdiction under Section 37 is exclusively vested in the Court and cannot be exercised by the Arbitral Tribunal.

(Para 9-11)

***

Eviction petition – Closure of evidence – Illness of counsel – Litigant should not suffer on account of illness of counsel or bona fide lapse – Orders closing evidence set aside and two effective opportunities granted, subject to costs of Rs.5,000/-.

***

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (3 of 1949), Section 13, 15 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), Order 17 Rule 3 – Eviction petition -- Closure of evidence – Illness of counsel – Counsel suffering from neurological problem and hospitalized – Failure to lead evidence not intentional or deliberate – Litigant should not suffer on account of illness of counsel or bona fide lapse – Orders closing evidence set aside – Two effective opportunities granted to lead and conclude evidence, subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/-.

(Paras 6-8)

***

Criminal revision – Acquittal – Unexplained delay of six days in lodging FIR – Prosecution evidence found unreliable – Concurrent findings of acquittal upheld.

***

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 323, 341 & 506 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Sections 397 & 401 – Criminal revision – Acquittal – Unexplained delay of six days in lodging FIR – Civil litigation and political rivalry between parties – Prosecution evidence found unreliable – Prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt – Concurrent findings of acquittal by Courts below upheld – No ground for interference in revisional jurisdiction – Revision dismissed.

(Paras 15-21)

***

Prosecution for tax evasion – Assessment order forming basis of complaint set aside and matter remanded for fresh assessment – Foundation of prosecution demolished – Complaint not maintainable.

***

Income Tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), Sections 276-C, 277 & 278-B – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Prosecution for tax evasion – Quashing – Assessment order forming basis of complaint set aside by High Court and matter remanded for fresh assessment – Foundation of prosecution having been demolished, complaint held not maintainable – Conviction and sentence set aside – Petitioners acquitted.

(Paras 7-14)

***

Default bail – NDPS -- Extension of investigation period without producing accused or affording opportunity to oppose – Extension held unsustainable – Right to default bail accrued and application filed before challan – Subsequent filing of challan cannot defeat such right – Accused entitled to default bail.

***

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 36-A(4), 21, 25 & 29 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 187(3) – Default bail – Extension of period for completion of investigation – Accused not produced before Court – Extension order passed without affording opportunity to oppose – Extension held unsustainable – Right to default bail accrued upon expiry of statutory period – Application filed before presentation of challan – Subsequent filing of challan cannot defeat accrued right – Accused held entitled to default bail.

(Paras 8-13)

***

Reduction of sentence -- Petitioner convicted for defalcating Rs.10,000/- of old age pension – Compromise arrived at during pendency of revision – Conviction maintained, substantive sentence reduced to period already undergone i.e. 04 months and 06 days.

***

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 409, 420, 467, 468 & 471 – Defalcation of old-age pension – Petitioner convicted for defalcating an amount of Rs.10,000/- out of old-age pension and sentenced under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468 & 471 IPC – During pendency of revision, parties entered into compromise – Conviction maintained – Substantive sentence reduced from 03 years to period already undergone i.e. 04 months and 06 days – Sentence of fine and sentence in default of payment of fine kept intact.

(Paras 1-8)

***

Replication in suit – Trial being at initial stage and issues not yet framed, refusal to permit filing of replication held unjustified.

***

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 – Replication – Plaintiff have right to rebut facts pleaded in written statement by filing replication – Trial at initial stage and issues not yet framed – Refusal to permit filing of replication held unjustified – Impugned order set aside and application directed to be reconsidered.

(Paras 1-6)

***

Habeas corpus – Custody of minor child – Natural parents having preferential right of custody – Alleged oral adoption involving disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudicated in writ proceedings – Custody with paternal aunt and her husband unlawful – Direction issued to hand over custody to natural parents.

***

Constitution of India, Article 226 –  Habeas Corpus – Custody of minor child – Natural parents seeking custody from paternal aunt and her husband – Writ Petition held maintainable -- Welfare of child is paramount consideration – Natural parents having preferential right of custody – Disputed question regarding alleged oral adoption cannot be adjudicated in writ proceedings and is to be decided in pending civil suit – Custody of minor child with paternal aunt and her husband held unlawful – Direction issued to hand over custody of minor child to natural parents forthwith.

(Paras 9-16)

***

Tender of rent -- Tenant having denied the landlord-tenant relationship and disputed respondent’s ownership, cannot simultaneously seek permission to deposit rent in Court.

***

Rent Laws (Punjab) – Deposit of rent – Denial of landlord-tenant relationship – Tenant having denied the landlord-tenant relationship and disputed respondent’s ownership, cannot simultaneously seek permission to deposit rent before Court on the basis that rent would be payable if respondent is ultimately held to be landlord – Such contradictory stand amounts to blowing hot and cold – Application for deposit of rent rightly dismissed.

(Paras 1-6)

***

Subsequent suit – Execution revision not being a previously instituted suit – Subsequent suit challenging decree on ground of fraud and execution proceedings not involving the same matter directly and substantially – Section 10 CPC not attracted.

***

Execution – Executing Court cannot go behind a decree which has attained finality – Subsequent revenue record or demarcation report cannot be relied upon to re-open concluded adjudication or declare decree inexecutable.

***

Decree for injunction – Subsequent dispossession – Executing Court can, in an appropriate case, restore possession where decree is violated by subsequent dispossession.

***

Executing Court -- Allegation of fraud involving disputed questions of fact requiring evidence cannot be finally adjudicated by Executing Court in execution proceedings.

***

Execution – Decree challenged on ground of fraud – Execution petition restored, but coercive steps including delivery of possession kept in abeyance till final adjudication of subsequent suit challenging the decree.

***

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 10 – Subsequent suit – Stay of proceedings – Subsequent suit challenging decree on ground of fraud – Applicability of Section 10 CPC – Execution revision is not a previously instituted suit – Question in execution proceedings was whether decree was executable, whereas subsequent suit sought adjudication upon validity of decree itself – Matters not directly and substantially the same – Section 10 CPC not attracted – Application for stay rightly dismissed.

(Paras 14-22)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 47 – Executing Court – Scope of jurisdiction – Executing Court cannot go behind decree – Decree having attained finality – Subsequent revenue record/demarcation report showing discrepancy regarding identity of property – Executing Court cannot re-open adjudication concluded by decree or declare decree inexecutable on such basis.

(Paras 23-31)

C. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 21 Rule 32(5) – Decree for injunction – Subsequent dispossession – Restoration of possession – Executing Court can, in an appropriate case, restore possession where decree for injunction has been violated by subsequent dispossession.

(Para 34)

D. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 21 – Decree obtained by fraud – Effect – Fraud vitiates judicial proceedings – Judgment or decree obtained by playing fraud upon Court is a nullity and can be challenged even in collateral proceedings – However, where allegation of fraud involves disputed questions of fact requiring appreciation of evidence, Executing Court cannot finally adjudicate such issue in execution proceedings.

(Paras 27-30)

E. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 21 -- Execution – Decree challenged in subsequent suit on ground of fraud – Delivery of possession – Execution petition restored but coercive execution kept in abeyance – Subsequent suit challenging validity of decree pending – Immediate delivery of possession may create a situation difficult to undo if decree is ultimately set aside – Appropriate course is to preserve execution proceedings without permitting coercive implementation till adjudication of subsequent suit.

(Paras 35-42)

***

Amendment of plaint -- Change in nature of suit -- Subsequent amendment introducing a new claim based on Will and altering the nature of original partition suit -- Amendment refused.

***

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 6 Rule 17 -- Amendment of plaint -- Change in nature of suit -- Plaintiff initially claiming 1/12th share by way of partition as co-sharer -- Subsequent amendment seeking declaration of exclusive ownership to extent of 1/4th share on basis of registered Will and correction of revenue mutation -- Amendment introducing a new case and materially altering nature of suit-- Inadvertent omission by previous counsel not sufficient ground to permit such amendment at advanced stage -- Revision petition dismissed.

(Paras 6-8)

***

Amendment of plaint -- Consequential relief – Suit for permanent injunction restraining from making further encroachment upon common passage -- Proposed amendment seeking mandatory injunction for removal of construction over said passage  allowed.

***

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 6 Rule 17 -- Amendment of plaint -- Consequential relief -- Suit instituted seeking permanent injunction restraining defendants from making further encroachment upon common passage -- Proposed amendment seeking mandatory injunction for removal of construction raised over common passage directly connected with original dispute and did not introduce new cause of action or alter nature of suit -- Evidence not commenced -- Amendment necessary for determining real controversy and avoiding multiplicity of proceedings -- Amendment allowed subject to costs of Rs.10,000/-.

(Paras 3, 9-16)

***

Rent laws -- Bona fide requirement -- Mere ownership of other properties does not defeat bona fide personal necessity where such properties are unsuitable for the landlord’s requirement.

***

Rent laws -- Bona fide requirement has to be examined with reference to the date of institution; subsequent events cannot ordinarily defeat an existing bona fide need.

***

Rent laws -- Revisional Court cannot re-appreciate evidence or disturb concurrent findings unless findings are perverse, unsupported by evidence or suffer from material illegality.

***

A. Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (11 of 1973), Section 13 -- Bona fide personal necessity -- Landlord owning other properties -- Mere ownership of other properties does not defeat landlord’s claim of personal necessity where landlord establishes that such properties are unsuitable for the requirement.

(Paras 19-26)

B. Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (11 of 1973), Section 13 -- Bona fide personal necessity -- Subsequent events -- Requirement to be examined with reference to date of institution of eviction petition -- Subsequent developments cannot be used to defeat bona fide requirement existing on the date of institution.

(Paras 33-41)

C. Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (11 of 1973), Section 15(6) -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 41 Rule 27 -- Revisional jurisdiction -- Additional evidence -- Additional evidence cannot be permitted merely to fill lacunae or where evidence was available earlier -- Revisional Court cannot re-appreciate evidence or substitute its own view for concurrent findings unless finding is perverse, based on no evidence or suffers from material illegality -- Concurrent findings of Rent Controller and Appellate Authority upheld -- Revision petition dismissed.

(Paras 54-56, 58-61)

***

Default bail – NDPS -- Extension of 180-day period -- Extension sought merely for non-receipt of FSL report without compelling reasons or application of mind by Public Prosecutor -- Extension granted without notice to accused set aside and petitioner ordered to be released on default bail.

***

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 36A -- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 187(2) -- Default bail -- Extension of period for filing challan -- 180 days -- Extension sought merely on the ground that FSL report had not been received -- Application for extension filed by Investigating Officer and merely forwarded by Public Prosecutor -- Application not disclosing compelling reasons or application of mind by Public Prosecutor -- Extension granted without notice to accused -- Order granting extension and consequent rejection of default bail application set aside -- Petitioner ordered to be released on default bail.

(Para 8-13)

***

Judicial review -- Departmental proceedings -- High Court does not sit as an appellate authority or undertake fresh appreciation of evidence.

***

Constitution of India, Articles 226/227 -- Judicial review -- Departmental proceedings -- Scope of interference -- Findings of disciplinary authority/Tribunal -- Remand order -- Compliance – Tribunal, upon remand, specifically examined effect of punishment upon petitioner's increments -- No non-compliance with remand order or jurisdictional error made out -- High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226/227, does not sit as an appellate authority over departmental enquiry or undertake fresh appreciation of evidence -- Interference warranted where findings are unsupported by evidence, perverse or proceedings suffer from violation of natural justice or other jurisdictional infirmity -- Petition dismissed.

(Paras 9-19)

***

Written statement -- Delay -- Defence struck off -- Procedural technicalities should not be permitted to come in the way of a fair adjudication of the dispute -- One effective opportunity granted to file written statement subject to costs of Rs.5,000/-

***

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 8 Rule 1 -- Written statement -- Delay in filing -- Defence struck off -- Procedural technicalities -- Fair adjudication -- Defendants failed to file written statement even after expiry of statutory period of 90 days and pleaded that the certified copy of judgment and decree dated 17.11.1988 annexed with plaint was not readable -- Defence struck off by trial Court set aside -- Procedural technicalities should not be permitted to come in the way of a fair adjudication of the dispute -- One effective opportunity granted to defendants to file written statement subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- to plaintiff -- In case defendants fail to file written statement or deposit costs, no further opportunity shall be granted.

(Para 3, 6, 7)