Criminal Law – Cheating, Criminal Breach of Trust, and Criminal Conspiracy – Quashing of Proceedings – Allowed - The petitioners, accused in C.C.No.3094 of 2013, sought to quash the proceedings against them under Sections 406, 420, and 120-B read with Section 34 of the IPC – The prosecution was initiated based on a complaint alleging that the accused committed cheating, criminal breach of trust, and criminal conspiracy in relation to investment transactions – The High Court examined whether the complaint disclosed the ingredients of the alleged offenses [Paras 1-3, 22, 23].

Quashing of Proceedings – Jurisdiction of High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C - The High Court considered the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., which is guided by two objectives: preventing the abuse of the process of the court and securing the ends of justice – The court must ensure that the complaint contains facts constituting the alleged offenses, and mere allegations are not sufficient – The court can quash proceedings when materials relied upon by the accused are sound, reasonable, and sufficient to rule out the assertions in the complaint [Paras 14-15, 17, 39-40].

Mens Rea and Essential Elements of Cheating and Criminal Breach of Trust - For an offense under Section 420 IPC, a fraudulent or dishonest inducement is necessary – The complaint should show that the accused had dishonest or fraudulent intentions at the time the complainant parted with money – For criminal breach of trust under Section 406 IPC, the accused must dishonestly misappropriate or use the property in violation of any law or contract – The High Court found no materials to show that the accused had such dishonest intentions or misappropriated the complainant’s investments [Paras 29-31].

Decision: Quashing Allowed - The court concluded that the complainant voluntarily invested with the accused with full knowledge of the risks involved in the business – The complainant failed to establish the accused's dishonest or fraudulent intentions at the commencement of the transaction – The complaint did not disclose any material to indicate that the accused committed any illegal act or misappropriation – As a result, the prosecution was deemed an abuse of the process of the court, and all further proceedings in C.C.No.3094 of 2013 were quashed [Paras 23, 39-40].

Criminal Procedure – Acquittal – Victim's Right to Appeal – The petitioner, a de facto complainant, challenged the acquittal of the accused under various sections of the IPC, arguing that as a "victim" under Section 2(wa) of the CrPC, he had the right to appeal – The Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal on the ground that the petitioner could not be termed a 'victim' – Held: The High Court observed that under Section 372 of the CrPC, a victim has the right to appeal against an acquittal – The petitioner, having alleged loss, injury, and damage caused by the accused, falls within the definition of 'victim' and therefore had the right to appeal – [Paras 7, 10, 18, 22].

Criminal Law – Trial Procedure – Non-Examination under Section 313 CrPC – The petitioner contended that the trial court erred in not examining the accused under Section 313 of the CrPC – The trial court acquitted the accused without recording their statements – Held: The High Court found that the trial court did not err, as there was no incriminating evidence against the accused that necessitated examination under Section 313 – Since the primary witnesses (PW1 and PW2) did not provide any evidence against the accused, the trial court's decision was upheld – [Paras 15, 16, 17].

Contempt of Court – Allegations Against Magistrate – The petitioner accused the trial magistrate of obtaining signatures on blank papers and of improper conduct – Held: The High Court found the allegations baseless and without substance – It was determined that such allegations could amount to criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – The petitioner was directed to show cause why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against him – [Paras 28, 29, 31].

Decision: Criminal Revision dismissed – The High Court found no error in the trial court’s procedure or the acquittal of the accused – The petitioner was directed to show cause for allegations against the magistrate amounting to criminal contempt – [Paras 35, 37].

Anticipatory Bail – Conditions Imposed – Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Freedom of Press – The petitioner, a journalist and managing editor of a YouTube news channel, was granted anticipatory bail with a condition that he should not publish news related to the death of Bishop K.P. Yohannan – Held: The condition restricting the petitioner’s journalistic freedom was unreasonable – The right to freedom of expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution cannot be curtailed as part of a bail condition unless justified under Article 19(2) – The Court deleted the condition restraining the petitioner from airing news on the subject, observing that such a condition amounts to a gag order, which is disproportionate and violates the petitioner’s fundamental rights [Paras 12-17].

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act – Acquittal – The appellant was convicted under Section 20 of the NDPS Act for possession of 1.1 kg of charas – The conviction was based on the testimony of police officers without corroborating independent witnesses – Significant contradictions were found in the statements of prosecution witnesses regarding the search and seizure process – Non-compliance with Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act was observed – Held: The contradictions in the testimony of the police witnesses, the absence of independent witnesses, and the failure to comply with the mandatory procedures of the NDPS Act raised serious doubts about the prosecution’s case, leading to the acquittal of the appellant – [Paras 14, 18, 21, 24, 25, 26].

Violation of Legal Procedures – Impact on Trial – The consent memo mentioned Section 50 of the NDPS Act, suggesting prior knowledge of the appellant's possession of narcotics – This indicated either prior information which required compliance with Section 42 or fabrication of evidence after recovery – Failure to adhere to Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act vitiated the trial – Held: The failure to comply with the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act and contradictions in witness statements undermined the prosecution's case – [Paras 27-30].

Decision: Appeal allowed – The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.05.2017 are set aside – The appellant is acquitted of the charge under Section 20 of the NDPS Act – He is to be released forthwith if not required in any other case, and any fine paid by the appellant is to be refunded – [Paras 45-47].

Criminal Procedure – Approver – Bail Granted – The petitioner, an approver in a case involving offenses under Section 302 IPC, sought bail after testifying in both the trial of the co-accused and a Court Martial – The trial court rejected the bail application based on Section 306(4)(b) of Cr.P.C., which mandates the detention of an approver until the termination of the trial – Held: The High Court, in exercise of its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has the jurisdiction to grant bail to an approver even before the culmination of the trial in exceptional cases – The petitioner had complied with the conditions of pardon by making full and true disclosure, and exceptional circumstances existed, including the petitioner’s health condition and the nearing completion of the trial – [Paras 17-25].

Natural Justice – Right to Fair Treatment – Release of Approver – An approver who fulfills the conditions of pardon should not be kept in custody if it would result in a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution – The detention of the petitioner after making a complete disclosure was found to be unnecessary, especially given his health issues and the lack of any role beyond accompanying the main accused to the crime scene – Held: Detaining the petitioner further would be unjust, and therefore, he was granted bail – [Paras 21-25].

Decision: Petition allowed – The petitioner is admitted to bail on the condition of furnishing a bail bond with one surety in the amount of ₹1,00,000 – He must not leave the limits of the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir without prior permission of the trial court and must not influence the prosecution witnesses – [Para 25].

Family Law – Maintenance – Revision Application – Compliance with Guidelines – The petitioner contended that the maintenance order awarded by the Family Court was harsh and not based on legal evidence – The trial court did not properly assess his financial capacity and failed to consider the fact that the petitioner is unemployed – The petitioner also claimed that the trial court ignored the fact that respondent No.1 is employed and earns ₹10,000 per month – Held: The High Court found that the Family Court did not comply with the guidelines set by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha, which requires parties to file affidavits disclosing their assets – Consequently, the maintenance order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Family Court for fresh consideration in compliance with the Supreme Court's directives [Paras 7, 13].

Interlocutory Orders – Maintainability of Revision – The respondents argued that the revision petition against the maintenance order was not maintainable, as it was an interlocutory order – Held: The High Court, referring to judgments from various High Courts, found that an order of maintenance is not an interlocutory order but an intermediate or quasi-final order that can be challenged through a revision petition under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 – It was established that orders affecting substantial rights of a party are not considered interlocutory and are subject to revision [Paras 16-18].

Decision: Revision petition allowed – The order dated 06.01.2023 by the Family Court is set aside – The matter is remanded to the Family Court for fresh decision after ensuring compliance with the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha – Parties directed to appear before the trial court on 30th September 2024 [Para 13].

Criminal Law – Sexual Assault – Conviction Set Aside: The appellant was accused of abducting a minor and sexually assaulting her. The prosecutrix claimed she was forcibly taken and raped. However, during cross-examination, her statements indicated that she was a consenting party. Held: The prosecutrix’s own testimony showed consent, and there were contradictions in her statements regarding coercion. Additionally, her behavior during the incident suggested voluntary participation. Thus, the conviction for sexual assault under Section 376(3) IPC was not sustainable​.

Criminal Law – Age of the Prosecutrix – No Conclusive Proof of Minority: The prosecution failed to conclusively establish that the prosecutrix was a minor at the time of the incident. The prosecutrix's birth certificate and school records were not sufficiently substantiated, and the ossification test was not conducted. Held: In the absence of definitive proof of the prosecutrix being under 18 years of age, the presumption of minority could not be upheld​.

Decision: Appeal allowed – The appellant's conviction under Sections 376(3), 363, and 366 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act was set aside. The appellant was acquitted of all charges and ordered to be released unless required in connection with any other offense​.

Patent Law – Section 59(1) of the Patents Act – Amendments to Patent Claims – Scope of Original Claims – The Controller refused the appellant's patent application, holding that the proposed amendments went beyond the scope of the original claims in violation of Section 59(1) of the Patents Act – Held: The amended claims were within the scope of the original PCT claims and supported by the detailed description in the complete specification. The High Court found that the amendments related to the composition as a product were permissible and could be allowed. Consequently, the rejection by the Controller under Section 59(1) could not sustain and had to be reversed​.

Patent Law – Amendment of Claims – Principles Governing Amendments – The Court referenced a coordinate bench decision in The Regents of The University of California v Controller General of Patents Designs & Trademarks & Anr. (2024), which laid down that amendments can be made only by way of disclaimer, correction, or explanation. Further, any amendment should not introduce matter not originally disclosed and should fall within the scope of the original claims – Applying these parameters, the Court inferred that the appellant's amended claims were permissible under Section 59(1)​.

Decision:

Appeal allowed – The impugned order dated 27th April 2020 by the Controller rejecting Patent Application No. 2427/DELNP/2011 is set aside – The matter is remanded back to the Controller for de novo consideration, and the Patent Application is restored to its original number. The Controller is directed to issue a fresh hearing notice and decide the matter afresh within four months from the date of the hearing​.

Civil Procedure Code – Order 22 – Remand of Case – The proforma defendant No. 2, Janak Singh, died during the pendency of the suit, and the trial court passed a judgment without substituting his legal representatives – The lower appellate court remanded the case to the trial court to bring the legal representatives on record and decide the suit afresh – Held: The lower appellate court correctly remanded the case to the trial court for compliance with Order 22 CPC, as a decree passed against a deceased person is a nullity, and the substitution of legal representatives and consideration of abatement must be decided by the court where the suit was pending at the time of death – [Paras 20-24].

Judgment Against a Deceased Person – Nullity – A judgment passed against a deceased person without substituting their legal representatives is a nullity – The learned appellate court erred in making findings on the merits of the case while remanding it for compliance with Order 22 CPC, as it should have confined itself to the issue of the proper substitution of parties – Held: The findings on the merits given by the appellate court are set aside – [Paras 23-24].

Decision: Appeal disposed of – The remand order of the lower appellate court is upheld to the extent that the trial court must comply with the mandatory requirements of Order 22 CPC – The trial court is directed to decide the question of substitution of legal representatives of the deceased proforma defendant and abatement of the suit after hearing both parties – The parties are directed to appear before the trial court on 30.09.2024 – [Paras 25-27].