Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Section 528 BNSS – Scope of Judicial Interference – Petition sought quashing of FIR alleging that the petitioner, as Channel Head of Zee Rajasthan, extorted money and threatened vendors with adverse news coverage – Held: Allegations in FIR prima facie disclose cognizable offences – Court cannot evaluate evidence or conduct a “mini-trial” at FIR stage – Investigation must proceed unhindered – Quashing power to be exercised sparingly and in rare cases [Paras 9–11, 13–18].

Media Ethics – Abuse of Position by Journalist – Extortion and Coercion – FIR alleged that petitioner misused company’s platform to solicit money through threats of defamatory broadcasts – Such acts, if proven, constitute gross abuse of media authority and harm to public trust – Allegations require full investigation and cannot be nullified as employer-employee dispute [Paras 7.1–7.2, 22–23].

Freedom of Press – Limits and Responsibility – Court reiterated that press freedom is integral to democracy but carries duty of fairness, accuracy, and integrity – “Freedom of Press is imperative for a functioning democracy; however, misuse of such freedom through coercion or blackmail cannot be tolerated” [Preface; Paras 7–9].

Bhajan Lal Principles – Applicability – Case does not fall within any of the exceptional categories enumerated in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 – Allegations not absurd, improbable, or mala fide on their face – Investigation must determine truth of allegations [Paras 2.1–2.4, 23].

Judicial Review – Stage of Investigation – Precedents Cited – Reaffirmed principles in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 19 SCC 407; Kaptan Singh v. State of U.P., (2021) 9 SCC 35; Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel v. State of Gujarat, (2018) 3 SCC 104; Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 18 SCC 191 – High Court’s interference limited to cases where FIR does not disclose any cognizable offence [Paras 10–20].

Decision: FIR No. 257/2025 discloses cognizable offences – Investigation to continue uninhibited – Petition for quashing dismissed – Petitioner at liberty to approach Investigating Officer for fair-investigation concerns; IO to act as per law and issue notice under Section 35 BNSS if required [Paras 22–25].

Tenancy Law - Rent Control Act – Co-owner’s Right to Evict Tenant – Ownership Dispute – Tenant’s Purchase of Co-owner’s Share – Tenant claimed ownership by virtue of sale deed dated 15.12.2016 executed by landlord’s sister (co-owner) after eviction petition was filed – Held: Sale pendente lite hit by doctrine of lis pendens – No merger of tenancy under Section 111(d) TPA unless entirety of lessor’s and lessee’s rights vest in one person – Purchase of one co-owner’s undivided share does not extinguish tenancy – Eviction maintainable by any co-owner without consent or NOC from others [Paras 19–23, 25–26].

Delhi Rent Control Act – Section 14(1)(e) – Bona Fide Requirement – Maintainability by One Co-owner – Landlord need not obtain prior consent or affidavit of other co-owners to file eviction – Petition by one co-owner valid unless another co-owner actively opposes – Mere impleadment application under Order I Rule 10 CPC by co-owner does not constitute objection [Paras 25–27].

Transfer of Property – Section 111(d) – Merger Doctrine – Effect of Partial Transfer – Tenant acquiring interest from one co-owner does not result in merger of lease and ownership – Ownership remains joint until partition by metes and bounds – Tenant continues to be bound by original tenancy [Paras 20–22].

Lis Pendens – Sale During Pendency of Eviction Proceedings – Sale deed executed by co-owner in favour of tenant during subsistence of eviction petition voidable and subject to outcome of pending proceedings – Transaction lacks bona fides where tenant aware of litigation and proceeds without disclosure to court [Paras 28–29].

Landlord–Tenant Relationship – Estoppel Against Denial of Title – Tenant, having admitted tenancy in written statement and deposition, estopped from disputing landlord’s title – ARC not competent to adjudicate ownership title disputes in eviction proceedings [Paras 24–25].

Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction – Section 25B(8), Delhi Rent Control Act – High Court’s interference confined to exceptional cases of jurisdictional or procedural error – Findings of ARC based on proper appreciation of law and evidence upheld – No ground for interference made out [Paras 30–31].

Decision: Revision dismissed – Eviction order dated 13.08.2024 upheld – Stay on execution vacated – Tenant directed to hand over possession of two shops (6’4” x 10’6” and 6’10” x 14’5”) at property No. 6165/1, Basti Regar, Dev Nagar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi – Benefit of six months under Section 14(7) of DRC Act held to have lapsed [Paras 31–33].

Trade Marks – Rectification – Jurisdiction – Ext.P17 Trademark registered at Mumbai Registry – Section 57 allows rectification only before the High Court exercising appellate jurisdiction over the concerned Trade Marks Registry – Following PAS Agro Foods and Madras High Court in Woltop India – Held: Kerala High Court lacks jurisdiction; petition rejected [Paras 2-3, 5-11].

Trade Marks Act – Rectification Petition – Jurisdiction – Section 57 – Ext.P17 Trademark Certificate issued by Registrar, Mumbai – Held: Only the High Court having appellate jurisdiction over the Mumbai Trade Marks Registry (i.e., Bombay High Court) can entertain rectification – Kerala High Court lacks jurisdiction [Paras 2-3, 11].

Interpretation of “the High Court” – Definite Article – Court followed PAS Agro Foods v. KRBL Ltd. and Woltop India Pvt. Ltd. (Madras High Court) – Use of “the” High Court in Sections 47 & 57 shows legislative intent to confer jurisdiction on specific High Courts linked to respective TM Registries—Not all High Courts generally [Paras 3, 5-10].

Trade Marks Rules – Appropriate Office – Rule 4 & Rule 5 – Jurisdiction depends on principal place of business of registered proprietor as entered in register—Not altered by subsequent changes—Thus rectification should be consolidated before the proper forum to avoid conflicting orders and “jurisdictional chaos” [Paras 3, 7].

Dynamic Effect Argument – Rejected – Petitioner argued that rectification may be required in multiple jurisdictions due to conflicting registrations—Court held such rare scenarios cannot override statutory scheme—Rectification jurisdiction cannot be expanded beyond text of Sections 47, 57 and Rules 4, 5 [Paras 4-5, 9-10].

Precedent – PAS Agro Foods (Kerala HC) – Followed – Court reaffirmed that rectification petitions must be filed where the trademark is registered—No reason to depart from established view [Paras 2-3, 10-11].

Decision – Special Jurisdiction Case rejected as not maintainable – Petitioner free to pursue remedy before appropriate authority/competent High Court with jurisdiction over Mumbai Trade Marks Registry [Para 11].

Rent Law – Fair Rent Fixation – Retrospective Operation – Equitable Relief – Arrears – Tenant Surrender – Delay in Proceedings – Tenant cannot be burdened with arrears at newly fixed fair rent retrospectively from 2013 when rent control proceedings prolonged for over a decade – Appellate Court had fixed Rs.32,000/month with 5% annual increase from 2014 onwards – Held: Direction to pay arrears at a rate 150 times higher than existing rent would result in grave prejudice – Rent to be paid at Rs.25,000/month from 24.02.2021 (date of Rent Controller’s order) and Rs.32,000/month from 18.03.2024 (Appellate Court’s order) – Arrears from 2013 to 2021 not recoverable in rent control proceedings but liberty left to landlord to pursue civil remedy – Modification granted to ensure balance of interests [Paras 1, 2, 5, 6].

Rent Control – Public Policy – Delay in Adjudication – Effect – Rent control statutes intended to protect both landlord and tenant – Proceedings that linger for more than 10 years cannot be used to justify oppressive financial burdens – Held: Rent control litigation cannot be permitted to function as an instrument of oppression due to systemic delays – Tenant’s act of surrender during pendency cannot be overlooked [Paras 3, 5, 6].

Limitation – Civil Suit for Arrears – Cause of Action – Landlord’s claim for arrears from 2013 onwards to be decided in civil suit – Court refrains from deciding limitation issue in rent control proceedings [Para 4].

Decision: Order of Appellate Authority modified – Landlord entitled to claim arrears only from 24.02.2021 at Rs.25,000/month and from 18.03.2024 at Rs.32,000/month with 5% increase – Revisions disposed of accordingly.

Negotiable Instruments – Dishonour of Cheque – Presumption under Section 139 NI Act – Complainant claimed accused borrowed Rs.5,40,000/- and issued cheque for Rs.2,50,000/- in partial discharge – Cheque dishonoured with remark “payment stopped by drawer” – Complainant relied on promissory note and supporting witness – Held: Initial presumption under Section 139 arises, but accused successfully rebutted it by establishing preponderance of probability that the cheque was not issued in discharge of alleged debt – Acquittal by trial court upheld [Paras 3–14].

Cheque Dishonour – Defence Evidence – Accused claimed cheque was issued for earlier loan of Rs.2,50,000/- and was later repaid – Accused relied on variations in handwriting/ink on cheque and promissory note, and testimony of his brother – Court found the defence plausible – Letter stopping payment on cheques predates dishonour – Held: Defence raised sufficient doubt about complainant’s version – Rebuttal of presumption under NI Act proved by defence evidence [Paras 12–14].

Criminal Appeal – Scope of Interference with Acquittal – Appeal against concurrent findings of acquittal by trial and sessions court – High Court found no perversity in appreciation of evidence – Held: View taken by trial court is reasonable and supported by evidence – No ground to interfere in acquittal under Section 378 CrPC [Paras 14–15].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Acquittal of respondent/accused confirmed – Trial court’s finding that presumption under NI Act was rebutted and complainant failed to prove legally enforceable debt upheld.

Criminal Law – Anticipatory Bail – Maintainability despite pending proclamation proceedings – Applicant not declared proclaimed offender at time of bail application – Held: Application maintainable – Proclamation under Section 84 BNSS initiated post-filing of bail application does not bar its consideration [Paras 95-100].

Prevention of Money Laundering – Bail under Section 45 PMLA – Twin conditions – Applicant alleged to have generated proceeds of crime through forged scholarship claims – ED failed to justify custodial interrogation – No material produced to show non-cooperation – Held: Twin conditions under Section 45 satisfied – Applicant deemed not guilty at this stage and unlikely to commit offence while on bail [Paras 145-156].

Investigation Conduct – Mala fide Action – ED officer arrested in CBI trap for demanding bribe from applicant – ED became hyperactive thereafter – Summons issued in haste, NBWs sought without fair hearing – Held: Conduct of ED raises suspicion of vendetta and lacks fair play – Application of arrest powers under Section 19 PMLA must be fair, reasoned, and based on material – Custody not required merely for further interrogation [Paras 101-117, 124-128, 139-140].

Criminal Law – Presumption of Innocence – Delay in invoking coercive action – ED took no steps to arrest applicant between 2019 and 2025 – No complaint of non-cooperation until after arrest of IO – Held: Prolonged inaction supports inference of lack of necessity for custodial interrogation – Right to liberty prevails unless arrest justified by compelling necessity [Paras 111-115, 123].

Constitutional Law – Right Against Self-Incrimination – Non-confession cannot be deemed non-cooperation – Mere failure to admit guilt or provide ‘non-evasive’ replies not ground for arrest – Held: Accused cannot be compelled to self-incriminate under Article 20(3) – Arrest not to be used as tool to extract confession [Paras 132-138].

Criminal Procedure – Proper Summons – Electronic service of summons – Validity under PMLA – Guidelines in *Satender Kumar Antil* relied upon – Held: Service through email not invalid, but issuance of repeated summons in haste, without proper opportunity, found unjustified in facts [Paras 19, 29, 70, 108-110].

Decision: Bail application allowed – Applicant granted anticipatory bail in ECIR No. SHSZO/04/2019 – Personal bond of ₹2,00,000/- with two sureties – Conditions imposed to secure appearance and non-interference with investigation – ED at liberty to seek cancellation if conditions violated [Paras 157-160].

Civil Law – Rejection of Plaint – Order 7 Rule 11 CPC – Non-payment of Sale Consideration – Plaintiff transferred property by registered sale deed but claimed that consideration was unpaid and sought cancellation of deed and injunction – Trial court held that non-payment does not invalidate a completed sale – Appellate Court affirmed rejection of plaint – Held: Once title passes via registered sale deed, non-payment of consideration is no ground for cancellation – Remedy lies in suit for recovery – Rejection of plaint proper [Paras 9, 14, 16, 20-22].

Property Law – Registered Sale Deed – Title Transfer – Sale deed executed and registered for ₹32.50 lakhs with only ₹20,000 paid and rest via dishonoured cheques – Plaintiff sought to cancel the sale – Held: Under Section 54 TPA, sale completes on execution and registration regardless of full payment – Title passed to vendee – Plaintiff ceased to be owner and cannot seek cancellation [Paras 14, 17-18].

Specific Relief – Permanent Injunction – Consequential Relief – Plaintiff also sought injunction to protect alleged possession – Held: Once cancellation of deed is not granted and title vests in vendee, no injunction can be granted against true owner – Injunction being consequential to declaratory relief must fail [Paras 15, 16, 20].

Evidence – Contradiction with Registered Sale Deed – Plaintiff’s claim of continued possession contrary to recitals in registered deed – Held: Such plea barred under Section 92 of Evidence Act – Plaintiff estopped from denying transfer of possession mentioned in sale deed [Para 19].

Decision: Appeal dismissed under Order 41 Rule 11 CPC – Trial court’s rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC affirmed – Plaintiff's remedy lies in separate suit for recovery of sale consideration, not cancellation or injunction.

Criminal Law – Anticipatory Bail – Allegation of Forgery and Land Grab – Accused No. 3 sought pre-arrest protection under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in FIR No. 559 of 2025 registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B, and 34 of IPC – FIR alleged that applicant conspired to execute forged conveyance deed by altering Power of Attorney and tampering revenue records – FIR lodged 12–15 years after impugned transactions, raising issue of delay – Held: Delay, civil settlements, existence of registered documents and permission under tenancy law weigh in favour of applicant – Anticipatory bail granted with stringent conditions [Paras 1, 10, 30, 35-39, 47, 49, 54, 56, 69-70].

Delay in Lodging FIR – Relevance – Transactions date back to 2003–2011 – Conveyance deed executed in 2008, rectification in 2011, and permission under Section 43 of BTAL Act granted after due inquiry – Civil suits filed, confirming deeds executed – No action taken by complainant or predecessors for over a decade – Held: Delay affects reliability of allegations and suggests attempt to unsettle concluded title – Prima facie, FIR appears to revive stale disputes under guise of criminal prosecution [Paras 35-39, 44-48, 54].

Forgery – Allegations of Tampering with 7/12 Extract – Prosecution relied on Tahsildar’s statement that extract annexed to 2008 deed was of a different village (Godev instead of Navghar) and lacked Section 43 entry – Alleged use of whitener to alter revenue records – Held: Allegations are serious and raise issue of public record tampering – However, documents are registered and on public record since 2008 – Criminality, if any, to be investigated but does not warrant custodial interrogation at this stage [Paras 40-42, 55].

Custodial Interrogation – Necessity Not Shown – Applicant cooperated during interim protection – Appeared before IO, produced documents – No specific recovery shown to require custody – Co-accused purchasers already granted bail – Held: Liberty cannot be curtailed merely because investigation is ongoing – Stringent bail conditions can secure cooperation and prevent obstruction [Paras 42-43, 58-62].

Antecedents – Applicant Involved in 35–42 Cases – Some cases resulted in acquittals, quashing, or summary reports – Allegation that criminal history was partially suppressed – Held: Antecedents not to be ignored but not decisive unless they show pattern of evasion or obstruction – Balance can be maintained through safeguards ensuring cooperation with investigation [Paras 18, 28, 63-68].

Precedent – Pratibha Manchanda v. State of Haryana (2023) 8 SCC 181 – Relied on by prosecution to argue that delay not fatal in cases of land grab and forgery – Held: Facts distinguishable – In Manchanda, forged document remained concealed for 20 years – In present case, documents are registered, acted upon, and part of public record – Principle of delay remains relevant when no concealment or fraud on record is established [Paras 50-54, 56-57].

Decision: Anticipatory bail granted – Applicant to be released on bond of ₹50,000 with two local sureties – Conditions imposed to ensure cooperation, prevent tampering and protect investigation – Order clarified to not affect parties’ civil rights – Civil proceedings may continue independently [Paras 70-73].

Motor Accident Claim – Composite Negligence – Liability Apportionment – Tribunal held both taxi and lorry drivers equally negligent in causing the fatal accident – Based on testimony of co-passenger widow (P.W.1), vehicle damage reports (Ex.P6, Ex.R5), and site sketch (Ex.P5) – Court found no perversity in Tribunal's apportionment of 50:50 liability [Paras 12–19].

Motor Vehicles Act – Quantum of Compensation – Deceased was 44 years old and employed as Assistant Vice President in Axis Bank – Income of Rs.1,24,350 per month proved by salary slips (Ex.X2, Ex.P13) and ITRs (Ex.P16) – Tribunal awarded Rs.1.63 crore with interest – Court upheld award as reasonable and based on correct dependency assessment [Paras 20–21].

Insurance Law – Cancellation of Policy – Bounced Cheque – Taxi's insurance premium cheque dishonoured – Insurer had cancelled policy and duly intimated both vehicle owner and RTO before the accident – Held: Valid cancellation meant no insurance contract subsisted on date of accident – Insurer not liable [Paras 22–23, 30].

“Pay and Recover” – Not Applicable – Court held “pay and recover” principle cannot be invoked where insurance contract was rescinded before accident due to non-payment of premium – No exceptional circumstances to invoke powers under Article 142 – Tribunal rightly held taxi owner liable for 50% of compensation, insurer of lorry liable for remaining 50% [Paras 23–31].

Decision: Both appeals dismissed – Tribunal's findings on negligence and quantum upheld – No liability imposed on insurer of taxi – No direction to “pay and recover” – Costs imposed – Miscellaneous Petition closed.