Criminal Law – Rape – Promise to Marry – Consensual Relationship – False Allegation – Quashing of FIR – Petitioner Advocate accused of rape under false promise of marriage by a married woman who was also his client – FIR and statement under Section 164 CrPC lacked specific dates or particulars of inducement – Relationship continued for over one year during subsisting marriage of prosecutrix – Held: Mature, married prosecutrix, being a lawyer, could not have been misled by promise of marriage – Allegations do not constitute offence under Section 376 IPC – FIR quashed to that extent [Paras 17-28].

Criminal Procedure – Quashing of FIR – Abuse of Process – Prima Facie Offence Not Made Out – Section 482 CrPC Invoked – FIR found to contain exaggerated and inherently improbable allegations against multiple persons including family members – No material or disclosure statement supporting offence under Section 180 IPC – Threat allegations under Section 506 IPC vague and devoid of alarm-causing content – Held: Prosecution under Sections 376, 180 and 506 IPC manifestly malicious – FIR quashed partially under Bhajan Lal principles [Paras 14, 26, 29, 34-35].

Information Technology – Section 67A – Transmission of Obscene Content – Digital Privacy and Consent – Prima Facie Case Exists – Petitioner sent explicit images via WhatsApp, which were later shared with prosecutrix’s husband – Though exchange was private and initially consensual, once shared with third party, offence under Section 67A IT Act attracted – Held: Quashing refused in respect of Section 67A – Trial to proceed on that count [Paras 30-31].

Gender and Law – Misuse of Rape Laws – Relationship Breakdown – Emotional Fallout – Not Basis for Criminal Prosecution – Complaint seen as emotional reaction after petitioner became engaged to prosecutrix's sister – Court cautioned against treating every failed relationship as basis for sexual assault charge – Judicial focus on consent, agency, and legal standards reaffirmed [Paras 27-28].

Decision: Petition partly allowed – FIR and charge sheet quashed qua offences under Sections 376(2)(n), 180, and 506 IPC – Trial to continue only under Section 67A of the IT Act.

Criminal Law – Dishonour of Cheque – Appeal Against Acquittal – Complainant filed appeal challenging acquittal of accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act – Accused issued cheque for ₹4,00,000 towards alleged discharge of liability – Trial court convicted accused – Appellate court (Sessions Court) acquitted her – High Court held: Acquittal justified – Accused rebutted presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of NI Act through probable defence – Complainant failed to prove legally enforceable debt – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1, 5, 26]

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 – Signature on cheque not disputed by accused – Held: Legal presumption arises in favour of complainant – However, presumption is rebuttable – Accused raised a probable defence supported by testimony and circumstantial evidence – Complainant failed to establish transaction details or source of funds – No documentary or corroborative evidence produced – Presumption rebutted successfully [Paras 8, 10-12, 15-21, 24]

Probable Defence – Entrustment of Cheque as Security – Accused’s husband (DW2) deposed that cheque was handed over to one Robert as security for a loan – Allegation that Robert misused cheque by filing false case through complainant – Complainant (PW1) failed to deny suggestion during cross-examination – Stated he had no knowledge of transaction between Robert and accused’s husband – Held: Defence version consistent and supported by circumstances – Burden shifted back to complainant, who failed to discharge it [Paras 9, 13-14, 23]

Acquaintance with Complainant – No Prior Relationship – Accused specifically denied having any prior transaction with complainant – Complainant admitted he saw accused only once ten years ago – No evidence of prior relationship or loan transaction – Held: Creates serious doubt about existence of legally enforceable debt – Supports defence case [Paras 13, 22]

Source of Funds – Not Proved – Complainant claimed to have given ₹4,00,000 as cash loan – Claimed funds sourced from advance sale consideration of land – No document or witness produced to support this – Produced passbook (Exhibit P6) showing withdrawal of ₹3,85,000 from Co-operative Society, but only after deposit on previous day – Inconsistency undermines version – Held: Financial capacity not proved – Contradicts core allegation [Paras 11-12, 17]

Standard of Proof – Rebuttal of Presumption – Held: Accused need not prove case beyond reasonable doubt – Only required to raise probable defence – Circumstantial inconsistencies in complainant’s version sufficient to discharge evidentiary burden – Cited: Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa, M.S. Narayana Menon v. State of Kerala, Kumar Exports v. Sharma Carpets [Paras 15-21, 24]

Appellate Review – Powers of Appellate Court – High Court reiterated principles from Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka – Double presumption in favour of accused in case of acquittal – If two views possible, appellate court should not interfere – Held: Sessions Court’s view was plausible and based on appreciation of evidence – No interference warranted [Paras 25-26]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Acquittal of accused under Section 138 NI Act confirmed – Complainant failed to prove legally enforceable debt – Accused successfully rebutted statutory presumption through probable defence – No interference called for with Sessions Court’s judgment [Para 26]

Criminal Law – Quashing of Complaint – Vicarious Liability – Directors – Petitioners sought quashing of complaint filed in 1994 under IPC and Excise Act citing lack of specific allegations – Court held that in absence of averments indicating personal role or statutory vicarious liability, criminal prosecution against directors (Petitioners 3 to 9) is not sustainable – Complaint and proceedings quashed qua them [Paras 7.1, 8–10, 17(i)].

Taxation – Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 – Scope of Immunity – Petitioners argued that tax arrears settled under scheme granted full immunity from prosecution – Court held: Scheme does not apply retrospectively and cannot nullify criminal proceedings already instituted before 01.09.1998 – Petitioners not entitled to immunity for criminal complaint filed in 1994 [Paras 11–15].

Forgery – Prima Facie Case – False Declaration – Petitioners challenged maintainability of complaint under Section 468 IPC claiming discrepancy in glass thickness logs doesn't amount to forgery – Court rejected submission – Held: Misdeclaration before government authority to evade tax amounts to forged document under Section 464 IPC – Prima facie case made out against company and MD [Paras 4.9, 16, 17(ii)].

Criminal Law – Doctrine of Separate Legal Personality – Court reiterated that mere designation as director does not attract criminal liability – Active role or statutory provision required – Reaffirmed principle that vicarious liability in criminal law requires specific statutory mandate or evidence of involvement [Paras 7.1, 9–10].

Decision: Petition allowed in part – Complaint quashed and proceedings dropped against Petitioners 3 to 9 (Directors) – Petition dismissed against Petitioner No.1 (Company) and Petitioner No.2 (Managing Director).

Arbitration – Maintainability of Section 34 Petition – MSME Award – Pre-deposit Mandatory – Petition filed to challenge MSME award without deposit of 75% of award amount at time of filing – Deposit made only on 18.06.2025, beyond 120-day limitation under Section 34(3) – Held: Petition not maintainable due to failure to comply with statutory precondition under Section 19 of MSMED Act within limitation – No judicial discretion available to condone this delay [Paras 11, 29, 34–35, 45].

Arbitration – MSMED Act – Harmonious Construction – MSMED Act (special statute) and Arbitration Act (general statute) must be harmonised – Section 19 requiring 75% deposit is mandatory and must be fulfilled within the limitation period under Section 34 – Mere filing of Section 34 petition without deposit does not stop limitation clock – Held: Petition deemed filed only on date of deposit [Paras 29, 31, 33–34].

Statutory Interpretation – “Shall be Entertained” – Phrase in Section 19 MSMED Act interpreted to mean that unless deposit is made within prescribed time, court cannot proceed to entertain petition – Discretion of court limited to method of payment (e.g., instalments), not to waive or extend time for deposit – Petition not entertainable when deposit made after 120-day period [Paras 13, 14, 20–23, 34–35].

Judicial Precedents – Divergent High Court Views – Madras High Court disagrees with views of Bombay and Delhi High Courts which allowed pre-deposit post-filing – Relied on binding ratio of SC in Lakshmiratan Engineering Works Ltd. and Full Bench of Madras HC in E.P. Nawab Marakkadai – Held: Entertainability of petition is dependent on timely deposit [Paras 20–23, 25–28].

Execution – Interim Relief under Section 9 – Respondent filed Section 9 petition seeking deposit of award amount pending challenge – In view of dismissal of Section 34 petition, deposit made by petitioner under Section 19 treated as made in Section 9 proceeding – Court directed release of deposited amount to respondent – Liberty granted to initiate execution for remaining dues [Paras 46–47].

Decision: Arb.O.P.(Com.Div.) No.557 of 2025 dismissed as not maintainable due to failure to deposit 75% of award within statutory period – Court declined to exercise discretion under Section 19 MSMED Act – Arb.Appln.(Com.Div.) No.369 of 2025 disposed – Deposit made in Arb.O.P. directed to be paid to respondent – Liberty granted to initiate execution for balance amount if unpaid [Paras 45–47].

Territorial Jurisdiction – Order VII Rule 10 CPC – Commercial Suit – Plaint wholly lacking jurisdictional facts – Replication cannot cure foundational defect – Amendment of plaint impermissible where Court inherently lacks jurisdiction – Trial Court correctly returned plaint – Appeal dismissed [Paras 31–51].

Territorial Jurisdiction – Pleadings – Requirement of Jurisdictional Facts – Under Sections 15–20 CPC, plaintiff must plead material facts showing that defendant resides/carries on business in the forum or that part of cause of action arose there – Para 23 of plaint merely stating plaintiff “works for profit in Delhi” held insufficient – No averment showing any part of cause of action arising in Delhi – Plaint bereft of jurisdictional facts; Trial Court right in returning plaint [Paras 33–36].

Order VII Rule 10 CPC – Demurrer – Court must confine to plaint – Revisional Court reiterates that when jurisdiction is challenged by demurrer, Court must assume plaint facts as correct and cannot look at written statement or replication – Replication cannot be considered to create jurisdiction where plaint itself is silent – Application correctly decided solely on plaint [Paras 31–34].

Replication / Subsequent Pleadings – Cannot Cure Initial Absence of Jurisdiction – Plaintiff’s reliance on replication asserting cause of action arising from Delhi held misplaced – Replication cannot introduce jurisdictional facts absent in original plaint – Distinction drawn between preliminary issue under Order XIV Rule 2 (as in Kuldeep Singh Pathania) and demurrer under Order VII Rule 10 – Subsequent submissions irrelevant where plaint contains no jurisdictional facts [Paras 37–38, 48–50].

Amendment of Plaint – Order VI Rule 17 CPC – Impermissible where Court Lacks Jurisdiction – Trial Court rightly rejected amendment application relying on HSIL Ltd. v. Imperial Ceramic and Archie Comic Publications – A plaint completely bereft of jurisdictional averments cannot be amended to cure inherent lack of jurisdiction – Court must first possess jurisdiction to entertain amendment; otherwise amendment itself is incompetent [Paras 38–46].

Distinction Between Order VII Rule 10 and Rule 11 – Court reiterates that Rule 10 (territorial jurisdiction) differs from Rule 11 (cause of action/technical defects) – In cases of territorial jurisdiction, if plaint on its face discloses no jurisdiction, Court cannot consider amendment and must return plaint – Fundamental principle: lack of territorial jurisdiction cannot be cured by subsequent pleadings [Paras 42–46].

Commercial Courts Act – Section 13(1A) – Appellate Scope – No infirmity or perversity in Trial Court’s reasoning – Proper appreciation of pleadings and precedents – Appeal dismissed [Para 51].

Execution – Order XXI Rule 97 CPC – Objector (mother of JD) asserting 1/3rd independent share in auctioned property – Plausible claim based on joint family nucleus – Executing court bound to adjudicate by framing issues and allowing evidence – Summary rejection improper – Matter remanded for full adjudication [Paras 27–36].

Execution of Decree – Obstruction Petition – Order XXI Rule 97 CPC – Scope – Executing court must adjudicate all questions including right, title, interest of obstructionist; separate suit barred – Findings operate as res judicata – Summary dismissal without framing issues impermissible where objector shows prima facie independent right – Matter must be tried as if a suit [Paras 18–25, 33].

Stranger to Decree – Independent Right – Mother of JD – Joint Family Property – Burden of Proof – Though no presumption that property is joint family property, presumption of joint family exists – Objector asserted purchase of property from joint family nucleus; averred father’s thriving business, inheritance of business and assets, JD being 27-year-old businessman at time of purchase – These circumstances sufficient to shift initial onus; objector must be allowed to adduce evidence – Summary rejection unjustified [Paras 28–33].

Order XXI Rule 97/101 CPC – Need for Evidence – Adjudication may be summary only when facts are admitted or obstruction frivolous – Where objection discloses a semblance of right, executing court must frame issues and conduct evidentiary trial – Failure amounts to jurisdictional error – High Court corrects error in second appeal [Paras 12–14, 21, 33].

Joint Family Nucleus – Hindu Law – No presumption that property is joint family merely because family is joint – But where circumstances show existence of a nucleus from which property could be acquired, onus shifts to person asserting self-acquisition – Principles reiterated from Angadi Chandranna v. Shankar (SC 2025), R. Deivanai Ammal, Annamalai Chetti (PC) – Objector’s pleadings justified a full inquiry [Paras 28–32].

Execution Sale – Challenge – Right of Third Party – Objector not challenging auction on grounds under Order XXI Rule 90; seeking only protection of her undivided 1/3rd share – Objection maintainable upon threat of dispossession – Delay in filing objection not fatal; cause arises when warrant of possession issued – Objector is not JD; cannot be penalized for not participating earlier [Paras 34–35].

Substantial Question of Law – Executing Court’s Duty – Whether executing court erred in law by not framing issues and not permitting evidence regarding joint family character of property – Held: Yes; error goes to root of adjudicatory obligation under Rules 97–101 – Substantial question answered in favour of appellant [Paras 7, 36].

Remand – Executing court directed to frame issues, permit evidence, and decide objection under Order XXI Rule 97 within six months – Rights of auction purchaser preserved pending adjudication [Para 37].

Property Law – Matrimonial Property – Gift – Acceptance – Cancellation – Mandatory Injunction – Title Dispute – Husband claiming purchase in wife’s name; wife asserting exclusive title – Gift Deed executed by husband held accepted by wife; cancellation deed ineffective – Sale by wife upheld – Mandatory injunction claim dismissed [Paras 10–18].

Matrimonial Property – Purchase in Spouse’s Name – Source of Funds – Husband claimed to have paid consideration of ₹3 lakhs to his brother; later sought conveyance from wife or refund; amended claim based on wife’s 12 sovereigns of gold – Court held pleadings themselves defeat husband’s claim of title – Wife proved source of consideration; title vested with her – O.P. rightly dismissed [Paras 3–5, 10].

Gift – Acceptance – Proof – Non-onerous gift – Mere knowledge of gift by donee sufficient – Possession of original Gift Deed by wife strong indicator of acceptance – Gift executed on 26.03.1990; husband’s case that wife informed on 20.11.1998 about intention to cancel – Wife conveyed property on 30.11.1998 – Circumstances show acceptance occurred before cancellation under Ext.A5 – Cancellation void [Paras 11–16].

Gift – Delivery of Possession – Not essential – Delivery not required for a valid gift except under Muhammadan Law – Family Court erred in relying on possession and absence of mutation to hold gift ineffective [Para 17].

Civil Procedure – Family Court – Appreciation of Evidence – Family Court’s finding that gift had not taken effect reversed – Sale Deed (Ext.A8) executed by wife is valid – Husband’s O.P. seeking declaration and cancellation dismissed [Paras 15–18].

Decision – Mat. Appeal No.98/2016 allowed – Judgment in O.P.1282/2003 set aside and petition dismissed – Mat. Appeal No.305/2015 dismissed – Wife’s title over both properties confirmed [Final Para].

Preventive Detention – Verification of In-Camera Statements – Subjective Satisfaction – Petitioner challenged preventive detention under MPDA Act alleging non-compliance with procedural safeguards – Contended that Detaining Authority failed to personally verify in-camera statements of witnesses – Held: It is not a legal requirement that the Detaining Authority must personally verify in-camera statements – Verification by a senior police officer such as Assistant Commissioner of Police suffices and provides necessary procedural safeguard – Assistant Commissioner personally interacted with witnesses, visited incident spot, and verified genuineness of statements – Detaining Authority perused entire record, including verification report, and recorded subjective satisfaction [Paras 4–11].

Preventive Detention – Procedural Safeguards – Compliance with Legal Requirements – Grounds of detention, in-camera statements, and verification report were supplied to the detenu – Detaining Authority noted and considered all relevant material before passing the detention order – Detention order satisfies requirements of Section 8 MPDA Act and Article 22(5) of the Constitution – No breach of procedural safeguards found [Paras 6–10, 12].

Judicial Review – Subjective Satisfaction – Scope – Courts cannot substitute their own opinion for the subjective satisfaction of Detaining Authority – Reasonableness of satisfaction is not to be tested objectively – Judicial interference not warranted unless procedural illegality or arbitrariness is established – Held: No infirmity found in detention order – Petition lacks merit [Paras 5, 12–13].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Rule discharged – Interim application also disposed of as infructuous.

Service Law – Municipal Recruitment – Sanitation Workers – Daily wage CLR workers with long years of service permitted to participate in selection pursuant to interim court orders – Selection conducted on merits along with Employment Exchange candidates – Wider zone of consideration permissible – No illegality in appointing daily wagers who succeeded in selection – Employment Exchange-only restriction not absolute – Writs by daily wage workers allowed; writs by Employment Exchange candidates dismissed [Paras 19–27].

Regularisation – Daily Wage / CLR Workers – No automatic right to regularisation – However, when daily wage workers were allowed to participate in a full, competitive selection process and emerged successful, their appointment cannot be denied – Distinction drawn between “regularisation as of right” and “appointment after due selection” [Paras 19–21].

Employment Exchange – G.O. dated 22.04.1982 – Employment Exchange sponsorship mandatory in ordinary circumstances – However, following Excise Superintendent v. K.B.N. Visweshwara Rao principle, Employment Exchange cannot be sole channel – Fair selection requires wider notification or inclusion of eligible workers – Daily wage workers validly included in selection pursuant to Court order – No bar to considering them on merit [Paras 20–22].

Constitutional Law – Equality in Public Employment – Restricting selection exclusively to Employment Exchange candidates may deprive eligible persons of opportunity – Court relied on Visweshwara Rao to uphold broader zone of consideration – Selection found fair, merit-based, and uniform for both groups [Paras 21–23].

Recruitment Process – Validity – Municipality produced consolidated select list; no allegation of exclusion, bias or mala fides – All candidates (Employment Exchange nominees + CLR workers) evaluated under same criteria – Selection upheld as lawful [Para 23].

Relief – Petitioners (CLR workers) in WP(C) Nos. 15142 & 15146/2023 directed to be appointed as Substitute Sanitation Workers as per merit list – WP(C) 15500/2023 & 20483/2025 (Employment Exchange candidates) dismissed except to extent selected candidates among them will be appointed – WP(C) 37605/2024 partly allowed with direction to include CLR workers with >10 years’ service in future selection in Thrippunithura Municipality [Final Paras].