Criminal Procedure – Quashing of Proceedings – Section 482 Cr.P.C. –High Court declined to quash the proceedings against the petitioner accused of offenses under IPC and Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002. [Para 1, 6]

Allegations of Illegal Relationship and Assault – Involvement of Petitioner – The petitioner was accused of being in an illegal relationship with the complainant’s husband and assaulting the complainant. The court found sufficient material for the case to proceed to trial. [Para 2, 4, 5]

False Case Allegation by Petitioner – Rejected – The petitioner's claim of a false case was not accepted. The court emphasized the importance of trial for ascertaining the truth of the allegations. [Para 3, 5]

Trial Procedure – Personal Appearance of Petitioner – The court dispensed with the petitioner’s personal appearance except on specific occasions, ensuring minimal inconvenience while not hindering the trial process. [Para 7]

Decision – Petition Dismissed – The court found no grounds to quash the proceedings, emphasizing the necessity of the trial for adjudicating the allegations against the petitioner. [Para 6]

Matrimonial Law – Divorce - Cruelty and Desertion in Marriage – Grant of Divorce to Appellant – Appellant Ruma Chakraborty's appeal against the dismissal of her petition for divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion under Sections 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Appellant's allegations of respondent's neglect, financial irresponsibility, and emotional abandonment substantiated – Court finds respondent's actions constitute cruelty and desertion, warranting dissolution of marriage. [Paras 1-57]

Cruelty and Desertion Under Hindu Marriage Act – found – the Court found that the respondent, Pranab Kumar Chakraborty, failed to fulfill his marital obligations towards the appellant, leading to her living with her parents. It was observed that the respondent's actions constituted cruelty and desertion as per the Hindu Marriage Act. [Para 42-56]

Restitution of Conjugal Rights – Rejection of Respondent's Claim – The Court rejected the respondent's claim for restitution of conjugal rights, observing that the appellant was compelled to live with her parents due to the respondent's failure to maintain his marital responsibilities, which did not amount to her deserting him. [Para 53-55]

Decision – Grant of Divorce – The High Court granted the appellant, Ruma Chakraborty, a divorce under Sections 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, on the grounds of cruelty and desertion by the respondent. The Court set aside the judgments of the learned Family Court dated 13.05.2010. [Para 57-58]

Trademark Infringement and Passing Off - Dispute over use of the mark 'JINDAL' by the defendants. The plaintiff, Jindal Industries Pvt. Ltd., holds registered trademarks for the word 'JINDAL' and contends that the defendants' use of similar marks infringes on their registered trademarks and amounts to passing off [Paras 2, 5, 42, 43, 45].

Analysis of Section 35, Trade Marks Act – Held – The Court noted the absolute protection offered by Section 35 of the Trade Marks Act to the bona fide use of one's name, extending to its usage as a trade mark, and found that the defendants' use of 'JINDAL' in their mark did not infringe upon the plaintiff's registered trade marks. [Para 10-40]

Comparison of Marks – Held – The Court observed that the marks of the plaintiff and defendants were neither identical nor deceptively similar, considering the added features in the defendants' mark, which included the prominent 'RNJ' logo and the name 'R N JINDAL SS TUBES'. This made the defendants' mark a distinct source identifier, unrelated to the plaintiff's mark. [Para 42-45]

Passing Off – Held – The Court concluded that there was no prima facie likelihood of confusion or deception from the defendants' use of their mark, and hence, no passing off occurred. [Para 46]

Decision – Interim Injunction Denied – The application for interim injunction by Jindal Industries Pvt. Ltd. against Suncity Sheets Pvt. Ltd. and Rachna Jindal was dismissed, as the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of trade mark infringement or passing off. [Para 47-48]

Criminal Procedure Code – Quashing of Proceedings U/S 138 NI Act – Section 482 CrPC – The High Court of Delhi, in exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, quashed the summoning order against the petitioner in a case pertaining to a cheque bounce under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court scrutinized the involvement of the petitioner, a 65-year-old lady and a partner in the accused firm, in the transaction in question and the issuance of the cheque. [Para 1, 20-21]

Partnership Liability – Section 141 of Negotiable Instruments Act – Emphasizing the necessity of specific averments in the complaint to establish the role and responsibility of a partner in the partnership firm at the time of commission of offence, the court found insufficient evidence against the petitioner in the discharge of liabilities under the cheques issued by the firm. The Court noted the absence of the petitioner’s name in a previous complaint related to the same transaction, casting doubt on her involvement. [Para 13-14, 17, 19]

Vicarious Liability – Negotiable Instruments Act – The Court held that vicarious liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act cannot be assumed merely based on the partnership status in the firm. Specific involvement in the transaction or the business affairs of the firm must be demonstrated. In the present case, the court found a lack of evidence to establish the petitioner's active role in the issuance of the disputed cheques or in the management of the firm’s affairs relevant to the transaction. [Para 16-17, 19]

Decision – Quashing of Summoning Order – Based on the assessment of the specific role and involvement of the petitioner in the issuance of the cheques and the conduct of business of the accused firm, the High Court quashed the summoning order against the petitioner. The Court exercised its inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC to prevent abuse of process and in the interest of justice. [Para 20-21]

Divorce Petition Dismissal – Mental Cruelty and Mental Disorder Unproved – Appellant (husband) appealed against Family Court’s judgment dismissing his divorce petition under Sections 13(1)(ia) and 1(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, on grounds of alleged cruelty and mental disorder by respondent (wife) – Family Court found no substantial proof of cruelty or mental disorder, noting respondent’s adequate communication and independence in child-rearing [Paras 1, 16-18, 31].

Allegations by Appellant – Wife’s Indifferent Behavior and Mental Health Issues – Appellant claimed respondent showed indifference, refused to perform household duties, threatened suicide, and suffered from mental illness, requiring hospital visits – Allegations included respondent’s frequent departures to her parental home and refusal to maintain physical relations [Paras 3-7].

Respondent’s Rebuttal – Denial of Ill-Treatment and False Mental Health Claims – Respondent denied all allegations, claiming she was mentally fit and accused the appellant of fabricating mental health issues – Respondent countered with allegations of dowry demands and physical discomfort due to pregnancy [Paras 12, 23, 25].

Medical Evidence – Insufficient Proof of Mental Disorder – Medical reports from IHBAS revealed no substantial evidence of respondent’s mental disorder, undermining appellant’s claims – Reports indicated respondent’s normal mental state during pregnancy [Paras 22, 24-25].

Court’s Analysis – Normal Marital Strains, No Proof of Cruelty – Court differentiated between normal marital conflicts and cruelty – Found allegations against respondent (like late rising, reluctance in household chores) typical of early pregnancy stage and not constituting cruelty – Lack of respondent’s complaint against appellant for dowry demand considered [Paras 26-31].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed, No Cruelty or Mental Disorder Established – High Court upheld Family Court’s judgment, dismissing the appeal due to insufficient evidence of mental cruelty or disorder by the respondent [Paras 32-33].

Petition for Termination of Pregnancy – Victim aged 16 years seeking termination of pregnancy resulting from rape – Petition filed under POCSO Act and IPC provisions – Pregnancy at 26 weeks and 4 days gestation – Request for DNA identification of fetus tissues for justice. [Para 1.0]

Protection of Minor's Identity – Court directs the anonymization of the minor's identity in all records and judgments to protect her privacy. [Para 2.0]

Background of the Case – Victim raped by uncle and neighbors – FIR filed under various sections of IPC and POCSO Act – Medical examination ordered for feasibility of pregnancy termination. [Para 3.0-4.0]

Medical Board's Report – Pregnancy viable at 26 weeks with associated risks – Medical Board's opinion on risks and viability of fetus, no substantial fetal abnormalities detected. [Para 4.1, 4.2]

Judicial Decision – Termination of pregnancy not permitted due to exceeded statutory limit of 24 weeks, lack of fetal abnormalities, and no immediate threat to petitioner's life – Consideration of rights of unborn child. [Para 6.0]

Reference to Supreme Court Decision – Citing X vs. Union of India & Another in denying the termination request. [Para 7.0]

Directions Issued – Medical follow-up, neonatal care, custody decisions, victim's housing, and financial assistance for victim and child – Directions for victim's interim compensation under the Victim Compensation Scheme. [Para 8.0]

Conclusion and Disposition – Petition disposed of with specific directions, notice discharged. [Para 9.0]

Criminal Law – Anticipatory Bail – Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – The Gujarat High Court considered the applications for anticipatory bail under Section 14A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, in connection with FIR No. 11192050240041 at Sanand Police Station, Ahmedabad (Rural). The appellants sought relief against their potential arrest related to a land transaction dispute alleged to be a civil matter. [Para 1-2]

Arguments by Appellants – Civil Nature of Dispute – The appellants contended that the dispute was purely civil, involving a transaction under an agreement to sell, coupled with an irrevocable power of attorney. They argued that the FIR was falsely lodged to cover up the first informant's refusal to execute the sale deed. The appellants expressed willingness to cooperate in the investigation. [Para 2]

Arguments by Complainant and State – Criminal Nature of Dispute – Custodial Interrogation Needed – The complainant and State argued that the appellants, under the guise of a sale agreement, committed a fraudulent transaction and misused their power of attorney, necessitating custodial interrogation. The State highlighted the appellants' criminal antecedents, indicating their involvement in similar offences and asserting that bail would send a negative message to society. [Para 3-4]

Court's Analysis – Applicability of Bail Criteria – The Court, applying the principles laid down in Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth Vs. State of Gujarat, evaluated the nature of the accusation, the role of the accused, their antecedents, potential risk of flight, and likelihood of repeating the offence. The Court found that while one antecedent was registered against each appellant, the facts of the case and the nature of the allegations favored the exercise of discretion in granting bail. [Para 5-6]

Decision – Grant of Anticipatory Bail – Considering the parameters of bail, nature of allegations, severity of punishment, absence of flight risk, and precedents set by higher courts, the Court granted anticipatory bail to the appellants. They were ordered to be released on bail upon arrest, subject to several conditions including cooperation with the investigation, non-interference with evidence, restriction on travel, and maintaining a specific residence. [Para 7-9]

Application for Anticipatory Bail - FIR alleging involvement in a case under IPC Sections 107 and 306 - Accused seeking anticipatory bail due to delayed FIR and absence of direct allegations in the suicide note. [Para 1, 5]

FIR Review and Discretion of Court - Analysis of FIR, nature of allegations, and roles attributed to the accused, leading to the decision to grant anticipatory bail. Important factors included delay in FIR and the content of the suicide note. [Para 5]

Precedents on Suicide and Abetment - References to Supreme Court judgments (Kumar @ Shiva Kumar Vs. State of Karnataka and Kashibai and others Vs. State of Karnataka) highlighting challenges in proving abetment of suicide and the importance of understanding circumstances surrounding the deceased. [Para 4, 5]

Statutory Bar Under Atrocities Act - Discussion of statutory limitations on granting anticipatory bail under the Atrocities Act, with reference to Prithviraj Chauhan vs Union of India and related Supreme Court judgments, emphasizing the balance between judicial discretion and statutory restrictions. [Para 6, 7]

Bail Conditions - Specific conditions laid out for the appellants upon being granted anticipatory bail, including cooperation with investigation, no tampering with evidence, and restrictions on travel and change of residence. [Para 8]

The accused, Ashok Kumar, challenged the conviction and sentence for an offence under Section 138 of the NI Act related to cheque dishonour due to insufficient funds - Asserting that the cheque was not drawn from his account but by another individual, Ashu Dhiman - Key issue is whether the cheque was drawn from an account maintained by the accused [Paras 1, 19-20, 22-23, 31].

Trial and Appellate Courts convicted and sentenced the accused, holding that a presumption of legal liability exists when a cheque is dishonoured, and the accused failed to rebut this presumption - Defence that the cheque was security for a vehicle purchase and not from the accused's account, was not accepted [Paras 6-7, 26].

High Court held that essential requirement under Section 138 NI Act is the cheque must be drawn on an account maintained by the drawer (accused) - Evidence showed the cheque was drawn from an account belonging to Ashu Dhiman, not the accused - This key ingredient was overlooked by the lower courts [Paras 16-17, 19-21, 26].

Citing the Supreme Court's precedence in Jugesh Sehgal v. Shamsher Singh Gogi, High Court observed that if the cheque is not drawn from the drawer's account, provisions of Section 138 NI Act are not applicable - The lower courts erred in their judgment by not considering this essential aspect [Paras 20-21, 26].

High Court allowed the revision, setting aside the judgments of the Trial and Appellate Courts - Accused acquitted as the complaint failed to fulfill the essential requirement under Section 138 NI Act [Para 31].