Negotiable Instruments Act – Cheque Dishonour – Material Alteration – Sections 87, 138, 118(a), 139, NI Act – Cheque issued for ₹7 lakhs returned unpaid for “insufficient funds” – Accused admitted issuing cheque but alleged alteration in account number and limited liability of ₹1.92 lakhs – Evidence (CW1 testimony) confirmed alteration from CD-5956 to CD-6033 without drawer’s authentication – Held: Alteration in name/account of payee constitutes material alteration under Section 87; cheque rendered void; no liability arises on its dishonour. Acquittal [Paras 18-27].

Presumption under NI Act – Rebuttal – Sections 118(a), 139, NI Act – Presumption of consideration and liability arises on issuance of cheque – Presumption is rebuttable; once evidence of alteration and lesser liability is shown, presumption stands displaced – Complainant failed to prove subsisting legally enforceable debt of ₹7 lakhs – Cheque unenforceable [Paras 28-29].

Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction – Sections 397 & 401 CrPC – High Court ordinarily does not reappreciate evidence in revision – However, where concurrent findings of courts below ignore material alteration rendering cheque void, interference is justified – Conviction and sentence set aside; complaint dismissed; accused acquitted [Paras 13-17, 30-32].

Decision – Criminal Revision Allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 138 NI Act set aside – Complaint dismissed – Accused acquitted – Petitioner to furnish bail bonds under Section 437-A CrPC (Section 481 BNSS, 2023) for ₹25,000/- with one surety, effective for six months [Paras 32-33].

Criminal Law - Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Civil Dispute Cloaked as Criminal Offence – Sections 406, 420 IPC – Quashment Allowed – Petitioners (OYO and its Directors) challenged proceedings initiated by the complainant alleging cheating, breach of trust and conspiracy regarding hotel management agreements – The dispute pertained to contractual breaches, revenue sharing, and claims already referred to arbitration and IBC proceedings – Held: No entrustment of property or dishonest inducement at inception – Essential ingredients of Sections 406 and 420 IPC absent – Criminal law cannot be invoked to settle civil scores – Continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process – Proceedings quashed [Paras 7-11, 13-19].

Abuse of Process – Invocation of Criminal Law in Contractual Disputes – Section 482 CrPC – Petitioners contended that multiple similar complaints had already been quashed by coordinate benches; complainant cleverly drafted complaint to give colour of criminality – Court held that criminal process cannot be used as a cudgel for recovery of money or arm-twisting in commercial disputes – Reliance placed on Paramjeet Batra, Sarabjit Kaur, Naresh Kumar, Manish, Rikhab Birani, and S.N. Vijayalakshmi – Complaint held to be mala fide and vexatious [Paras 12-16].

Civil and Criminal Proceedings – Simultaneous Remedies – While in law civil and criminal proceedings may coexist, such coexistence requires a demonstrable element of criminality – In the present case, substratum of dispute was purely civil – Invocation of criminal law deprecated – Reliance on Punit Beriwala distinguished as facts revealed fraudulent intent at inception in that case, unlike present matter [Paras 17-18]

Decision – Criminal Petition Allowed – Proceedings in C.C.No.10486/2023 before IV ACMM, Bengaluru quashed – Clarified that observations confined to exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC and shall not influence other proceedings [Para 20].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Cheque Dishonour – Presumption under Ss. 118(a), 139 – Rebuttal – Complainant alleged advancing ₹2,50,000/- loan, cheque dishonoured for “insufficient funds” – Accused admitted issuing cheque but claimed it was blank and misused; pleaded he borrowed only ₹50,000/- and repaid – Complainant’s income shown as ₹20,000/month; no documents or ITRs produced to establish financial capacity – Held: Presumption under Ss.118(a), 139 is rebuttable; complainant’s financial incapacity raised a probable defence; presumption stood displaced – Trial court’s acquittal upheld [Paras 14-21].

Appeal Against Acquittal – Scope of Interference – Section 378 CrPC – High Court can interfere with acquittal only if judgment suffers from patent perversity, ignores material evidence, or is wholly unreasonable – Trial court took a possible view on evidence, doubting complainant’s financial capacity – No perversity found – Appeal dismissed [Paras 12-13, 22].

Financial Capacity – Burden on Complainant – Principles from Tedhi Singh v. Narayan Dass Mahant (2022) 6 SCC 735, Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa (2019) 5 SCC 418, Dattatraya v. Sharanappa (2024) 8 SCC 573, John K. Abraham v. Simon C. Abraham (2014) 2 SCC 236 – Where complainant fails to prove capacity to lend, accused entitled to acquittal – Applied to present case [Paras 15-19].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Judgment of acquittal confirmed – No interference warranted [Para 23].

Agreement to Sell – Suit for Mandatory Injunction Instead of Specific Performance – Maintainability – Appeal Dismissed – Appellant relied on agreement to sell dated 24.12.2008 (Ex.P1) and claimed to have paid ₹24,00,000/- – Both Courts below found suit misconceived since relief ought to have been one for specific performance, not mandatory injunction – Further, appellant himself was attesting witness to sale deed dated 22.04.2009 in favour of respondents 3 & 4, which was never challenged – Agreement to sell not proved; no evidence beyond appellant’s self-serving statement – Held: Suit rightly dismissed as not maintainable [Paras 2–8].

Fraud and Coercion Allegations – Evidentiary Deficiency – No Relief – Appellant alleged coercion, threats, forced signatures, and FIRs – However, Courts found absence of corroborative evidence and noted contradictions including attestation of rival sale deed by appellant – Hence, plea of fraud rejected [Paras 2–8].

Second Appeal – Section 100 CPC – No Substantial Question of Law – Outcome: Appeal Dismissed – High Court held that concurrent findings based on evidence raised no substantial question of law – Second appeal dismissed as meritless [Paras 8–9].

Final Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Pending applications also disposed of – No relief granted to appellant [Para 9].

Employment Dispute – Maintainability of Civil Suit – Order 7 Rule 11 CPC – Specific Relief Act – Single Judge rejected plaint holding specific performance of employment contract barred under Section 14 SRA – Division Bench held rejection unsustainable since plaint also sought damages of ₹2 crores for arbitrary and mala fide termination and reputational harm – Cause of action disclosed, and rejection of part of plaint not permissible – Suit restored [Paras 2, 5-10].

Civil Procedure – Partial Rejection of Plaint – Not Permissible – Court reiterated that plaint must be read as a whole; partial rejection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC impermissible – Relief for damages independent and maintainable even if reinstatement barred – Hence, plaint could not be rejected in entirety [Paras 6, 10].

Employment Law – Termination – Allegations of Mala Fides and Procedural Impropriety – Plaintiff pleaded arbitrary suspension, sham enquiry, collusion of senior officials, and reputational harm by public removal from workstation – Such allegations constituted triable issues requiring adjudication – Rejection of plaint at threshold erroneous [Paras 8-9].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Impugned judgment of Single Judge set aside – Suit restored to file for trial – Parties directed to appear before Single Judge (Roster Bench) on 16.09.2025 [Paras 15-16].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Dishonour of Cheque – Section 138 NI Act – Conviction and Sentence – Compounded by Settlement – Petitioner convicted under Section 138 NI Act for dishonour of cheque of Rs.17 lakhs and sentenced to six months’ imprisonment with Rs.2 lakhs compensation – Appellate Court enhanced compensation to Rs.5 lakhs – During pendency of revisions, parties entered into compromise deed dated 26.05.2025, later formalised before Mediation and Conciliation Centre – Settlement terms included full satisfaction of complainant’s claim, no objection to quashing of conviction, and refund of Rs.5 lakhs deposited with Registrar General – Held: In view of the settlement, conviction and sentence rendered inoperative; offence compounded – CRR-2090-2022 and CRR-2061-2022 allowed [Paras 2-7, 13-15].

Criminal Procedure – Power of High Court – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Compounding of Non-compoundable Offences – Principle – Court reiterated that under Section 482 Cr.P.C., High Court has wide inherent powers to quash proceedings to secure ends of justice notwithstanding bar under Section 320 Cr.P.C. – Cited Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466; Ramgopal v. State of Madhya Pradesh 2021 SCC OnLine SC 834 – Compromise upheld as the “finest hour of justice” when parties resolve dispute amicably – Application of these principles to cheque dishonour case justified compounding of offence [Paras 28-33].

Compromise – Effect on Connected Revisions – CRR-2663-2022 filed by complainant seeking further enhancement of compensation – In view of compromise and quashing of conviction, complainant sought withdrawal – Petition dismissed as withdrawn [Para 16].

Refund of Deposited Amount – Rs.5 lakhs deposited before Registrar General pursuant to earlier court order – Since petitioner paid Rs.5 lakhs directly to complainant as per settlement, amount with Registrar General directed to be refunded to petitioner – Application disposed accordingly [Para 18].

Specific Relief Act  - Agreement to Sell – Claim of Earnest Money by Stranger – Concurrent Findings Against Plaintiff – Dismissal Upheld – Appellant claimed to have paid ₹46,85,625/- as earnest money and to have inserted respondent no.1’s name in agreement dated 14.10.2011 in good faith – Both Trial and First Appellate Courts held that agreement (Ex.P1) showed respondent no.1 as buyer and no evidence supported appellant’s plea – Bank records proved earnest money was paid by respondent no.1 from funds withdrawn from his and his wife’s accounts – Held: No cogent evidence by appellant; concurrent findings sustained [Paras 2–9].

Scope of Second Appeal – Section 100 CPC – No Substantial Question of Law – Appeal Dismissed – Findings of fact by both courts below that appellant was never part of transaction and consideration flowed from respondent no.1 – High Court found no substantial question of law arising – Appeal dismissed as devoid of merit [Paras 9–10].

Final Decision – Writ for Declaration/Recovery – Relief Denied – In absence of proof of involvement or payment by appellant, suit rightly dismissed; second appeal also dismissed – Pending applications disposed of [Para 10].

Stamp Duty – Section 45-A, Karnataka Stamps Act, 1957 – Undervaluation – Deficit duty of Rs.12,42,975/- with cess and deficit registration fee demanded – Petitioners contended property purchased under 2004 agreement, possession delivered in 2007, sale deed executed in 2017 – Respondent No.3 ordered deficit duty after spot inspection – Appeal filed with delay before Regional Commissioner rejected summarily [Paras 2-4].

Condonation of Delay – Appeal under Section 45-A(5) – Petitioners pleaded ignorance of 2017 order until 2021 and death of brother in 2019 – Appeal filed with 50% deposit as mandated – Held: Respondent No.2 erred in mechanically rejecting condonation application – Appeal ought to have been considered on merits – Delay condoned [Paras 6-7].

Supervisory Jurisdiction – Articles 226 & 227 – High Court held that rejection of appeal by cryptic one-line order unsustainable – Natural justice requires consideration of explanation for delay where statutory appeal and part payment made – Order quashed, appeal restored for disposal on merits within 30 days [Paras 7-8].

Decision – Writ Petition allowed – Order of Respondent No.2 quashed – Delay condoned – Appeal restored for decision on merits – Petitioners directed to appear before Regional Commissioner on 15.09.2025 [Paras 8-9].

Section 528 BNSS - Right to Travel Abroad – Article 21 of Constitution – Permission to Study Overseas Granted – The petitioner, a 21-year-old student, sought permission to go abroad for higher studies in Germany but was denied by the trial court on apprehension of absconding – Held: Right to travel abroad is an integral facet of personal liberty under Article 21 – Courts can secure presence of accused by imposing stringent conditions such as heavy surety and undertakings – Trial Court erred in denying permission solely on apprehension – Order set aside – Petition allowed subject to conditions [Paras 8-17].

Bail Conditions and Judicial Discretion – Accused on Bail – Future Prospects – The petitioner was already on bail in connection with offences under IPC and SC/ST Act – Court held that denial of study opportunities would be detrimental to his reformation and career prospects – Liberty to impose strict conditions to ensure trial participation – Petition accepted [Paras 3-4, 13-17].

Decision: Impugned order dated 13.08.2024 set aside – Petitioner permitted to go abroad for studies subject to stringent conditions, including heavy surety and undertaking to not object to trial proceedings in absence – Petition allowed [Paras 16-18].