Quashing Of Criminal Proceedings - Section 528 BNSS - Disproportionate Assets – Prevention of Corruption Act – Exoneration in Departmental Inquiry – Quashment Refused – Applicant, Assistant Manager, Greater NOIDA, accused of expenditure 137.80% above known income – Claimed departmental exoneration and quashing of censure – Held: Departmental findings based on preponderance of probability cannot override criminal prosecution which requires proof beyond reasonable doubt – Charge sheet disclosed offence and sanction for prosecution was granted – Criminal proceedings to continue – Application dismissed [Paras 26-31, 39-43].

Standard of Proof – Departmental Inquiry vs. Criminal Trial – Distinction reiterated – Departmental proceedings relate to service discipline and apply preponderance test – Criminal proceedings deal with offence against society requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt – Exoneration in service inquiry not conclusive for quashing criminal case [Paras 27-31].

Supreme Court Precedents – P.S. Rajya, Radheshyam Kejriwal, Ashoo Surendranath Tewari – Distinguished – Those cases turned on peculiar facts such as denial of sanction, penalty under FERA, or absence of evidence – Present case involved valid sanction and prima facie evidence – Recent ruling in Puneet Sabharwal (2024) reaffirmed departmental exoneration no ground for quashment [Paras 32-38].

Decision – Application under Section 528 BNSS dismissed – Charge sheet and proceedings under Sections 13(1)(b), 13(2) PC Act to continue – No interference warranted [Paras 42-43].

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].

Murder Trial – Circumstantial Evidence – Conviction Upheld – Appellant charged with murder of deceased on pretext of repaying loan of ₹10,000 – Prosecution proved circumstances: last seen together, appellant returning alone in blood-stained clothes, extrajudicial confession, recovery of weapon at his instance, seizure of deceased’s articles, medical and forensic corroboration – Chain of evidence complete and consistent with guilt of accused – Conviction under Sections 302 and 201 IPC sustained [Paras 9-19].

Homicidal Death – Medical Evidence – Post-mortem established cut-throat injury by sharp weapon sufficient in ordinary course to cause death – Burns were post-offence attempt to destroy identity – Finding of homicidal death affirmed [Para 10].

Motive – Loan of ₹10,000 – Evidence of deceased’s sister and father proved loan taken by appellant for his sister’s marriage – Though absence of documentary proof, oral testimony found credible – Motive sufficiently established [Para 11].

Last Seen Theory – Section 106 Evidence Act – Deceased last seen with appellant around noon, appellant returned alone shortly after with blood-stained clothes – Burden on accused to explain circumstances – No explanation offered – Last seen theory accepted as strong incriminating circumstance [Paras 12-14].

Extrajudicial Confession – Admissibility – Appellant voluntarily confessed before neutral witnesses when confronted – Not made under inducement, threat, or coercion – Corroborated by recovery and medical evidence – Reliance justified [Para 15].

Recovery under Section 27 Evidence Act – Knife recovered from ashes at instance of appellant – Chemical examination confirmed presence of human blood – Seizure of deceased’s mobile, voter ID, and purse from appellant further corroborated – Admissible discovery evidence strengthens prosecution case [Para 16-17].

Injuries on Accused – Medical report proved incised injuries on appellant’s hands consistent with struggle by deceased – Accused failed to explain injuries – Circumstance adds to chain of guilt [Para 18].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 302 and 201 IPC affirmed – Life imprisonment and fine upheld – Chain of circumstances formed complete and unbroken proof of guilt [Para 19].

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].

Taxation Law - GST Search – Advocate’s Office – Attorney–Client Privilege – Seizure of CPU – Safeguards Imposed – The petitioner, an advocate, challenged the search and seizure conducted at his office by the GST Department, including the seizure of his CPU containing confidential client data. The Court emphasised that an advocate’s office enjoys protection of attorney–client privilege and cannot be subjected to harassment unless prima facie material shows personal involvement in illegality. While refraining from commenting on merits of allegations that the advocate was involved in the client’s business, the Court held that the seized CPU may be examined only under strict safeguards, with cloned copies provided, and only client-related data (Martkarma Technology Pvt. Ltd.) extracted. Sealed cover reliance by GST was restricted, requiring redacted disclosure to the petitioner. Interim protection against coercive action granted – CPU inspection fixed under Court supervision – Matter listed for further hearing [Paras 14–16, 19, 22–24, 29–32].

Search & Seizure – Advocate’s Office – Section 67(2) CGST Act – Confidentiality & Attorney–Client Privilege – Search at law office requires heightened safeguards – GST Department cautioned not to open/access advocate’s computer without his presence and consent – Any such action could amount to breach of professional privilege [Paras 14–15, 22].

Seizure of CPU – Safeguards Imposed – Court directed that GST Department may examine petitioner’s CPU only in presence of petitioner, two lawyers/forensic expert, Delhi High Court IT officials, and a forensic expert from GST side – CPU to be cloned, with one copy given to petitioner – Only client-related files (Martkarma Technology Pvt. Ltd.) to be extracted; CPU thereafter to be resealed and kept in custody of GST Department [Paras 19, 23–24].

Sealed Cover Procedure – Reliance Impermissible – Following Supreme Court ruling in Madhyamam Broadcasting Ltd. v. Union of India (2022), Court held that petitioner must be made aware, at least in redacted form, of materials relied upon by GST Department – Sealed covers cannot be sole basis for adjudication [Paras 15–16, 24–25].

Prima Facie Case – Alleged Role of Advocate in Client’s Business – GST Department alleged advocate was not merely legal counsel but actively ran affairs of gaming client “Martkarma Technology Pvt. Ltd.” – Court refrained from observations on merits; sought substantiation through affidavits with redacted disclosure [Paras 11–13, 18–19].

Interim Protection – No Coercive Action – Court directed that no coercive steps be taken against petitioner; his presence required only for CPU inspection on 11–12 September 2025 – Costs of IT officials to be shared equally by petitioner and GST Department [Paras 23, 27, 29].

Next Steps – GST Department to file affidavit specifying allegations based on CPU data, intended further steps, and petitioner’s role as per statements (in redacted form) – Non-redacted version to be shown to Court – Matter listed for 30.10.2025 [Paras 24–26, 31–32].

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].

Suspension of Sentence – Section 389 CrPC – Convict for Possession of Counterfeit Currency – Relief Denied – Petitioner convicted under Sections 489-B and 489-C IPC for recovery of ₹31,27,500/- counterfeit currency notes – Application under Section 389(1) CrPC seeking bail pending appeal rejected – Revision filed challenging rejection – Held: Mere allegation of procedural lapses, non-examination of forensic expert, and lack of independent corroboration cannot justify suspension of sentence – Evidence including seizure, recovery, and forensic report prima facie established guilt – Presumption of innocence no longer available post-conviction – Suspension of sentence not warranted [Paras 16-21].

Procedural Lapses – Alleged Defects in Seizure and Resending of Exhibits – Court held that such issues fall within appellate jurisdiction and cannot be examined in detail at revision stage – Alleged irregularities regarding sealing, forwarding, and forensic examination not grounds for bail under Section 389 CrPC – To be adjudicated in appeal on merits [Paras 17-20].

Right to Appeal – Custody Since 2023 – Article 21 – Prolonged detention argued as ground for bail – Court reiterated principle in Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai that appeals should be disposed of expeditiously to avoid futility – Directed Appellate Court to conclude appeal within one month – Rejection of suspension of sentence affirmed [Paras 21-24].

Decision – Criminal Revision Dismissed – Impugned order of Additional Sessions Judge, Titilagarh, refusing suspension of sentence affirmed – Appeal to be disposed of on merits expeditiously without being influenced by present observations [Para 24].

Bail – Anti-National Facebook Post – Sections 152, 192, 197(1), 353(2) BNS – Bail Rejected – Applicant posted provocative and derogatory content including insult to Indian National Flag and slogans glorifying Pakistan – Cyber investigation traced posts to applicant's verified IP and mobile – Court found conduct detrimental to national integrity and social harmony – No grounds for bail [Paras 2–10].

Cyber Crime – Electronic Evidence – Facebook Post Verified Through IP and Mobile Linking – Meta data and cyber report confirmed the posts were made from applicant's mobile using his SIM and devices – Forensic collection upheld as credible prima facie evidence linking accused to offense [Paras 6(i)-(ii), 8].

National Flag – Insult to National Honour – Bail Denied – Photograph showing dog sitting on Indian Flag uploaded by applicant was termed as deliberate act of dishonour – Court reaffirmed importance of safeguarding national symbols and noted that such acts were punishable and socially corrosive [Paras 7, 9].

Criminal Antecedents – Previous Involvement in Arms Act and Attempt to Murder Cases – Considered in Bail Rejection – Two prior cases including one under Section 307 IPC weighed against applicant's plea for liberty [Para 6(vi)].

Social Media Responsibility – Posts Capable of Inciting Communal Disharmony – Court observed that the content uploaded was capable of disturbing public peace and order – Bail denied due to possibility of larger societal impact [Para 8].

Decision – Bail Application Rejected – Prima facie materials against the accused supported by technical evidence and witness statements – Insult to National Flag viewed as serious and non-bailable conduct – Application dismissed [Paras 10–11].

Murder  – Section 302 IPC – Circumstantial Evidence – Reliability of Witnesses – Trial Court convicted appellant for running over deceased with pick-up van due to enmity from alleged illicit relationship attempt – On appeal, Court found PW-1 (complainant) and PW-7 (widow of deceased) not eyewitnesses; both gave contradictory versions about source of information (reporter Vikram Purohit vs. PW-12 Parveez) – PW-12 turned hostile, denied knowledge – Reporter not examined – Held: contradictions fatal, prosecution failed to prove case beyond reasonable doubt. Acquittal. [Paras 22-24].

Revenge/Enmity Theory – Double-Edged Weapon – Court reiterated principle (SC in Aslam @ Imran v. State of M.P., 2025 LiveLaw SC 365; Maukam Singh v. State of M.P., 2025 INSC 435) that enmity may provide motive but equally raises possibility of false implication – In absence of documentary proof of prior illicit relationship complaint, prosecution’s revenge theory unsustainable [Paras 25-26].

Prosecution Evidence – Interested Witnesses – PW-1, PW-4, PW-7 statements found based on assumptions and hearsay, not direct observation – IO (PW-6) conducted casual investigation without corroborative evidence – No recovery, no direct witness – Held: conviction based on presumption, not proof – Benefit of doubt to accused [Paras 18-24].

Trial Court Judgment – Error in Appreciation of Evidence – Trial Court relied on “revenge theory” and uncorroborated witness accounts – High Court held findings erroneous; enmity alone cannot sustain conviction without reliable proof – Impugned judgment set aside [Paras 27-29].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC set aside – Appellant acquitted by giving benefit of doubt – To be released forthwith if not required in any other case [Paras 30].