Criminal Law – Quashing - Rape – Consent obtained on false promise of marriage – Applicant sought quashing of charge-sheet under Section 376 IPC on ground that relationship with victim was consensual and based on mutual love – FIR alleged repeated sexual acts on assurance of marriage by applicant and his family’s approval – Victim’s statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. consistent with FIR – Held: Allegations prima facie disclose that the promise of marriage was false at inception, intended to secure victim’s consent – Issue is matter for trial – No ground to quash proceedings [Paras 3, 12–13].

Quashing of Proceedings – Inherent Powers – Limits – At the stage of framing of charge or before trial, High Court cannot assess sufficiency of evidence or adjudicate factual disputes – Where allegations prima facie disclose offence, proceedings cannot be quashed merely because accused disputes facts or claims consensual relations [Paras 10, 13, 18–19].

Promise of Marriage – Legal Test – As reiterated in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 9 SCC 608, two elements are required to vitiate consent: (i) the promise of marriage must be false, given in bad faith, with no intention to marry when made; and (ii) such false promise must have direct nexus to woman’s decision to engage in the sexual act – Allegations in present case satisfy both tests [Paras 11–13].

Distinguished Precedents –

(i) Pramod Suryabhan Pawar (2019) – Distinguishable; there, promise was not shown to be false at inception.

(ii) Sonu @ Subhash Kumar v. State of U.P., (2021) 18 SCC 517 – Concerned voluntary relationship between adults; not applicable.

(iii) Amol Bhagwan Nehul v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1230 – Facts entirely different; complainant’s own marriage subsisting; consent not vitiated [Paras 14–17].

Delay in FIR – Not Fatal – Alleged delay between 03.01.2024 (incident) and 17.01.2024 (FIR) explained by victim’s circumstances – She was left stranded in Delhi and returned to her grandparents before lodging complaint – Delay justified [Para 9].

Decision: Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed – Interim order dated 01.08.2024 vacated – Observed that allegations reveal prima facie case of rape on false promise of marriage, requiring trial on merits [Paras 18–19].

Intellectual Property – Trademark Infringement – Device Mark – Word Mark – Invalid Registration – Concealment – Appeal Dismissed – Appellant had valid registration only for device mark containing the word QUANTUM and not for the standalone word mark – Registration certificate for the word mark obtained improperly without applying for it – Appellant failed to disclose this to the court – Held: Concealment of application and affidavit constituted wilful suppression disentitling interim relief under Order XXXIX CPC – Appellant cannot rely on invalid registration for claiming exclusivity [Paras 18.1–18.14, 19.1, 21.2].

Trademark Infringement – Device Mark – Dominant Part Doctrine – Appellant entitled to protection of device mark against similar use of dominant element “QUANTUM” by respondent – Respondents admitted user of marks QUANTUM and QUANTUM DISPLAY since 2015 through affidavit – Goods such as TVs and displays held similar to registered goods under Class 9 – Likelihood of confusion exists – Infringement made out in principle – However, relief denied due to lack of clean hands [Paras 19.2–19.14].

Trademark Law – Passing Off – Lack of Evidence – Though respondents admitted adoption of QUANTUM and QUANTUM DISPLAY marks in affidavit, no evidence of actual use or sale in market produced – Manner of use not established – Goodwill of appellant prior to 2015 not proven – No misrepresentation or deception established – Held: No prima facie case of passing off made out [Paras 20.1–20.6].

Civil Procedure – Interim Relief – Clean Hands Doctrine – Appellant concealed affidavit and registration details which revealed invalidity of word mark registration – Court reiterates that equitable relief like interim injunction not available to a party approaching with unclean hands – Appeal rightly dismissed on this ground [Paras 18.10–18.14, 21.2].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Appellant disentitled to interim relief due to deliberate concealment of material facts – Though prima facie case of infringement established on basis of device mark, Court declines to interfere due to lack of bona fides – No case of passing off made out – No order as to costs.

NDPS – Bail – Commercial Quantity – MDMA 70 gms – FSL positive – Twin conditions – Bail refused – Accused No.3 sought bail under Sec. 483 BNSS/439 CrPC for offences under Secs. 8(c), 21(c) & 22(c) NDPS – Court held seizure of 70 gms MDMA from petitioner established prima facie by mahazar and FSL report – Quantity is commercial – No grounds to believe petitioner not guilty nor that he would not commit offence on bail – Petition dismissed [Paras 7–9].

Delay/Procedure – Sec. 42 & Sec. 57 NDPS – At bail stage – Petitioner’s contentions that the seizing officer did not comply Sec. 57 and that Sec. 42 was not followed held to be matters for trial – Not determinative at bail stage when commercial quantity recovered [Para 8].

Factual Foundation – Arrest & Seizure – Petitioner arrested on 18.12.2024 – 70 gms MDMA and a mobile phone seized – Charge-sheet filed; case fixed for hearing – No criminal antecedents pleaded, but gravity and statutory rigour under Section 37 outweigh plea for bail [Paras 3, 4, 7–8].

Public Interest – Drug offences against society/youngsters – Court notes societal impact and likelihood of re-offending as factors against grant of bail in commercial quantity cases [Para 4].

Decision: Criminal petition dismissed – Bail refused [Para 9].

Maintenance – Income Assessment – Section 125 CrPC – Family Court awarded Rs. 22,000 per month to wife based on net salary of Rs. 90,562 of the petitioner – High Court held award constitutes ~25% of net income, consistent with guidelines laid down in Rajnesh v. Neha – Upheld as fair and reasonable [Paras 5, 7].

Matrimonial Dispute – Desertion – Petitioner argued wife had deserted him and was unwilling to reconcile – High Court held that unless desertion is adjudicated under Section 9 HMA in pending Matrimonial Case No. 25 of 2020, maintenance cannot be denied – Allegations of desertion alone not sufficient to bar entitlement [Paras 4, 7].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Scope – Court reiterated that in exercise of revisional powers, it cannot reappreciate factual findings unless there is patent illegality or material irregularity – No such error found in the trial court’s maintenance order – Revision dismissed [Paras 7–8].

Family Law – Maintenance Claim – Alleged unwillingness to reconcile or prior settlement proceedings cannot negate statutory entitlement to maintenance – Trial court’s findings based on admitted income and legal entitlement upheld [Paras 3, 5, 6].

Civil Law – Suit For Recovery - Limitation – Acknowledgment of Debt – Barred Suit – Plaintiff relied on alleged last payment of ₹4,080 on 18.07.1992 as acknowledgment of debt under Section 18 of the Limitation Act – Trial Court held the document (Ex-A10) untrustworthy due to surrounding circumstances and timing amid criminal litigation between parties – Held: Plaintiff failed to prove valid acknowledgment – Suit filed on 17.07.1995 is barred by limitation [Paras 14, 21–25].

Negotiable Instruments – Inchoate Instrument – Section 20 NI Act – One promissory note (Ex-A5) left blank in the promisee column though duly stamped and signed – Plaintiff failed to fill in promisee’s name before filing suit – Held: Document incomplete and unenforceable – Section 20 does not rescue claim absent completed instrument at time of suit – No decree can be granted on incomplete negotiable instrument [Paras 18–19].

Evidence Act – Presumption under Section 118 NI Act – Defendants admitted borrowal of ₹2,04,000 in reply notice (Ex-A9) but claimed it was paid via Ashok Sharma and related to another entity – Held: Presumption under Section 118 applies to Ex-A2 to A4, which were in plaintiff’s name and not rebutted by acceptable evidence – However, relief denied due to bar of limitation and defects in Ex-A5 [Paras 15–17].

Civil Procedure – Verification of Pleadings – Inconsistency in description of plaintiff's status—Suit filed as "Proprietor" but verified as "Partner/Manager"—Held: Unexplained ambiguity in business structure and verification creates procedural defect—Plaintiff failed to clarify firm status even after remand—Trial Court rightly found plaint defective [Para 26].

Civil Procedure – Appeal Against Dismissal – Concurrent Findings – Trial Court dismissed suit after remand for failure to prove limitation and validity of documents – High Court found no perversity in Trial Court’s appreciation of evidence – Held: No reason to interfere with findings—Appeal dismissed [Paras 26–27].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment and Decree of Trial Court dated 04/09/2013 in O.S. No. 5989 of 1997 upheld – Suit barred by limitation and based on incomplete documents – Defendants entitled to recover deposit amount with accrued interest, if not already withdrawn – No order as to costs.

Service Law – Age of Superannuation – NTC Employee – Validity of Reduction in Retirement Age – Petitioner, a mill-grade employee of Model Mills (taken over by NTC), challenged superannuation at age 58, claiming his retirement age was 60 – Labour Court and Industrial Court rejected complaint holding employer had legal authority to reduce retirement age to 58 – Writ Court upheld concurrent findings, relying on NTC Rules, 1985 and Section 14 of the Nationalisation Act, 1974 – Held: NTC validly altered conditions of service, including retirement age – No unfair labour practice established [Paras 2.3, 3, 6–8, 10].

Labour Law – MRTU & PULP Act – Complaint Under Item 1 of Schedule IV – Illegal Termination – Not Made Out – Superannuation notice challenged as illegal termination – Labour Court held notice was legal as per service rules – Revision by employee dismissed by Industrial Court – Writ Court concurred with lower courts and held action of employer did not amount to unfair labour practice [Paras 3, 4, 10].

Interpretation of Service Rules – Applicability of NTC Rules, 1985 – Whether Agreement with Union Overrides Rules – Petitioner relied on past agreement between Model Mills and Union to claim retirement age of 60 – Court held such an agreement was not an industry-wise agreement under Rule 2.3 of NTC Rules – Held: Agreement confined to one establishment cannot override NTC Rules applicable post-nationalisation [Paras 7–8].

Binding Precedent – Reliance on Division Bench Decision in Vasant Sheshrao Kale (2010 (3) Mh.L.J. 610) – Issue squarely covered by binding precedent holding that NTC validly altered age of superannuation through statutory rules – Petition devoid of merit in light of precedent and concurrent findings of fact [Paras 6–8, 10].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – No error found in concurrent findings of Labour Court and Industrial Court – No unfair labour practice or illegal termination established – Rule discharged, no costs awarded [Para 10, Order].

SARFAESI Act – Delay in Filing Securitisation Applications – Limitation Act Applicability – Section 17 Proceedings Are Original in Nature – DRT Has Jurisdiction to Condon Delay – Borrowers filed writ petitions challenging DRT orders rejecting their SAs for delay beyond 45 days – Petitioners argued that the DRT erred in holding that it lacked power to condone delay – Held: There is no express exclusion of Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act in SARFAESI – Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act applies – Provisions of the Limitation Act including Section 5 apply to applications under Section 17 – DRT is a judicial forum and proceedings under Section 17 are original in nature – Borrowers cannot be non-suited merely on technical delay [Paras A-24, A-28, C-1, C-2]

SARFAESI and RDB Acts – Harmonious Construction – DRT Jurisdiction – Both Acts Complementary – Borrowers’ Right to Fair Adjudication Requires Delay Condonation Where Justified – Courts emphasized that the SARFAESI and RDB Acts operate in the same field and DRT has overlapping jurisdiction – When banks/financial institutions can seek benefit of Limitation Act under RDB Act, same cannot be denied to borrowers under SARFAESI – Tribunal cannot mechanically reject SAs without examining grounds for delay [Paras A-17 to A-21, A-30]

Interpretation of Special Laws – Section 29(2) of Limitation Act – No Express Exclusion in SARFAESI – Hence, Sections 4 to 24 Apply – Court held that in absence of express exclusion, general limitation provisions remain applicable – Provisions of Limitation Act to be read as supplementing SARFAESI – DRT can condone delay based on judicial discretion [Paras A-23, A-24, A-45]

COVID-19 Pandemic and Practical Difficulties – Consideration of Bonafide Delay Grounds – Technical View Not Justified – Court observed that borrowers often explore loan settlement or OTS schemes, during which time limitation may expire – Physical absence of DRT at local seats and pandemic-related disruptions further justified delay – Such factors must be considered while applying limitation principles [Paras A-31, P-7 to P-9]

Precedents Followed – Apex Court Rulings in Transcore, Mardia Chemicals, Consolidated Engineering, Baleshwar Dayal Jaiswal, M.P. Steel Corporation – High Court in Fair Style Embroidery Works – All Support Applicability of Limitation Act to SARFAESI Proceedings – Ratio of Supreme Court judgments confirms that Limitation Act applies to original proceedings before Tribunals unless expressly excluded – Section 5 applicable for condonation of delay, and Section 14 for exclusion of time due to bona fide proceedings [Paras A-32 to A-36, A-41, A-42]

Decision: Miscellaneous Petition No. 6432 of 2023 and Miscellaneous Petition No. 4104 of 2023 allowed – Impugned DRT orders set aside – Matters remanded to DRT for deciding Section 5 Limitation Act applications afresh – Review Petition No. 453 of 2024 dismissed [Para C-3]

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Cheque Issued as Security – Accused issued cheque for ₹10 lakhs, allegedly in discharge of loan liability – Defence claimed cheque was given as security for registration charges in real estate transaction – Trial Court held real estate transaction and RTGS payment occurred on same date, lending credence to defence – Held: Cheque not proved to have been issued in discharge of legally enforceable debt – Acquittal upheld [Paras 5, 10, 11].

Criminal Law – Appeal Against Acquittal – Principles – High Court reiterated that unless trial court’s view is perverse or impossible, appellate court will not interfere – Omission in statutory notice and doubtful version of complainant regarding earlier cheques considered relevant – Held: Trial Court’s view plausible and not liable to be disturbed in appeal [Paras 6, 12].

Presumption under NI Act – Rebuttal – Accused denied liability and explained cheque was given as security – Complainant failed to prove that cheque was issued in discharge of existing debt – Held: Presumption rebutted – Burden not discharged by complainant – DW-1’s testimony partially favourable but insufficient to prove complainant’s case beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 7, 8, 10].

Pleadings – Omission in Statutory Notice – Complainant admitted two earlier cheques were issued and replaced by impugned cheque – Omission to mention earlier cheques in statutory notice undermined credibility – Held: Such omissions can raise doubt about genuineness of transaction when key part of liability is left out [Paras 5, 11].

Decision: Criminal appeal dismissed – Judgment of acquittal by Trial Court upheld – No perversity or illegality found in the reasoning – Complainant failed to prove case beyond reasonable doubt – Presumption under Section 139 of NI Act successfully rebutted.

Criminal Law – Sexual Assault – Acquittal – Respondent No. 2 accused of showing obscene videos and attempting to molest a minor girl – FIR lodged after delay of 4 days – No medical evidence or certified age document produced to prove minority of victim – Photocopy of birth certificate not verified per statutory requirement – Held: Prosecution failed to establish victim’s age under Section 94 of the JJ Act and Rule 12 of JJ Rules – Absence of proof of age fatal to prosecution under POCSO [Paras 10–14, 28]

Criminal Procedure – Appeal Against Acquittal – Interference – Trial Court had acquitted respondent on findings that victim’s testimony was inconsistent and not corroborated – No recovery of mobile phone, video, or other evidence – Witnesses other than victim were hearsay – Delay in lodging FIR not explained – Held: Acquittal based on plausible view supported by record – Appellate court not to interfere unless findings are perverse or unreasonable – No compelling reason found to reverse acquittal [Paras 15–29]

Evidence – Credibility of Witness – Victim’s version introduced for first time during examination-in-chief not supported by earlier Section 161/164 CrPC statements – Contradictions noted in testimony – Recovery not made – Investigating Officer admitted lapses in probe and failure to verify key evidence – Held: Prosecution evidence lacked consistency and credibility – Trial Court justified in treating evidence as insufficient [Paras 18, 28]

Burden of Proof – Failure of Prosecution – Held: Burden to prove guilt always lies on prosecution – Minor inconsistencies could be ignored, but failure to prove key ingredients (age, recovery, corroboration) undermines case – Burden never shifts unless prima facie case made – Trial Court’s reasoning not contrary to settled law [Paras 26–29]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Acquittal of respondent No. 2 upheld – No interference warranted by appellate court – Trial court’s view held to be a possible and reasoned view based on evidence.