Petition for Quashing Complaint and Proceedings – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Petitioners challenging Complaint No.1368 of 2014 and related orders for alleged tax evasion under Sections 276C and 278B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 – Argument of petitioners centered on no evasion of tax, only delayed payment with interest [Paras 1, 10].

Facts of the Case – Assessment Year 2012-13 – Petitioner No.1, a company, filed income tax return with self-assessment of tax pending – Tax paid with interest after the due date – Prosecution initiated for alleged tax evasion [Paras 2-8].

Legal Contentions – Petitioner's Argument: No willful evasion of tax, only delay in payment – Relied on judgments to argue that delay in tax payment does not amount to evasion – Respondent’s Argument: Willful evasion of tax, causing loss to the department [Paras 10-11].

Legal Analysis and Precedents – Examination of Section 276C of the Act – Reference to various High Court judgments emphasizing that delayed tax payment does not constitute tax evasion if the tax is ultimately paid [Paras 13-14].

Decision – Complaint and Proceedings Quashed – Court finds no evasion of tax, only delayed payment with interest – Held that delayed payment does not amount to tax evasion as per settled legal principles – Complaint No.1368 of 2014, order dated 20.08.2018, order dated 06.09.2018, and all consequential proceedings quashed [Para 16].

Criminal Law - SCST Act – Acquittal -  Factual Background and Conviction by Trial Court – Hari Singh was convicted under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act for insulting Dhanna Singh, a person of Scheduled Caste, during a panchayat meeting on 20.07.2000 – Conviction based on statements from PW1, PW2, and PW3, who alleged derogatory caste-related remarks were made by the appellant and others – Trial court sentenced the appellant to six months rigorous imprisonment with a fine. [Para 1, 2, 5, 14]

Appeal Grounds and Contentions – Appellant claimed false implication, delay in complaint filing, lack of independent corroboration, and argued that the witnesses were biased or unreliable – Challenged the credibility of the prosecution’s witnesses and highlighted absence of independent corroboration. [Paras 16, 17]

High Court's Analysis and Decision – Acquittal - High Court observed lack of evidence to prove appellant used caste-related derogatory remarks – Noted inconsistencies and lack of independent corroboration in witness testimonies – Found delay in filing complaint unexplained – Acquitted appellant due to failure of prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. [Paras 20-24]

Matrimonial Law – Divorce - Civil Revision Petition – Challenging order of Senior Civil Judge in mutual consent divorce petition under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 – Petition returned for want of jurisdiction – Petitioner and respondent, belonging to Lambada Scheduled Tribe, contending their marriage was solemnized as per Hindu customs. [Paras 1-4]

Applicability of Hindu Marriage Act to Scheduled Tribes – Examination of Section 2(2) of the Act – Non-applicability to members of any Scheduled Tribe unless directed by Central Government notification – Article 366 of Constitution defining Scheduled Tribes – Consideration of whether Hindu customs followed by Scheduled Tribe members bring them under the Act’s purview. [Paras 11, 12, 20, 23]

Judicial Precedents – Reference to Supreme Court and High Court judgments on applicability of Hindu Marriage Act to Scheduled Tribes following Hindu customs – Emphasis on parties being substantially Hinduised. [Paras 14, 16, 17, 26]

Decision – Civil Revision Petition allowed – Impugned order set aside – Trial Court directed to number the petition and decide in accordance with the law considering the material on record – No general opinion expressed on applicability of Section 2(2) of the Act to Scheduled Tribes; to be decided based on facts and circumstances of each case. [Paras 27-30]

FIR Quashing – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 482 – Petition seeking quashing of FIR No. 171/2023 under IPC Sections 417/419/468/471/120B – Allegations of creating fake email and impersonation for filing false complaints – Petition dismissed, FIR not quashed. [Para 1, 27]

Complaints Against Government Officer – Alleged conspiracy and impersonation to file false complaints against a Special Secretary – Complainant alleges being induced by petitioner under the promise of a job – Petitioner's involvement in creating fake email and documents indicated. [Para 2-5, 22-24]

Investigation – Authenticity of Complaints – Analysis of email IDs, phone records, and CDRs – Petitioner’s alleged involvement in creating false documents and impersonation – Investigation findings supporting complainant’s allegations. [Para 12-14, 16-20]

Legal Precedents – Jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC – Application of principles from various judicial precedents – Court’s inherent powers to be exercised sparingly and only when justified – No case made out for quashing FIR based on current evidence and investigation status. [Para 25, 27]

Evidence – Illegality of Procurement – Court's discretion to admit evidence obtained through illegal means if relevant – Evidence's admissibility based on relevance, not on how it was obtained. [Para 26]

Decision – Petition for quashing FIR under Section 482 CrPC dismissed – FIR to continue with ongoing investigation – Court's observations not a comment on the merits of the case. [Para 27-29]

Bail Application – Grant of Anticipatory Bail – FIR for Offences under IPC Sections 376/506 – Petitioner’s Application for Anticipatory Bail in FIR No.532/2023 [Para 1-2, 7-8]

Prosecution Case – Allegation of Sexual Relationship on Promise of Marriage – Complainant’s Allegations of Physical Relations Under Pretext of Marriage [Para 2]

Petitioner’s Submission – Consensual Physical Relationship, No Custodial Interrogation Required – Reference to Similar Past Allegations Against Petitioner, Citing Various Precedents [Para 3]

Opposition by State and Complainant/Prosecutrix – Misrepresentation of Consent for Physical Relationship Based on Marriage Assurance [Para 4]

Court’s Analysis – Consent Obtained by Misrepresentation, Consideration of Surrounding Facts and Circumstances – Complainant Aware of Potential Marriage Difficulties Due to Religious Differences [Para 5-6]

Decision – Grant of Anticipatory Bail with Conditions – Personal Bond of Rs.50,000 with Surety, Restrictions on Movement and Contact with Witnesses or Complainant [Para 8]

Writ Petition – Jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India – Challenge against TDSAT Order allowing additional documents after conclusion of evidence – Consideration of procedural lapses versus substantive justice in light of principles of natural justice and TRAI Act provisions. [Para 1-5, 11-13]

Interconnection Agreement Dispute – Recovery of dues and return of Set Top Boxes – Admissibility of additional documents by TDSAT after the closure of evidence phase – Tribunal’s decision to allow documents for complete adjudication of the dispute. [Para 2-4, 10]

Procedural Law – Application of Order VII Rule 14 of the CPC in tribunal proceedings – TDSAT’s discretion to allow documents post evidence phase, balancing procedural requirements with substantive justice under the TRAI Act. [Para 9, 12]

High Court’s Powers under Article 227 – Limited scope for interference in tribunal decisions – High Court’s role in ensuring inferior courts and tribunals act within their bounds, avoiding appellate interference unless there is grave injustice or perversity in the tribunal’s decision. [Para 14-15]

Decision – High Court’s refusal to interfere under Article 227 – Dismissal of writ petition challenging TDSAT’s order on grounds of no patent error or perversity in the tribunal’s decision. [Para 17-18]

Civil Procedure – Amendment of Pleadings – Denial of Amendment in Written Statement – Petitioner's application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for amendment of written statement dismissed by Trial Court – Challenged in High Court – Amendments proposed not found necessary for determining the real questions in controversy – Application dismissed due to lack of substantive merit. [Paras 1, 8-9, 24-28]

Commercial Suit – Dispute over Possession and Rent – Background of tenancy agreement and dispute over possession and arrears of rent – Commercial Suit filed by respondent against petitioner for possession and recovery of rent – Dispute centers on property WZ508B/3, Village Basai Darapur, New Delhi. [Paras 3-7]

Legal Principles – Amendment of Written Statement – Court's discretion in allowing amendments – Amendments should be necessary for determining real questions in controversy – Application of principles from B.K.N. Pillai v. P. Pillai and Narayan Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai cases – Petitioner's proposed amendments not satisfying these principles. [Paras 16-18, 27]

Evidence – Electronic Evidence – Petitioner's reliance on audio CD as evidence – CD not accompanied by necessary certification under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act – Impugned order finds non-compliance with procedural requirements for electronic evidence. [Para 24]

Recovery of Payments – Counterclaim or Set-off Not Pleaded – Petitioner's claim for recovery of extra payments or interest – Absence of counterclaim or set-off in written statement – Amendment for such claims found inadmissible. [Para 26]

Decision – Dismissal of Petition for Amendment of Written Statement – High Court upholds Trial Court's decision – Observations made not to affect merits of the case before the Trial Court. [Paras 28-30]

GST Registration Cancellation – Challenge against retrospective cancellation – Petitioner contests order dated 07.10.2022 for cancellation of GST registration from 02.07.2017 and the Show Cause Notice dated 23.09.2022 – Registration cancellation without proper justification or notice for retrospective effect deemed inappropriate. [Para 1, 5-7]

GST Compliance – Petitioner's compliance with GST requirements until 28.01.2019 – Petitioner ceased business on 28.01.2019 and sought registration cancellation on 03.08.2022 – Filing of GST returns until March 2021 and commitment to complete pending compliances. [Para 3, 10-11]

Jurisdiction of GST Officer – Conditions for retrospective cancellation of GST registration – Requirement for objective criteria and consideration of the impact on taxpayers' customers, particularly regarding input tax credit. [Para 8-9]

Decision – Modification of cancellation order to be effective from 28.01.2019, aligning with the last business activity of the petitioner – Respondents permitted to pursue tax, penalty, or interest recovery in accordance with the law. [Para 12-13]

Matrimonial Law - Constitutional Law – Challenge to Section 5(v) of Hindu Marriage Act (HMA), 1955 – Petitioner's marriage declared null and void under Section 5(v) – Allegation of Section 5(v) being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution – Court finds no merit in challenge – Petitioner's inability to prove the existence of custom allowing marriage within sapindas in her community. [Paras 1-2.2, 5, 10, 14-15]

Marriage – Validity of Marriage between Sapindas – Section 5(v) of HMA Act prohibits marriage between sapindas unless permitted by custom – Court upholds the validity of Section 5(v), noting the necessity of regulation to prevent incestuous relationships and societal reform through codification – Petitioner's marriage to distant cousin falls within prohibited category, not saved by custom. [Paras 4, 5, 11, 13-14]

Personal Law – Challenge to Constitutional Validity – Presumption in favor of constitutionality – Burden on petitioner to establish grounds for declaring a statute unconstitutional – Petitioner fails to provide legal grounds for challenging Section 5(v) of HMA. [Paras 6-10, 14-15]

Legal Procedure – Dismissal of Petition and Applications – Petition challenging the constitutionality of Section 5(v) of HMA dismissed – Relief sought against non-parties to petition not granted – Petitioner advised to initiate legal proceedings against Mr. Gagan Grover in appropriate forum. [Paras 16-18]

Judicial Interpretation – Statutory Right to Marriage – Supreme Court's interpretation in relevant judgments – Right to marriage as a statutory right subject to State regulation, including restrictions on partner choice due to prohibited degrees. [Para 12]

Fundamental Rights – Article 14 – Challenge based on violation of equality – Court's rejection of the challenge, finding no violation of Article 14 in Section 5(v) of HMA – Section provides exception for marriages based on custom with force of law, requiring stringent proof. [Paras 2.1, 14-15]

Petition Dismissed – Court finds no merit in the challenge to Section 5(v) of the HMA Act – Petitioner’s other reliefs against specific individuals not maintainable as they are not parties to the petition – Petitioner free to pursue appropriate legal action against specific individuals in relevant forums [Paras 15-18].