Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Economic Offences – FIR lodged against company, unknown directors, unknown bank officials and unknown private persons – Preliminary Enquiry conducted for 18 months – No specific individual identified – No material indicating fraudulent intention at inception – Held: Registration of FIR for roving and fishing inquiry impermissible – Investigation cannot continue in hope of identifying offender at a later stage [Paras 11, 20, 23].

Cheating – Section 420 r/w Section 415 IPC – Essential ingredients – Deception and dishonest intention at inception mandatory – Mere commercial failure or breach of contractual obligations does not constitute cheating – No allegation of false representation or forged documents – Consortium of banks took conscious commercial decisions after forensic audit and deliberations – Ingredients of offence not made out [Paras 21, 22].

Prevention of Corruption Act – Section 17A – Allegation against unknown bank officials – Prior approval mandatory before inquiry/investigation relating to decisions taken in discharge of official duties – No specific public servant identified – No allegation of violation of statutory guidelines with dishonest intention – Protective umbrella under Section 17A attracted – FIR unsustainable [Para 11].

Economic Offences – Commercial Wisdom of Banks – Decisions of consortium and Joint Lender Forum taken after forensic audit and RBI oversight – Account not classified as fraud – Red Flag status removed – Ministry of Finance and RBI informed – Criminal process cannot substitute commercial assessment of financial institutions – Dissent by few banks does not impute criminality [Paras 13, 14, 18, 21].

Preliminary Enquiry – Scope and Effect – CBI collected 52 documents and examined witnesses – Earlier closure communicated by CBI in 2018 – No conclusive material of fraud or diversion in forensic audit – FIR based on selective reading of documents – Continuation of investigation would amount to abuse of process of law [Paras 9, 12, 16, 19].

Inherent and Writ Jurisdiction – Power to Quash – High Court can interfere at preliminary stage where continuation of criminal proceedings would result in miscarriage of justice – Unimpeachable documents can be considered – FIR substantially wiped out by record – Interference warranted [Para 16].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – FIR bearing RC2192023E0003 dated 21/01/2023 registered by CBI quashed – Investigation directed to be closed.

PMLA – Discharge – Predicate offences – Proceeds of crime – Scope of S.3 PMLA – Accused not named in scheduled offence – Maintainability of prosecution – Prima facie case – Revisional interference – Held: Where investigation disclosed subsisting scheduled offences and prima facie generation and layering of proceeds of crime through illegal activities, rejection of discharge application by Special Court justified – Money laundering a continuing offence and persons assisting concealment or use of proceeds of crime liable even if not named in predicate FIR – Revisional court cannot conduct mini trial or re-appreciate evidence – Criminal Revision dismissed [Paras 41-49, 71-78, 95-106, 112-121].

Prevention of Money Laundering Act – Discharge Application – Rejection by Special Court – Petitioners challenged rejection contending absence of subsisting predicate offences – Allegations that FIRs forming basis of ECIR had been quashed, closed or ended in acquittal – Held: Record reveals existence of four active predicate FIRs relating to land fraud, illegal sand mining and liquor smuggling – Pending protest petitions and remand proceedings indicate scheduled offences are still legally subsisting – Hence PMLA prosecution cannot be said to be without foundation – Discharge rightly rejected [Paras 100-106, 112].

Money Laundering – Meaning of “Proceeds of Crime” – Section 2(1)(u) PMLA – Includes property derived directly or indirectly from criminal activity relating to scheduled offence – Explanation inserted by 2019 amendment expands scope to property derived from criminal activity relatable to scheduled offence – Investigation disclosed proceeds of crime of Rs.13,29,92,620 generated through land grabbing, illegal sand mining and liquor trade – Funds allegedly layered through several entities controlled by main accused – Prima facie ingredients of offence under Section 3 PMLA disclosed [Paras 41-49, 88-92].

PMLA – Predicate Offence – Whether accused must be named in scheduled offence – Held: Liability under Section 3 PMLA not confined to persons named in predicate FIR – Even persons who knowingly assist concealment, possession or use of proceeds of crime may be prosecuted – Offence of money laundering is independent and continuing so long as proceeds of crime are possessed, used or projected as untainted property [Paras 95-98].

Criminal Procedure – Scope of Discharge – Court to determine existence of prima facie case and not conduct mini trial – Materials produced by prosecution to be presumed true at this stage – Strong suspicion based on record sufficient to frame charge – Defence of accused or evaluation of evidentiary value cannot be undertaken at stage of discharge [Paras 71-78].

Economic Offences – Money Laundering – Courts should be slow in interfering at threshold stage – Serious financial crimes involving complex financial transactions require full trial to ascertain culpability – Premature discharge would defeat legislative object of PMLA aimed at combating laundering of proceeds of crime [Paras 113-114].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Interference with order rejecting discharge – Revisional Court cannot undertake detailed appreciation of evidence or act as appellate court – Interference permissible only where there is patent illegality or absence of prima facie case – Where Special Court passed reasoned order based on material on record, High Court should not interdict trial [Paras 116-121].

Decision: All Criminal Revision Petitions dismissed – Order dated 21.08.2025 passed by Special Judge (PMLA), Ranchi rejecting discharge applications upheld – Trial directed to proceed in accordance with law [Paras 123-124].

Civil Law – Execution – Section 47 CPC – Cryptic Ex Parte Decree – Inexecutability – Suit filed in 1986 for declaration and recovery of possession – Ex parte decree passed on 12.09.2002 – Decree consisted of two lines without any discussion of plaint, written statement, documents produced or issues framed – Held: A cryptic judgment not satisfying the requirements of Order 20 Rules 4, 5 and 6 CPC cannot be considered a judgment in the eye of law – Decree set aside [Paras 19–20, 25–26].

Ex Parte Judgment – Requirements – Order 20 Rules 4, 5 and 6 CPC – An ex parte judgment must contain a concise statement of the case, points for determination, decision thereon and reasons for such decision – Court must discuss the plaint, written statement, documents produced and issues for determination – A judgment that fails to satisfy these requirements is a cryptic judgment contrary to law and is inexecutable [Para 20].

Decree – Executability Against Legal Heirs – Prayer Not Amended – Relief in original suit sought only against second defendant for recovery of possession – Second defendant died during pendency of suit and legal heirs were impleaded – Plaintiffs did not amend the prayer to seek relief against legal heirs – Application to amend decree filed in I.A. No. 462 of 2016 and application to amend execution petition schedule in E.A. No. 3 of 2024 both withdrawn by plaintiffs – Held: Prayer cannot be enlarged against other defendants; decree is inexecutable as against legal heirs [Paras 6–8, 24].

Section 47 CPC – Scope – Section 47 CPC contemplates adjudication of limited issues relating to execution, discharge or satisfaction of a decree – Executing Court cannot go beyond the decree – However, where the decree is void ab initio, a nullity or inexecutable in law, objections under Section 47 can be entertained – Misuse of execution proceedings to obstruct justice deprecated [Paras 20–21].

Article 227 – Supervisory Jurisdiction – High Court empowered to set aside a decree contrary to law even in collateral proceedings where the decree is found to be ex facie illegal – Powers under Article 227 are in addition to and wider than powers under Section 115 CPC [Para 11, referred cases].

Decision: Civil Revision Petitions allowed – Order dated 06.10.2025 of Principal District Munsif, Sankarankovil set aside – Ex parte judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 470 of 1986 dated 12.09.2002 set aside – No costs – Connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

Cinema – Freedom of Expression – Interim Injunction Against Release – Film titled “The Kerala Story 2 Goes Beyond” certified by CBFC – Learned Single Judge stayed release for 15 days on ground that teaser indicated potential communal disharmony and lack of application of mind by CBFC – Held: Once CBFC grants certification after viewing film in entirety, presumption arises that statutory guidelines under Section 5B of the Cinematograph Act have been duly considered – Stay of release based merely on teaser clips without viewing full film unsustainable – Interim order interdicted and stayed [Paras 4–6].

Cinematograph Act, 1952 – Section 5B – Presumption of Due Application of Mind – Appellant had carried out insertions/excisions/modifications as directed by CBFC – Reinforces due application of mind by expert statutory body – Court cannot lightly assume non-application of mind solely on basis of selective clippings [Paras 5–6].

Article 19(1)(a) – Creative Content as Protected Expression – Creative content of cinema inseparable from freedom of speech and expression – Though subject to regulatory measures, once statutory Board certifies film, non-exhibition would infringe fundamental rights unless exceptional grounds exist – Reliance placed on Viacom 18 Media Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, (2018) 1 SCC 761 and Atul Mishra v. Union of India (W.P.(C) No.181 of 2026, SC) [Para 5].

Law and Order – Duty of State – Possibility of public disorder not ground to restrain exhibition of certified film – It is duty of State to maintain law and order – Courts should not prevent exhibition merely on apprehension of disturbance [Paras 5–6].

Judicial Review – Scope at Interim Stage – Writ petitioners had not viewed film in full and relied only on teaser – In absence of full consideration of film, conclusion that CBFC ignored statutory guidelines cannot be countenanced – Interim restraint on release not justified [Paras 5–6].

Decision: Interim order dated 26.02.2026 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) Nos. 6574 & 6854 of 2026 staying release of film set aside/stayed – Release of the movie permitted pending disposal of writ petitions – Writ Appeals admitted.

Criminal Law – Dowry Death – Section 304B IPC – Conviction based solely on dying declaration – Deceased sustained 85–90% burn injuries – Doctor admitted no written certificate issued regarding fitness of deceased to give statement – Evidence discloses administration of painkillers, sedatives, analgesics and IV fluids – Hospital case sheet and treatment records not produced – Material witnesses including parents and relatives turned hostile – Held: Prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that deceased was in a fit state of mind and that cruelty in connection with dowry demand was inflicted soon before death – Conviction unsustainable [Paras 17, 23, 24].

Evidence – Dying Declaration – Section 32(1) Evidence Act – Though medical certification is rule of prudence and not mandatory, Court must be satisfied about voluntariness and mental fitness – Absence of written certification coupled with 90% burn injuries and administration of sedatives creates serious doubt – MLC (Ex.P37) mentions history as “suicidal attempt” and does not name accused – Failure to produce best evidence vitiates reliance solely on dying declaration [Paras 17–22].

Dowry Death – Essential Ingredients – Requirement of proof of cruelty or harassment in connection with dowry demand soon before death – No independent corroboration – Majority of prosecution witnesses turned hostile – Inconsistencies regarding time of admission and recording of dying declaration – Prosecution failed to collect call details of alleged phone call made by deceased – Ingredients of Section 304B IPC not established [Paras 19–22].

Criminal Jurisprudence – Best Evidence Rule – Accused presumed innocent until guilt proved beyond reasonable doubt – Prosecution bound to adduce best available evidence – Withholding hospital records and material inconsistencies create reasonable doubt – Benefit of doubt to accused [Paras 22–23].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17/18.08.2012 in SC No.27/2011 set aside – Appellant acquitted of offence under Section 304B IPC – District Legal Services Authority directed to award compensation to minor sons of deceased within three months.

Motor Accident – Contributory Negligence – Burden of Proof – Insurance Company – The deceased motorcyclist was involved in a fatal collision with a truck – The Tribunal attributed 20% contributory negligence to the deceased solely on the basis of the Panchnama – Held: The burden to prove contributory negligence lies on the Insurance Company – Driver of the truck was never examined – Panchnama did not indicate which lane the accident occurred in, making it impossible to determine negligence – Finding of 20% contributory negligence set aside [Paras 11-12].

Negligence – Damage to Vehicle – Speed – Size of Vehicle – Unscientific Inference – Contention of Insurance Company that higher damage to the motorcycle indicated higher speed of motorcyclist rejected as scientifically unsustainable – Damage to a vehicle depends upon the nature of material and combined velocity of both vehicles at the time of collision, not on speed of any one vehicle alone – Similarly, apportionment of negligence on the basis of vehicular size alone is not a valid test, as negligence is a factual determination [Para 12].

Compensation – Motor Accident – Consortium – Funeral Expenses – Loss of Estate – Pranay Sethi – Tribunal's award under heads of Funeral Expenses (Rs. 25,000/-), Loss of Consortium (Rs. 1,00,000/-) and Loss of Care and Guidance (Rs. 50,000/-) interfered with – As per National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi, both Funeral Expenses and Loss of Estate are to be compensated at Rs. 18,150/- each – Consortium of Rs. 48,400/- awarded to each of the six dependents (widow, 3 minor daughters and both parents), aggregating Rs. 2,90,400/- – Total enhanced compensation determined at Rs. 11,52,900/- [Para 13].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Finding of 20% contributory negligence set aside – Compensation enhanced from Rs. 8,00,960/- to Rs. 11,52,900/- – Additional amount of Rs. 3,51,940/- awarded with simple interest at 9% per annum – Insurance Company directed to deposit enhanced amount within 8 weeks – Tribunal directed to disburse forthwith without creating FDRs.

Civil Law – Supervisory Jurisdiction under Article 227 – Interim Order without Disposal of Injunction Applications – Trial Court directed defendants not to alienate suit property without adjudicating I.A. Nos.1/2023 and 2/2023 filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC – Petitioners contended that written statement and objections were already filed and applications were pending consideration – Held: Since injunction applications were not disposed of on merits, Trial Court directed to consider and pass appropriate orders after hearing both sides without being influenced by impugned order – Petition disposed of with directions – All rival contentions kept open [Paras 3-4].

Temporary Injunction – Duty of Court to Decide Pending Applications – Applications for temporary injunction cannot remain pending while interim directions affecting rights of parties continue – Proper course is to adjudicate applications on merits after hearing parties – High Court refrained from expressing opinion on merits and fixed time frame of one month for disposal from next date of hearing – Notice to respondents dispensed with in view of limited directions issued [Paras 2-4].

Decision: Petition disposed of – Trial Court directed to consider and decide I.A. Nos.1/2023 and 2/2023 on merits within one month from next date of hearing – Impugned order not to influence decision – All contentions kept open.

Domestic Violence Act – Amendment of Complaint – Scope and Permissibility – Wife sought amendment under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to incorporate details of shared household and consequential prayer under Section 19 DV Act – Trial Court allowed amendment to enable leading of evidence pursuant to earlier order granting liberty – Appellate Court set aside amendment holding dispute to be property dispute requiring civil adjudication – Held: Amendment was consequential and necessary for effective adjudication of residence claim – Does not change nature of complaint – Order of Appellate Court erroneous and liable to be quashed [Paras 20-24, 26].

Section 29 DV Act – Appeal – Maintainability – Appeal against purely procedural order such as allowing amendment of pleadings not maintainable – Reliance placed on Abhijit Bhikaseth Auti – Appellate Court lacked jurisdiction to interfere with procedural order – Impugned appellate orders set aside [Paras 25-26].

Shared Household – Residence Rights – Section 19 DV Act – Wife permitted to lead evidence regarding residence order – Amendment to specify property details essential before adducing evidence – Pleadings must precede proof – Denial of amendment would defeat substantive right under benevolent legislation [Paras 19-21, 24].

Addition of Transferee Relative as Respondent – Section 2(q) DV Act – Property transferred by husband to nephew during pendency of proceedings after liberty granted to lead evidence – Addition of nephew as respondent held consequential – Whether domestic relationship exists is matter of evidence – Amendment necessary to effectively adjudicate residence rights – Appellate Court erred in treating matter as complex property dispute [Paras 22-24].

Parallel Civil Proceedings – Effect – Section 26 DV Act permits seeking relief under Sections 18 to 22 in other legal proceedings – Availability of civil remedy does not bar proceedings under DV Act – Reliance placed on Satish Chandra Ahuja – Concurrent remedies permissible [Paras 23-24].

Power to Amend in DV Proceedings – If not read into Act, object of legislation would be defeated – Reliance placed on Kunapareddy – Amendment permissible so long as it does not alter basic nature of complaint [Para 24].

Decision: Writ Petitions allowed – Orders dated 03.12.2025 passed by Ad-hoc DJ-1 & ASJ, Jalgaon in Criminal Appeal Nos.53/2025 and 54/2025 quashed and set aside – Orders dated 12.06.2025 passed by JMFC, Pachora allowing amendment (Exh.28A) and addition of respondent (Exh.30A) restored – Trial Court directed to proceed expeditiously.

Bail – POCSO Offences – Right of Victim to be Heard – Bail granted to accused in case involving penetrative sexual assault on minor without issuing notice to victim – Section 40 POCSO Act read with Rule 4(13) to (15) of POCSO Rules, 2020 and Section 483(2) BNSS mandate intimation and participatory rights of victim – Held: Victim is entitled to notice and opportunity of hearing at the stage of bail – Bail order set aside for non-compliance – Accused directed to surrender – Sessions Court to reconsider bail after hearing victim [Paras 6-14].

Victimology – Participatory Rights – Scope and Evolution – Supreme Court in Jagjeet Singh v Ashish Mishra recognised substantive and enforceable right of victim to be heard at every crucial stage including bail – Presence of State does not substitute hearing of victim – Denial of opportunity amounts to violation of statutory and human rights of victim – Courts obligated to ensure effective participation of victim in heinous offences [Paras 11-12].

POCSO Act – Statutory Scheme – Duty to Inform and Facilitate Representation – Section 40 confers right on child’s family/guardian to engage counsel of choice – Rule 4 imposes obligation on SJPU/local police to keep victim informed of arrest, applications and bail status – Bombay High Court in Arjun Kishanrao Maige held that notice to victim in bail proceedings under POCSO is mandatory – Non-compliance vitiates bail proceedings [Paras 9-10, 13].

Cancellation of Bail – Grounds – Bail can be cancelled where granted without affording hearing to victim and in disregard of statutory mandate – Court need not examine merits of bail when order suffers from procedural illegality affecting victim’s rights – Fresh consideration directed [Paras 13-14].

Decision: Criminal Miscellaneous Case allowed – Bail order passed by Sessions Judge set aside – Bail bonds cancelled – Accused directed to surrender within seven days – Sessions Court directed to reconsider bail application afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to victim within one month.