Criminal Revision – Allegation of Forgery and Misrepresentation – Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. – Seeking Registration of FIR – Revision Dismissed – The revisionist filed a criminal revision against the Magistrate’s order rejecting his application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., seeking registration of FIR against respondent no. 2 (Deputy Chief Minister of U.P.) for allegedly furnishing forged educational certificates and misrepresenting facts in election affidavits and to Indian Oil Corporation – Held: No cognizable offence disclosed – Certificates not proved to be forged – Delay, lack of personal locus, and absence of complainant injury noted – Criminal revision dismissed [Paras 1, 18–19, 38–40].

Forgery Allegations – Prathma, Madhyama, and Uttama Certificates from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan – Not Recognized, But Not Forged – The Court held that unrecognized educational certificates are not per se forged – There was no proof that certificates were fabricated or not issued by the concerned authority – Absence of complaint from affected parties like Election Commission or Indian Oil Corporation held critical – Held: Use of unrecognized certificates may be improper but not criminally punishable without mens rea or false fabrication [Paras 18.4, 20, 26].

Locus Standi – Social Worker or RTI Activist Without Personal Harm – Application Not Maintainable – The revisionist, claiming to be a social worker and RTI activist, was found to have no personal stake or injury – No prior complaints to competent authorities – Court held that a person not deceived or aggrieved cannot invoke criminal law merely based on personal hurt – Held: Revisionist lacked standing under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. [Paras 18.1–18.3, 34].

Delay and Limitation – Section 125A of RPA – Barred by Section 468 Cr.P.C. – The alleged offences under Section 125A of the Representation of the People Act were in relation to affidavits filed in 2007, 2012, and 2014 – Court held the application made in 2021 was clearly barred by limitation as per Section 468(2)(b) Cr.P.C. – Held: Criminal law cannot be revived after expiry of limitation period without just cause [Paras 20, 21, 24–25].

Prospective Accused – Right of Hearing in Revision – Section 401(2) Cr.P.C. – Upheld – The Court held that the proposed accused had the right to be heard in the criminal revision challenging rejection of Section 156(3) application – Reliance placed on Manharbhai Muljibhai Kapadia and Santhakumari decisions of the Supreme Court – Held: Right of hearing of prospective accused is mandatory where an adverse order may result [Paras 14.1, 31].

Misuse of Judicial Process – Malicious Prosecution – Harassment Prevented – The Court observed that the revisionist failed to produce supporting records, filed vague affidavits, and appeared to be acting with personal and political motives – Held: Criminal law cannot be allowed to be misused for vendetta or publicity – Petition dismissed with strong observations against abuse of process [Paras 18.6, 33, 36–37].

Final Decision – No Prima Facie Cognizable Offence – Revision Dismissed – The High Court found the impugned order dated 04.09.2021 to be reasoned, legally sound, and not warranting interference – Held: No case made out for directing FIR – Criminal revision rejected [Paras 38–40].

Civil Law - Title and Possession Dispute – Declaration and Injunction – Sections 34 and 38 of the Specific Relief Act – Plaintiffs’ Title Upheld – The appellant/1st defendant challenged the decree declaring plaintiffs’ title and injunction against defendants from creating encumbrance – Plaintiffs produced prior title deeds tracing ownership from 1950 onwards and proved possession through tax receipts and mutation entries – The 1st defendant relied on a gift deed executed by his father, but the court found the predecessor had already alienated the entire property before the gift, leaving nothing to be gifted – Held: Plaintiffs successfully proved title and possession; gift deed executed in favour of appellant invalid and unenforceable [Paras 13-19].

Burden of Proof – Shifting Onus in Title Suit – High Degree of Probability Principle – Supreme Court Precedent Applied – Though plaintiffs initially lacked full title narration in pleadings, court accepted evidence of title through prior deeds, tax payments, and possession – Held: Once high probability of plaintiffs’ ownership was established, burden shifted to defendants to prove their claim, which they failed to discharge [Paras 12-14].

Tenant-Owner Conflict – Denial of Tenancy by Defendant – Adverse Inference Drawn – Defendant initially admitted tenancy in earlier rent control proceedings but later claimed ownership through gift deed – Court held admissions made in judicial proceedings are best evidence; held defendant continues as tenant, and ownership claim fabricated post-facto – Held: Denial of tenancy found dishonest and rejected [Paras 23-27].

Survey Commission Report – Limited Evidentiary Value – Inconsistent with Title Documents – Defendant relied on Commissioner’s report demarcating property, but court held report could not override title deeds and possession documents which favoured plaintiffs – Held: Commissioner report cannot validate baseless ownership claims when contradicted by documentary title [Paras 10, 32].

Decision – Dismissal of Appeal – The appellate court upheld the trial court’s judgment confirming plaintiffs’ title and possession over suit property – Gift deed in favour of appellant declared non-binding and injunction against defendants sustained – Appeal dismissed with costs [Final Para].

Criminal Law - Corruption Case – Demand and Acceptance – Section 7 and Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act – Conviction set aside – Acquittal - Accused challenged the conviction for demanding and accepting a bribe of ₹3,000 in relation to granting a temporary electricity connection – The Court noted serious discrepancies including the complainant’s partial hostility, contradictions in the evidence, procedural violations, and questionable credibility of the trap proceedings – The Court held that the benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused, setting aside the conviction and sentence [Paras 22-33].

Demand Not Proved – Inconsistent Witness Evidence – Reversal of Conviction – The complainant (P.W.2) turned hostile regarding the acceptance of the bribe and the official witness (P.W.5), being of inferior cadre, contradicted key events – The prosecution failed to establish a clean chain of events supporting demand and acceptance beyond reasonable doubt, rendering conviction unsustainable [Paras 26-31].

Violation of Vigilance Manual – Trap Procedure Flawed – Conviction Reversed – The Court found multiple violations of mandatory safeguards under the Vigilance Manual, such as improper selection of trap witnesses, lack of crucial documents like arrest memos, and procedural irregularities – The Court observed the probability of motivated entrapment, leading to the acquittal of the accused [Paras 30-32].

Circumstantial Doubt – Inference of Malice – Acquittal Warranted – Given the previous disputes involving the local Counsellor and the inconsistencies surrounding the construction project, the Court inferred malice and manipulation of the complaint to falsely implicate the accused – Held: Accused entitled to benefit of doubt, conviction set aside, fine refunded [Paras 29-33].

Decision of the Judgment – Appeals allowed, conviction and sentence set aside, appellants acquitted, and fine ordered to be refunded [Para 33].

Criminal Law - Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Matrimonial Dispute – Settlement Recognized – FIR Quashed - Petition filed for quashing of FIR No. 323/2022 under Sections 323/354/34 IPC on the basis of amicable settlement between husband and wife – Allegations included physical assault, molestation, and threats – The parties executed a settlement deed dated 24.04.2025 wherein they agreed to dissolve their marriage and settle all claims including alimony and istridhan – Respondent no. 2 confirmed the settlement in court and raised no objection to quashing – Held: Continuation of proceedings would be futile and an abuse of process of law – FIR and consequential proceedings quashed in the interest of justice [Paras 1-3, 5, 8-9].

Criminal Law – Revision Against Charge - Criminal Conspiracy and Corruption in Educational Appointments – Sections 7, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) P.C. Act, and Sections 120B, 477A, 471, 417, 420, 201 IPC – Charges Upheld – The petitioner, President of Dakshin Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha, challenged the trial court’s order rejecting discharge and framing charges under P.C. Act and IPC – Allegations involved conspiracy with other accused in accepting bribes for appointing two individuals as teachers by falsifying score sheets, with resultant exclusion of meritorious candidates – Held: Prima facie evidence showed petitioner was involved in the alleged conspiracy, participated in falsifying records and appointments; sufficient material existed to proceed to trial [Paras 1-16].

Public Servant Status – Section 2(c)(xii) P.C. Act – Office Bearers Receiving Government Grants Held Public Servants – The petitioner argued he was not a public servant as President of an autonomous educational body – Held: Since Dakshin Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha received substantial central government grants, office bearers are deemed public servants under Section 2(c)(xii), P.C. Act, making prosecution under the P.C. Act valid [Paras 6-12].

Sanction for Prosecution – Requirement of Sanction Considered – Petitioner contended absence of sanction under Section 19 of the P.C. Act for him invalidated proceedings – Held: Where accused falls within the public servant definition by virtue of receipt of government funds, prosecution is sustainable without separate sanction if other procedural requirements are satisfied; no merit in contention [Paras 4-5, 12].

Charge Framing – Sufficiency of Prima Facie Evidence – Sections 7, 13(2), 13(1)(d), IPC Provisions – Trial Court’s Decision Affirmed – The trial court correctly appreciated materials indicating manipulation of selection processes for pecuniary gain and dismissed discharge plea; findings that grounds exist for presuming guilt upheld by High Court – Revision Petition Dismissed [Paras 14-16].

Decision:  High Court dismissed the revision petition, affirming the trial court’s order of framing charges, concluding that prima facie material exists for proceeding to trial against the petitioner under the P.C. Act and IPC offences related to conspiracy and corruption [Para 16].

Quashing of Charges – Discharge of Private Vendor – Sections 120-B, 420, 471 IPC and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act – Discharge Allowed – Applicants sought quashing of orders rejecting discharge and framing charges alleging criminal conspiracy and wrongful gain in award of HMIS project under NRHM – Court held that applicants, being private vendors, completed the project within budget and were duly empanelled – No material indicating conspiracy, forgery or dishonest intention – Basic ingredients of alleged offences not made out – Criminal prosecution held to be abuse of process – Impugned orders quashed and applicants discharged [Paras 17.1-17.27, 18-21].

Criminal Conspiracy – Section 120-B IPC – No Evidence of Meeting of Minds – Allegations of favouritism in selection process not supported by material to show agreement or joint intention between applicants and public officials – Mere participation or efforts to secure work order insufficient to constitute conspiracy – Charge under Section 120-B quashed [Paras 17.24-17.25].

Cheating – Section 420 IPC – Lack of Dishonest Inducement – Court found no evidence that applicants misrepresented facts or dishonestly induced government to part with money – Applicants supplied hardware/software as per work order and received partial payment – No prima facie case under Section 420 IPC – Charges not sustainable [Para 17.26].

Forgery and Use of False Document – Section 471 IPC – No False Document Proven – Charge under Section 471 IPC based on use of so-called fake tender documents – Court held that no document created falsely or used dishonestly as genuine was shown – Absent any ‘false document’, offence under Section 471 not made out [Para 17.27].

Prevention of Corruption Act – Section 13(1)(d) – Inapplicable to Private Vendor – Applicants were not public servants and there was no evidence of giving or receiving illegal gratification – Court held that amended Section 13(1)(d) requires clear proof of illicit enrichment or dishonest misappropriation by public servant – No such element made out against applicants – Charge unsustainable [Paras 17.17-17.22].

Retrospective Benefit of Amendment – Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 – Retrospective Application Deferred – Court acknowledged legal submissions about the omission of Section 13(1)(d) and lack of saving clause – Referred to conflicting views in judicial forums – Held: No decision required on retrospective applicability in view of failure to make out ingredients of offence under unamended provision itself [Para 17.21].

Abuse of Process – Discharge Warranted – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Court held that the prosecution lacked foundational material to proceed against the applicants – Held: Continued trial would amount to harassment and misuse of judicial process – Orders dated 02.03.2024 and 29.04.2024 set aside – Applicants discharged from all charges [Paras 19-21].

Taxation Law - CGST – Detention & Penalty under Section 129(3) – Rule 138 Violation via Loading-Point Mismatch – Petition Dismissed – Goods in transit intercepted on 09.03.2025; E-Invoice and E-Way Bill were generated but actual loading point (Rupnarayanpur, West Medinipur, West Bengal) differed from the declared dispatch point (Village-Sakui, Kharagpur) – GPS logs (six-hour halt on 08.03.2025) and driver’s statement corroborated mismatch – Held: Violation of Rule 138 established; adjudicating authority had adequate adverse material; writ held to be an afterthought and devoid of merit – Petition dismissed in limine [Paras 2, 5, 8, 10].

E-Way Bill Compliance – Sufficiency of GPS/Driver Evidence – Discrepancy in Place of Dispatch – Outcome: Violation Upheld – The Court accepted GPS location data and driver’s statement as confirming the true loading point, justifying detention and penalty proceedings under Section 129 read with Rule 138 – Mere possession of e-way bill/e-invoice is insufficient when core particulars (place of dispatch) are incorrect [Paras 2, 6, 8].

Input Tax Credit (Section 16) – Suspicious/Cancelled Suppliers – Relevance at Detention Stage – Investigation Warranted – Records indicated heavy ITC availed (about ₹1.01 Cr in FY 2023-24 and ₹1.03 Cr in FY 2024-25) from suppliers largely suspended/cancelled or unrelated to the stated line of business – Though not finally adjudicated, such material supported detention and the authority’s adverse view at the roadside proceedings [Paras 3–5].

Release on Payment – No Absolute Waiver – Still, Writ Found Meritless – Payment of penalty to secure release, even without protest, does not per se waive the right to challenge – Nevertheless, given the cogent adverse material (GPS/driver corroboration and compliance breach), the challenge was deemed an afterthought and lacking in merit [Paras 8–9].

Final Order – Writ of Certiorari/Mandamus – Reliefs Denied – With Rule 138 violation proved and adequate material before the adjudicating authority, the Court refused to interfere with the MOV-09 penalty and declined refund with interest – Writ petition dismissed in limine [Para 10].

Civil Law - Redemption of Mortgage – Limitation Period under Article 61 Limitation Act, 1963 – Suit for redemption not barred – The suit seeking redemption of usufructuary mortgage executed in 1969 was dismissed by the lower courts as time-barred—Held, limitation for redemption of mortgage accrues from the date when the right to redeem arises—Assignment of mortgage in 1986 created acknowledgment of mortgage rights—The right to redeem remains alive under Section 60 of the Transfer of Property Act—Decree of lower courts rejecting redemption suit set aside [Paras 9-23].

Gift Deed – Validity under Section 123 Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Gift upheld – Courts below held gift deed void for lack of proper attestation by two witnesses—Held, Registrar (PW2) acted as attesting witness with sufficient animus, satisfying the statutory requirement—Execution not denied by executant; proviso to Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act applies—Registered gift deed operates as valid transfer of ownership—Decree declaring gift deed invalid is reversed [Paras 24-28].

Counter-Claim – Maintainability under Order VIII Rule 6A CPC – Counter-claim dismissed – Counter-claim was not linked to the suit property or cause of action—Held, counter-claim must arise from cause of action related to the suit and be within limitation—Counter-claim regarding gifted property after long inaction held untenable—Lower courts’ acceptance of counter-claim incorrect and reversed [Paras 29-33].

Injunction Suit – Decree of Injunction Denied – Suit for injunction by respondent dismissed – Plaintiffs having valid redemption and partition rights and existence of valid gift deed disentitles defendants from absolute injunction relief—Decree granting injunction in OS 216/2004 set aside [Paras 34-35].

Final Decision – Judgment of Trial Court and Appellate Court set aside – Redemption suit decreed – Gift deed upheld – Counter-claim dismissed – Injunction suit dismissed – Plaintiffs entitled to partition and costs throughout [Para 35].

Tenancy Law - Eviction – Bona Fide Personal Necessity – Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the Rent Act – Revision Dismissed – The petitioners, legal heirs of the original tenant, challenged concurrent findings allowing eviction from the first floor of a residential premises at Chandigarh on the ground of personal necessity of the landlady for her daughter – Held: The landlady, aged 86, credibly established her bona fide need to settle with her divorced daughter in her own premises in the evening of her life – Courts below rightly found the need to be genuine and not a pretext to relet the premises – No perversity found in findings – Revision dismissed [Paras 2, 9, 11(i)].

Landlord’s Discretion – Tenant Cannot Dictate Manner of Use – Landlord is Best Judge – It was argued that the landlady’s daughter could reside on the vacant second floor or continue to live in Delhi – Held: Tenant has no authority to dictate how or where landlord or her family should reside – Desire for an independent living space on first floor cannot be questioned – Minor details such as floor preference not open to tenant’s objection [Paras 11(i), 11(iv)].

Residential Use – Tuition Classes Not a Commercial Activity – Misuse Allegation Rejected – Petitioner argued that the daughter’s intent to take tuitions post-retirement would amount to misuse of residential premises – Held: Occasional tutoring by a retired teacher does not amount to commercial activity – In any case, this was not the primary ground of eviction – Allegation of misuse found to be unfounded [Para 11(ii)].

Earlier Non-occupation of Vacated Premises – Medical Reason Justified – Tenant contended that ground floor was vacated earlier on personal necessity grounds but was not occupied – Held: Explanation of landlady suffering paralytic stroke and husband's subsequent demise found to be sufficient – Need was not illusory or fabricated – Non-occupation due to health and age-related issues does not nullify present necessity [Para 11(iii)].

Pleading and Proof – Non-possession of Alternate Accommodation – Compliance Sufficient – Petitioners argued that mandatory ingredients of Section 13(3)(a)(i) were missing – Held: Though averments regarding non-possession were not explicitly stated for the daughter, they were made for the landlady whose necessity was in focus – Even otherwise, proof by way of evidence is sufficient compliance – Tenant estopped from raising such plea at revision stage when no such objection was taken in written statement – Reliance placed on Harbhajan Singh vs. Lakhbir Singh, 2019 (2) RCR (Rent) 316 and Navyug Goods Carrier vs. Manpreet Singh, 2018 (2) RCR (Rent) 496 [Paras 9(iii), 11(vi)–11(viii)].

Additional Evidence – Rejected – Attempt to Delay – Tenant sought to introduce additional evidence to prove misuse of premises and subsequent re-letting of ground floor – Held: Appellate Authority rightly rejected the application, noting that all relevant points were already addressed – Found to be an attempt to prolong litigation [Para 11(v)].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Concurrent Findings Not to Be Interfered – Settled Law – Held: No perversity or illegality found in the concurrent findings of Rent Controller and Appellate Authority – High Court under revisional jurisdiction cannot re-appreciate evidence unless findings are patently perverse or illegal

– Revision dismissed [Para 11(x)].