Cheque Bounce Cases – Dispute over issuance of cheques – Petitioners seeking quashing of Complaint Cases under Section 138 of NI Act – Disputed allegations regarding the issuance of cheques – Whether cheques issued towards discharge of legally enforceable debt – Prima facie case against petitioners – Proceedings not quashed at pre-trial stage – Principles regarding cheque bounce cases reiterated by Hon'ble Apex Court – Onus of proving no existing debt or liability on accused – Factual issues and probable defense to be decided during trial – Complaints maintainable – Petitions dismissed. [Para 9-17]

Criminal Revision Petition – Conviction under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Appeal against judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge-02 – Petitioner convicted for dishonoring a cheque – Facts involving a loan, cheque issuance, and dishonor – Petitioner seeks acquittal and challenges lower court decisions. [Para 1-8]

Presumption under Section 139 of NI Act – Burden on the accused to raise a probable defense and provide evidence against the presumption – Accused admitted signing the cheque – Failure to provide substantial evidence to rebut the presumption – Legal principles outlined. [Para 13-15]

Debt and liability – Accused's claim of repayment – Onus on the accused to establish repayment – Lack of material evidence to support the repayment claim – Failure to seek the return of the cheque – Presumption of issuance of cheque for repayment remains unrebutted – Conviction upheld. [Para 20]

Dismissal of revision petition – Petitioner directed to pay remaining fine/compensation and surrender within 15 days – Lower court judgments affirmed. [Para 22-24]

Anticipatory Bail – Dismissal of anticipatory bail application – Allegations of cheating, forgery, and fraud involving a substantial amount – Applicant seeks anticipatory bail in FIR No. 71/2022 – Dismissal of anticipatory bail application by Sessions Court – Interim protection granted on conditions – Complaint alleges fraudulent sale of a Farm House, with applicant and co-accused tricking the complainant into parting with over Rs. 25 crores – Investigation reveals financial transactions – Applicant's admission of non-possession – Existence of multiple FIRs against the applicant for similar offenses – Applicant's habitual involvement in such cases – Delay in lodging FIR explained – Mere delay not sufficient ground for bail – Supreme Court precedents on economic offenses – Prima facie evidence of fraudulent intention – Custodial investigation required for document recovery – Anticipatory bail denied. [Para 1-29]

Criminal Appeal – Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act – Complaint filed against accused for dishonour of cheques – Accused acquitted by Magistrate – Appeal by complainant – Complainant firm represented by its Branch Manager – Assertion of complainant's status present in the complaint – Evidence of partnership deed and registration of firms provided – Magistrate's finding of incompetence to file the complaint erroneous – Specific assertion regarding the knowledge of the power of attorney holder not mandated in this case – Distinction between complaints filed by individuals and companies/firms clarified – Complaint by company represented by authorized employee valid – Complainant's initial onus of proof discharged – Reverse onus shifted to the accused – Failure to discharge reverse onus by the accused – Conviction of accused under Section 138 of the Act upheld – Sentencing and compensation awarded with focus on recovery rather than retribution. [Para 1-27]

Divorce – Cruelty – Petitioner wife sought divorce on the ground of cruelty – Marriage solemnized in 2005 – Allegations of physical and mental abuse, alcohol addiction, and unreasonable demands by the husband – Husband’s failure to contest the suit effectively – Unchallenged testimony of the wife establishes a pattern of cruel behavior – Conduct of the husband indicates an intention to end the marriage – Cruelty not precisely defined in statute, but assessed based on individual circumstances – Husband’s refusal to participate in proceedings demonstrates a deliberate attempt to prolong litigation – Wife granted divorce on grounds of cruelty. [Para 1-46]

Child Custody – Appellant husband sought custody of the child – Appellant’s non-payment of maintenance for the child and non-disclosure of income – Appellant’s actions demonstrate apathy towards the child – Paramount welfare of the child considered – Appeal for custody dismissed, and child’s custody remains with the respondent wife. [Para 47-50]

Maintenance – Appellant directed to clear arrears of maintenance for the child within four weeks – Failure to comply will result in execution for arrears. [Para 51]

Bank Account – Bank account restrictions imposed on the appellant by court order – Appellant failed to maintain the required balance and demonstrated a lack of responsibility as a father. [Para 51]

Criminal Appeal – Conviction under Section 377 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act – Accused convicted by the trial court – Appeal filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence – Appellant alleges false implication and raises doubts about the prosecution's version – Discrepancies in statements and lack of medical evidence discussed. [Para 6]

Child Sexual Abuse – Accusation of sexual abuse of a child below 6 years of age – Victim's statement not recorded during trial due to his age – Prosecution relies on statements of parents and medical evidence – Corroboration of victim's condition and statements of parents examined. [Para 7]

Criminal Case – Conviction under Section 377 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act – Appeal against conviction and sentence – Conviction based on proper appreciation of evidence – No error in recording the conviction – Appeal against conviction dismissed. [Para 28-29]

Penetrative Sexual Assault – Conviction based on evidence of victim's parents – Medical evidence corroborates the prosecution's case – Absence of DNA test not fatal – Defence of false implication not credible – Strained relations not proven – Conviction upheld. [Para 16-27]

Decision – 10 years rigorous imprisonment for penetrative sexual assault – Sentence not excessive given the nature of the crime and relationship between accused and victim – Sentence upheld. [Para 30]

Bail Application - Regular bail sought under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in a case involving charges under Sections 302, 34 of the IPC - Custody certificate filed - FIR based on the complaint of the deceased's brother alleging assault by the petitioner and others - Complainant's statement primarily based on hearsay - Petitioner in custody since January 16, 2023 - Material witness (complainant) already examined - Petitioner's absence attributed to the COVID-19 pandemic - Petition allowed, petitioner ordered to be released on bail, without commenting on the merits of the case. [Para 1-7]

Transfer Petition – Transfer of a petition under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act from Family Court, Amritsar to Camp Court Patti, Tarn Taran – Petitioner’s claim of the minor girl child being in her custody – FIR registered under Sections 498-A, 406, 120-B IPC – Mediation proceedings failed – Convenience of the female litigant – Economic soundness and social strata of the parties considered – Convenience of the wife in traveling alone – Connectivity and bearing of litigation expenses – Transfer allowed with conditions.

Transfer of Cases – Transfer of cases involving common questions of fact and law between the same parties – Avoiding multiplicity in trial and conflict of decisions – Desirability of trying cases together – Consideration of wife’s convenience in transfer matters – Reference to judgments in Sumita Singh, Rajani Kishor Pardeshi, and N.C.V. Aishwarya cases.

Decision – Transfer petition allowed – Petition under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act transferred to Camp Court Patti, Tarn Taran – Directions issued for transfer of records and appearances – Mediation and conciliation encouraged – Conditions imposed on the respondent for revival of the petition if contested.

Service Matter – Departmental Proceeding – Allegation of misconduct against a primary school teacher – Petitioner accused of molesting a student – Acquittal in criminal case due to a joint compromise petition – Disciplinary Authority imposed major penalty of dismissal – Appellate Authority affirmed the order – Review application rejected – Central Administrative Tribunal upheld the decision – Victim’s statement exonerative – Lack of evidence to support misconduct – Decision based on no evidence – Penalty disproportionate – Orders quashed – Petitioner reinstated with full back wages and benefits – Cost awarded to the petitioner. [Para 1-22]