Criminal Law – Speaking to Minutes – Finality of Judgment – Section 362 CrPC bar – No power to modify or alter sentence after appellate and Supreme Court affirmations – Concurrent running of sentences cannot be inserted subsequently – Application for speaking to minutes cannot substitute review or modification – Application rejected [Paras 16–23, 25].

Criminal Procedure – Speaking to Minutes – Scope and Limits – Application seeking insertion of direction that sentences run concurrently – Held: Speaking to minutes is confined to correction of clerical or typographical mistakes and cannot be used to modify, review or alter substantive findings or directions in a judgment – Any such attempt amounts to impermissible review under Section 362 CrPC / Section 528 BNSS – Application not maintainable [Paras 4, 19–23].

Sentence – Concurrent vs. Consecutive – Section 31 CrPC – Trial court did not direct concurrent running of sentences and appellate court also confirmed conviction without such direction – In absence of explicit direction, sentences run consecutively – Principle that sentences in a single transaction must run concurrently is not absolute; depends on nature and gravity of offence – Heinous offence of gang rape, threats, children kept hostage – Trial court rightly refrained from granting concurrency – No ground to alter sentencing mode post-finality [Paras 7, 10–12].

Inherent Powers – Section 482 CrPC / Section 528 BNSS – Limits – High Court cannot invoke inherent powers to modify a concluded judgment when CrPC expressly bars review and alteration – Inherent powers cannot override statutory prohibitions – Only clerical/arithmetical errors may be corrected – Present request is for substantive modification and hence barred [Paras 14–16, 22].

Finality of Criminal Judgments – Section 362 CrPC – Once appellate and Supreme Court have affirmed conviction and sentence, the High Court becomes functus officio – No power to revisit or modify operative portion – Any change to sentencing mode (concurrent vs. consecutive) constitutes substantive alteration and is prohibited – No exception applicable (fraud, lack of jurisdiction, denial of hearing etc.) [Paras 17–21].

Delay and Conduct – Applicant never raised plea of concurrency before Trial Court, Appellate Court, or Supreme Court – Raised for first time after many years – No explanation for delay – Plea barred both on law and conduct [Paras 2.6, 3, 17–18, 24].

Held – Sentences imposed under Sections 376(g) and 506 r/w 34 IPC to run consecutively by default – No jurisdiction to insert concurrency after judgment reached finality – Application for speaking to minutes rejected – No direction for release – No costs [Paras 25].

False Promise to Marry – Quashing – Long-term Consensual Relationship – No Evidence of Deceitful Intention at Inception – Section 69 BNS Not Attracted – Criminal Intimidation Under Section 351(2) BNS Not Made Out – Criminal Law Not a Tool for Private Relationship Fallouts – Proceedings Quashed [Paras 8–17].

False Promise to Marry – Section 69 BNS – Ingredients – Intention at Inception Essential – Court held that for an offence under Section 69 BNS, prosecution must establish that sexual intercourse was induced by deceit or a promise to marry made without intention to fulfil the same – Mere breach of promise without mala fide intent at inception is not an offence – Reliance placed on Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana (2013) 7 SCC 675 [Paras 6–8, 12].

Prolonged Consensual Relationship – Criminal Liability Diluted – Relationship between parties spanned from 2020 to 2025; such long-term intimacy negates inference of deception – Cited Mahesh Damu Khare v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 INSC 897, holding that prolonged physical relationship renders plea of misconception of fact implausible [Paras 9, 12].

Consensual Relationship Turning Sour – Not Criminal Conduct – Court reiterated that every failed or soured relationship cannot be given criminal colour – Cited Amol Bhagwan Nehul v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 INSC 782, emphasising that misuse of criminal machinery must be curbed [Para 10].

Abuse of Criminal Process – Complaints After Relationship Breakdown – Court relied on Biswajyoti Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal, 2025 INSC 458, reiterating that retrospective branding of consensual relationships as deceitful constitutes abuse of process [Para 11].

Criminal Intimidation – Section 351(2) BNS – Not Attracted When Relationship Was Consensual – Allegation of threats rejected as parties were in a voluntary intimate relationship for several years – Cited Prashant v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2024 INSC 879 – No ingredients of criminal intimidation established [Para 13].

Court’s Observations on Contemporary Personal Relationships – Court observed that premarital intimacy between consenting adults is common; emotional discord cannot be converted into criminal litigation; criminal law is not a tool for moral policing or resolving personal fallouts [Paras 14–16].

Decision – Continuation of Proceedings Would Be Abuse of Process – No material to show deceitful intent at inception; allegations indicate only a breakdown of consensual relationship – Proceedings in PRC No.75/2025 quashed [Para 17].

Criminal Law – Discharge – Allegation of Fraudulent Property Valuation – 5th accused challenged rejection of discharge plea, contending that his property valuation was genuine and that disparity with subsequent valuations was not sufficient to impute criminal intent – Held: Significant discrepancy in valuations shown by independent valuers and bank-commissioned reports raises triable issues – Discharge cannot be granted at the threshold when prima facie case exists and evidence requires examination at trial [Paras 4, 5, 8, 9, 13].

Prevention of Corruption Act – Section 13(1)(d) – Conspiracy and Abuse of Position – Accused bank officials allegedly colluded with petitioner valuer to overvalue properties and facilitate fraudulent loan sanctions – Held: Overvaluation forming basis for unlawful gain and wrongful loss is sufficient for attracting provisions of the PC Act – Issue of conspiracy and abuse of office must be tested during trial and not at discharge stage [Paras 3, 4, 9].

Evidentiary Value of Valuation Reports – Competency and Scientific Validity – Petitioner relied on earlier decisions to argue that unless valuation methodology is proven scientific, criminal liability cannot follow – Held: Comparative valuation is not conclusive at discharge stage – Whether overvaluation was deliberate and fraudulent is a factual issue requiring trial – Court disagreed with earlier precedents to the extent they discouraged trial on valuation-based fraud allegations [Paras 7, 9, 13].

Judicial Interference at Pre-trial Stage – Parameters for Discharge – When prosecution materials disclose plausible involvement in criminal conspiracy and financial fraud, High Court cannot usurp trial function by evaluating credibility or sufficiency of evidence – Held: Discharge rightly denied by Special Court and revision dismissed – Trial to proceed expeditiously [Paras 9, 13, 14].

Decision: Criminal revision petition dismissed – Discharge rightly refused by Special Court – Trial to be completed within three months – Observations made in order to have no bearing on merits during trial.

Anticipatory Bail – Sexual Relationship on False Promise of Marriage – Refusal – Petitioner sought anticipatory bail in crime alleging cheating, criminal intimidation and promise to marry – Allegations disclosed sustained sexual relationship induced by promise of marriage – Mediation failed and petitioner refused to file affidavit agreeing to marry – Held: Considering gravity of allegations and necessity of custodial interrogation, anticipatory bail declined [Paras 7–8, 22–23].

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Section 69 – Sexual Intercourse by Deceitful Means – Scope – Section 69 criminalises sexual intercourse induced by deceitful means or false promise of marriage without intention to fulfil – Distinguished from offence of rape under IPC – Held: Provision squarely attracted where promise to marry is made fraudulently to obtain sexual consent [Paras 10–11, 21].

Direction to Add Penal Provision – Duty of Investigating Agency – FIR registered under IPC and BNS provisions excluding Section 69 BNS – Court directed inclusion of Section 69 BNS in light of factual allegations disclosing offence of sexual intercourse by deceitful promise of marriage [Para 12].

Live-in Relationships – Vulnerability of Adult Women – Judicial Concern – Court observed absence of adequate legal protection for women in live-in relationships compared to minors under POCSO or married women under matrimonial laws – Highlighted socio-cultural stigma and mental trauma faced by women abandoned after sexual exploitation [Paras 14–17].

Concept of Gandharva Marriage – Judicial Observation – Court noted that consensual love relationships akin to live-in arrangements may resemble Gandharva marriage recognised in ancient Indian law – Observed need to accord protective legal status to women in such relationships to prevent exploitation [Paras 18–19].

False Promise to Marry – Legal Consequences – Held: Where accused refuses marriage after sexual relationship induced by promise, prosecution under Section 69 BNS is warranted – Men must face statutory consequences if marriage is refused after exploiting promise to marry [Paras 20–21].

Decision: Criminal Original Petition dismissed – Anticipatory bail refused – Investigating agency directed to invoke Section 69, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Custodial interrogation held necessary.

Criminal Law – Quashing of Summoning Order – Cheating – Criminal Breach of Trust – Petitioners, who are close relatives of Complainant, alleged to have misused powers of attorney given in UAE to fraudulently transfer assets and siphon company funds – Petitioners challenged summoning order on grounds of lack of evidence and territorial jurisdiction – Held: Allegations that signed blank cheques were given in India and were misused in UAE indicates part of the offence occurred in India – No prior sanction under Section 188 CrPC required – Jurisdiction established – Prima facie misuse of PoA and misappropriation of assets shown from documents and testimony – Transfer of company shares and receipt of ₹47 lakhs in petitioner’s account support charges – Summoning order upheld [Paras 34-57].

Territorial Jurisdiction – Section 188 CrPC – Alleged fraudulent acts committed partly in UAE and partly in India – Blank cheques signed and PoA executed in India – Misused abroad – Held: When part of the offence occurs in India, prior sanction under Section 188 CrPC is not necessary – Jurisdiction of Indian courts validly invoked [Paras 34-39].

Power of Attorney – Abuse and Misuse – Petitioners misused PoAs executed by Complainant during his forced absence from UAE due to deportation – Sale of companies and diversion of funds not authorized – Held: Such misuse of PoA for personal gain discloses offences under Sections 406/420 IPC [Paras 43-56].

Complaint Evidence – Prima Facie Case – Testimony of CW1 (Complainant) corroborated by documents including share transfer contracts, PoA, and depositions of CW2 and CW3 – Transfer of ₹47 lakhs to petitioner’s wife Jaspreet Kaur indicative of criminal breach of trust – Held: Complaint and evidence disclose sufficient grounds for summoning [Paras 42-56].

Decision: Petition under Section 482 CrPC dismissed – No merit found in challenge to summoning order – Criminal proceedings to continue [Para 59

Tenancy Law - Lease Rent Demand – One-time Lease Rent – Delay in Payment – Petitioner deposited one-time lease rent equivalent to 11 annual instalments on 08.01.2007 in accordance with prevailing GNIDA policy – Lease rent was payable by 16.01.2007, and payment made on 08.01.2007 was within the stipulated period – Held: There was no default attracting penal consequences – Authority’s subsequent demand in 2025 for lease rent dues is legally untenable and arbitrary [Paras 14–17, 24–25]

Natural Justice – No Prior Notice or Explanation – Impugned demand letter dated 10.07.2025 issued without any show-cause notice or opportunity to respond – Held: Violative of principles of natural justice – Arbitrary quantification without calculation details renders the demand unsustainable [Paras 19–20]

Promissory Estoppel – Issuance of No Dues Certificates – GNIDA had issued No Objection Certificates in 2010 and 2020 and also granted mortgage permission in 2024 – Held: Authority is estopped from raising lease rent dues in 2025 after a long period of inaction – Such reversal of stand violates principles of promissory estoppel and fairness [Paras 21–23]

Legitimate Expectation – Consistency in Administrative Conduct – Repeated certifications by GNIDA confirming no dues and subsequent permission to mortgage created legitimate expectation that no lease rent remained unpaid – Held: Sudden reversal of position violates doctrine of legitimate expectation and Article 14 of the Constitution [Paras 21–22]

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Demand letter dated 10.07.2025 quashed – Direction issued to GNIDA to process petitioner’s pending applications for permission to mortgage dated 08.10.2024 and 02.01.2025 within six weeks from receipt of certified copy of this order [Paras 26–27]

Administrative Law – Re-engagement of Self Help Group – Disengagement Order Quashed – Petitioner (Maa Santoshi WSHG) was earlier disengaged without being given a hearing – High Court quashed the disengagement and directed fresh inquiry – Inquiry Committee found the Petitioner compliant and recommended re-engagement – Director deferred action citing subsisting contract with another WSHG – Held: Petitioner to be re-engaged post-expiry of contract period with current service provider, subject to compliance with formalities and government guidelines [Paras 2, 5, 9, 12, 14]

Contract Law – No Vested Right from Interim Arrangements – Maa Chandi WSHG received 7 Gram Panchayats only as a stop-gap measure following disengagement of the Petitioner – Court held that this did not amount to a vested or permanent right – Right to supply THR restricted to duration of contract expiring 31.12.2025 [Paras 10–12]

Natural Justice – Principles Violated in Initial Disengagement – Disengagement of Maa Santoshi WSHG was without notice or hearing – Court found this contrary to natural justice and ordered fresh inquiry – Based on favourable report, re-engagement found justified [Paras 4, 7, 9(v), 10, 14]

Eligibility Criteria – Requirement of Valid Food License – Possession of a food license is mandatory under the scheme guidelines – Court noted Petitioner claims to hold a valid license till 2026 – Re-engagement conditional upon compliance with all formalities including valid license [Paras 8, 13–14]

Decision: Writ Petitions disposed of – Maa Santoshi WSHG directed to be re-engaged only after the expiry of current contract on 31.12.2025 – All interim orders stand vacated [Paras 14–15]

Criminal Law – Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Acquittal – Appellant filed complaint against accused for dishonour of cheque for Rs. 20 lakhs – Cheque returned with endorsement "Drawer’s Signature Differs" – Legal notice claimed to be sent, but original acknowledgment card not produced – Trial Court refused to mark photocopy and acquitted accused holding statutory notice not proved – High Court held non-service was not disputed by accused in cross-examination and disagreed with Trial Court's reasoning on notice –However, loan transaction of Rs. 40 lakhs alleged to be given without any written document – Complainant admitted in cross-examination that cheque was filled by her husband and that husband used to collect blank cheques from chit subscribers including accused – No mention in complaint or notice about authority to fill cheque – These admissions supported defence version that cheque was issued blank during chit dealings – Held: Accused’s version found probable – No perversity in acquittal – Appeal against acquittal dismissed [Paras 9–11].

Decision: Criminal appeal dismissed – Acquittal by Trial Court upheld – Findings held reasonable and not perverse.

Constitutional Law – Right to Travel Abroad – Article 21 – Denial of No Objection Certificate to government employee on ground of pending disciplinary proceedings – Held: Right to travel abroad is a facet of personal liberty protected under Article 21 – Executive instruction dated 28.01.2014 cannot override fundamental rights – Rejection of NOC amounts to unconstitutional restriction on liberty – Impugned orders quashed [Paras 10–14, 18–19]

Service Law – Government Employee – Pending Departmental Proceedings – Presumption of Innocence – Mere pendency of disciplinary proceedings or vigilance cases cannot be treated as conclusive of guilt – Held: Presumption of innocence must prevail until proven guilty – Executive circular cannot justify refusal of NOC without due process of law [Paras 10, 15, 17]

Administrative Law – Executive Instructions vs. Enacted Law – Letter dated 28.01.2014 by State Government is not statutory law – Cannot be treated as lawful basis to restrict passport issuance – Any restriction on fundamental rights must be supported by enacted law – Held: Administrative circular lacks legal authority to infringe personal liberty [Paras 10, 14]

Passport Law – Passport Manual and NOC Requirement – Clauses 4.23 to 4.25 of Passport Manual, 2020 make NOC mandatory for government employees – However, such requirement must align with constitutional rights – Held: NOC cannot be denied arbitrarily, and the Manual must be read in conformity with fundamental rights under Article 21 [Paras 11–12]

Judicial Precedents – Maneka Gandhi Case – Right to go abroad is part of personal liberty – Denial must follow fair procedure established by law – Applied in present case to quash refusal of NOC based on non-statutory executive communication [Para 13]

Decision:

Writ Petition allowed – Impugned rejection orders dated 12.07.2022 and 21.03.2025 quashed – State directed to issue No Objection Certificate to petitioner within six weeks from date of judgment [Para 19]