Criminal Appeal – Dismiss for Default – Section 138 NI Act – Complaint Restored – Appellant filed private complaint for dishonour of cheque amounting to ₹3,00,000 – Trial Court dismissed the case for non-appearance during cross-examination – Appellant cited unavoidable reasons for absence and lack of representation by counsel – Held: Dismissal not justified as absence was not deliberate – Complaint restored and remanded for disposal on merits [Paras 1, 3, 6–7].

Restoration of Complaint – Default Not Wilful – Fair Opportunity Granted – Despite prior conditional orders, complainant failed to appear on date fixed – High Court accepted explanation that non-appearance was not wilful – Held: Considering monetary value of cheque and intent to prosecute, opportunity granted for fresh adjudication [Paras 3, 5–6].

Judicial Discretion – Remand with Conditions – Directions to Avoid Delay – Court directed both parties to appear on specific date – Trial Court instructed to proceed without unwarranted adjournments – In case of continued non-compliance by complainant, Trial Court may proceed appropriately – Held: Judicial discretion exercised to balance justice with procedural discipline [Para 7].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Complaint Revived – Matter Remanded – Dismissal of complaint set aside – Criminal appeal allowed – Complaint restored and matter remanded for fresh adjudication as per law [Paras 6–7].

Regular Bail – Sections 4, 6, 8, and 12 of the POCSO Act -  Sections 137(2) and 126(2) of the BNS - Allegation of Sexual Assault – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act – Bail Rejected – The applicant sought regular bail under Section 439 of CrPC in connection with offences under POCSO Act and Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita alleging unnatural carnal intercourse with a minor boy – Victim's immediate reporting of the offence, prompt FIR, and medical report indicating recent forceful penetration established a prima facie case against the applicant – Court held that inconsistencies in victim’s statement regarding identification were minor and explained by trauma – Non-conduct of Test Identification Parade did not vitiate prosecution case – Court observed that in cases involving sexual offences against minors, extra caution is required and bail can be denied despite completion of investigation if there is apprehension of victim influence – Held: Prima facie case established, reasonable apprehension of influence on victim, bail application rejected [Paras 7-19].

Civil Law – Section 55 of the T.P. Act - Recovery of Sale Consideration – Sale Agreement vs. Sale Deeds – Appeal Dismissed – Plaintiff filed suit claiming balance consideration of ₹1.16 crores alleging that only ₹16 lakhs was paid under a sale agreement – Held: Plaintiff cannot rely on earlier agreement to contradict terms of registered sale deeds; as per Section 92 of Evidence Act, oral or documentary evidence varying contents of registered documents is inadmissible – Sale consideration under sale deeds found to be fully paid – No unpaid amount recoverable – Suit and appeal rightly dismissed [Paras 2, 6, 11, 16, 18].

Encumbrances – Interpretation of Contract – Sale Was Free of Liabilities – Plaintiff argued that liabilities were to be cleared by purchaser in addition to agreed price – Held: Sale was intended to be free of encumbrances and liabilities were to be cleared from sale price – Conduct of parties and security given by plaintiff corroborated this understanding – Vendee had no independent liability to clear dues beyond consideration [Paras 13-15].

Evidence – Proof of Payment – Bank Transactions and Official Documents Sufficient – Defendants produced proof of payments including bank receipts, tax clearances, and PF dues – Plaintiff admitted major heads of liability – Trial court rightly concluded that total consideration was discharged and no dues remained – Challenge to receipts rejected due to lack of cross-examination or contrary proof [Para 16].

Limitation and Conduct – Delay in Legal Action – Plaintiff executed cancellation deeds in 1993 but never sought to set aside the sale deeds – Suit filed 8 years later – Held: Delay and lack of appropriate relief further weaken plaintiff’s claim – Findings of trial court affirmed [Para 17].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Suit for recovery of unpaid sale consideration based on pre-sale agreement was legally unsustainable – No dues shown under registered deeds – Appeal found to be without merit and dismissed without costs [Para 18].

Domestic Violence Act – Penal Action under Section 31 – Breach of Monetary Relief – Conviction Set Aside – The petitioner challenged the appellate court’s order setting aside the respondent's conviction for non-payment of interim maintenance awarded under Section 23 of the D.V. Act – The High Court held that only breach of ‘protection orders’ under Section 18 is punishable under Section 31 – Non-payment of monetary relief or maintenance under Sections 20 or 23 does not amount to breach of protection order – Penal consequences under Section 31 are inapplicable for monetary defaults – Revision petition dismissed [Paras 1-3, 6-9, 14-16, 38-39].

Scope of Protection Order – Distinction Between Reliefs – Section 18 vs. Section 20 of D.V. Act – The Court emphasized the statutory distinction between protection orders (Section 18) and monetary relief (Section 20) – Clarified that the legislative intent was to penalize violation of personal protection orders and not defaults in monetary payments – Failure to pay maintenance should be enforced through recovery mechanisms, not criminal punishment under Section 31 [Paras 9-15, 25-27].

Literal Rule of Interpretation – Strict Construction of Penal Statutes – The Court applied strict interpretation principles, holding that Section 31 being a penal provision must be narrowly construed – Cited precedents that penal provisions cannot be stretched to include breaches not expressly covered by statute – Reiterated the rule of plain meaning for penal statutes [Paras 18-24, 26, 30-33].

Precedential Consensus – Affirmation of Majority View – The Court preferred the view taken by several High Courts (Kerala, Delhi, Telangana, Himachal Pradesh) holding that breach of monetary relief does not attract Section 31 of D.V. Act – Distinguished and declined to follow contrary view in Vincent Shanthakumar case – Observed legislative clarity in categorizing different orders under Sections 18 to 22 of the D.V. Act [Paras 15-16, 28-37].

Decision – No Penal Liability for Maintenance Default – Held: Non-payment of interim or final maintenance amounts to breach of monetary relief, not protection order, and cannot attract prosecution under Section 31 – Proper remedy is recovery proceedings under Cr.P.C. – Revision petition dismissed affirming the appellate court’s acquittal of respondent [Paras 38-39].

Writ Petition under Article 226 – Constitutionality of Phone Tapping Order – Right to Privacy – Order Quashed – The petitioner challenged an order issued under Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 authorising interception of his mobile phone in a corruption investigation – The Court held that the order failed to satisfy the threshold of “public emergency” or “public safety” as laid down by the Supreme Court in PUCL and affirmed in K.S. Puttaswamy – The order was found to be mechanical and lacked application of mind – Further, mandatory procedural safeguards under Rule 419-A, including review by the Review Committee, were not followed – Held: The interception violated the petitioner’s fundamental right to privacy under Article 21 – The order dated 12.08.2011 was declared unconstitutional, ultra vires Section 5(2) and Rule 419-A – The intercepted material was directed not to be used for any purpose – Writ petition allowed [Paras 1-97].

Right to Privacy – Constitutionality of Interception – Section 5(2) of Telegraph Act – Procedure Not Followed – Held Invalid – Held: Interception order infringed Article 21 – The threshold conditions under Section 5(2) such as “public emergency” or “interest of public safety” were not met – Such conditions must be evident to a reasonable person and cannot be secretive – Absence of these conditions renders the order without jurisdiction [Paras 33-34, 41-44, 67].

Interpretation of Public Emergency and Public Safety – Covert Surveillance Not Included – Held: Covert surveillance in criminal investigations does not amount to a “public emergency” or impact “public safety” as interpreted in PUCL and reaffirmed in K.S. Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5J) and Anuradha Bhasin – An attempt to expand these terms by executive argument was rejected – Scope must be interpreted narrowly in favour of fundamental rights [Paras 40, 49-54, 62-64].

Procedural Safeguards – Rule 419-A Mandatory – Review Committee Not Involved – Interception Held Illegal – Held: Review Committee mechanism under Rule 419-A(17) is mandatory – The intercepted material was not placed before the Review Committee – Non-compliance with this mandatory requirement rendered the entire interception void and in breach of law [Paras 69-77, 86].

Admissibility of Evidence – Illegally Intercepted Conversations Inadmissible – Doctrine of Fruit of Poisonous Tree Revisited – Held: Evidence collected through unconstitutional phone tapping cannot be used for any purpose – Earlier precedents (Pooran Mal, R.M. Malkani) interpreted prior to recognition of privacy under Article 21 in K.S. Puttaswamy are not applicable – Illegality of interception vitiates the entire process – Evidence excluded [Paras 87-96].

Final Decision – Interception Order Quashed – Evidence Declared Inadmissible – Writ Allowed – The Court held that the order dated 12.08.2011 was unconstitutional, ultra vires and in violation of Rule 419-A – Directed that the intercepted conversations be excluded entirely – However, clarified that independent material collected by the CBI may be used before the Trial Court on merits [Para 97].

Criminal Law - Probation – Benefit of Probation of Offenders Act – Sentence Modified – Conviction Upheld – Petitioner convicted under Sections 279 and 337 IPC and sentenced to 3 months rigorous imprisonment – Petitioner already underwent 1 month and 26 days of sentence – High Court while upholding the conviction granted benefit of probation for good conduct – Held: In view of no criminal antecedents and short sentence, release on probation appropriate under Sections 3 & 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 [Paras 1–2, 10–11].

Sentencing – Principles of Reformative Justice – Emphasis on Rehabilitation – Referring to Som Dutt v. State of HP, (2022) 6 SCC 722 and Lakhvir Singh v. State of Punjab, (2021) 2 SCC 763 – Court reiterated the growing importance of reformation over punishment – First-time offenders should be provided a chance to reform rather than be exposed to hardened criminals [Paras 6–8].

Probation – Scope and Overriding Effect – Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act – Supreme Court in Lakhanlal v. State of MP, (2021) 6 SCC 100, held that the provisions of the 1958 Act have overriding effect – Section 360 CrPC applies additionally but not to the exclusion of the Probation of Offenders Act – Trial courts must consider probation where applicable [Paras 8–9].

Conviction and Service Benefits – Effect of Probation – Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act – Court clarified that conviction and sentence would not act as a bar to petitioner’s retiral or service benefits – Judgment shall not be treated as stigma in employment context [Para 12].

Cheque Dishonour – Defence of Payment Stop Due to Defective Goods – Acquittal Upheld – Appellant filed complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act alleging dishonour of cheque issued by respondent towards outstanding dues for electronic goods – Respondent issued stop payment instructions citing defective and substandard goods – Trial Court found that respondent had sufficient funds to honour cheque but withheld payment due to dispute over defective goods – Held: The presumption under Section 139 NI Act rebutted as respondent established a plausible defence with documentary evidence including reply notice and account statement – Acquittal by Trial Court upheld as civil dispute over defective goods disentitles appellant from criminal remedy under Section 138 NI Act [Paras 6-7].

Payment Stop Instruction – Defence of Defective Supply – Validity of Acquittal – The respondent’s stop payment order coupled with detailed reply notice alleging defective goods amounts to rebuttal of presumption of debt – Criminal liability under Section 138 NI Act cannot be fastened where there is bona fide commercial dispute on quality of goods – Trial Court rightly concluded non-commission of offence under Section 138 [Paras 7-8].

Presumption under Negotiable Instruments Act – Rebuttal by Preponderance of Probability – Court reiterated that presumption under Section 139 NI Act is rebuttable by preponderance of probability – Where accused demonstrates credible reason for payment stoppage, prosecution fails to establish legally enforceable debt – Hence, conviction under Section 138 not warranted [Paras 7-8].

Appeal Against Acquittal – No Interference Warranted – Appeal dismissed as no perversity or illegality found in Trial Court’s reasoning – Acquittal sustained [Paras 8-9].

Decision of the Judgment – Criminal appeal dismissed – Judgment of acquittal confirmed [Para 9].

Family Law – Matrimonial Dispute – Section 13(1)(ia) of the HMA Act - Section 18, Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act - Divorce, Maintenance, and Return of Gold Ornaments – Partial Relief Granted to Both Spouses – The Family Court dismissed the husband’s petition for divorce and the wife’s claim for return of gold and maintenance, except for maintenance of the minor child – On appeal, the High Court held that the wife is entitled to recover 15½ sovereigns of gold ornaments from the husband and his parents – Divorce granted in favour of the husband on grounds of cruelty and irretrievable breakdown of marriage – Future maintenance of ₹10,000/month awarded to the wife until remarriage – Orders of Family Court modified accordingly [Paras 1, 11, 13, 17-18].

Return of Gold Ornaments – Partial Entitlement Proven – Burden Shifted to Husband – Wife alleged entrustment of 40½ sovereigns of gold ornaments to husband and in-laws – Husband admitted possession and claimed return, but failed to substantiate full restitution – Held: Wife entitled to recover 15½ sovereigns or its market value – Family Court erred in disbelieving wife’s consistent narrative based on minor inconsistencies – Order set aside [Paras 6-11].

Divorce – Matrimonial Cruelty and Irretrievable Breakdown – Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act – Divorce Granted – Husband alleged cruel behaviour by wife, including threats of suicide and violence toward in-laws – Parties separated since 2014 – Reconciliation attempts failed – Held: Evidence proved matrimonial cruelty and irretrievable breakdown – Compelling continued cohabitation would amount to further cruelty – Marriage dissolved [Paras 12-15].

Maintenance – Wife Denied Past Maintenance – Future Maintenance Granted – Child Maintenance Confirmed – Family Court awarded maintenance only to the minor child – High Court upheld denial of past maintenance to wife but awarded future maintenance of ₹10,000/month, considering husband’s earnings and wife's needs – Property of husband made subject to charge for payment – No interference with child maintenance [Paras 16-17].

Appellate Review – Findings of Fact Re-evaluated – Family Court’s Errors in Appreciating Evidence – High Court found that Family Court misappreciated the wife's deposition and failed to account for the husband's partial admission regarding custody of gold – Held: Appellate court may reappreciate evidence where factual findings are perverse or flawed in law [Para 10-11].

Decision :

Mat.Appeal No.672/2017 (by wife) – Partly allowed – Wife entitled to 15½ sovereigns of gold or equivalent market value

Mat.Appeal No.763/2017 (by husband) – Allowed – Marriage dissolved by decree of divorce

Mat.Appeal No.671/2017 (by wife) – Partly allowed – Wife granted future maintenance at ₹10,000/month until remarriage, charge created over husband’s immovable properties

Mat.Appeal No.667/2017 (by husband) – Dismissed – Maintenance to minor child confirmed

Civil Law – Suit for partition - Second Appeal – Scope of Interference – Section 100 CPC – Concurrent Findings Upheld – Plaintiff’s claim of joint possession and right to partition rejected by both Trial and Appellate Courts – High Court held it cannot re-appreciate evidence unless findings are perverse or contrary to law – Held: No perversity or illegality found, second appeal dismissed [Paras 14–15, 24–25].

Partition Suit – Burden of Proof – Plaintiff Failed to Prove Jointness – Plaintiff alleged suit property was kept joint post oral partition in 1994 – No reliable documentary evidence produced – Testimony of PW2 inconsistent and derivative – Held: Burden to prove undivided joint family property not discharged, suit rightly dismissed [Paras 16–17].

Will – Execution and Attestation – Will Dated 02.02.1985 Upheld – 1st defendant relied on Ex.B.1 Will executed by father Ramaiah – Plaintiff and 2nd defendant were attesting witnesses – Plaintiff admitted signature; DW2 (son of other attestor) corroborated signature of his father – Held: Will proved as per Section 63 of Succession Act and Section 68 of Evidence Act – No suspicious circumstances established [Paras 19–23].

Evidence – Standard for Proof of Will – Legal Compliance Met – Propounder of Will discharged burden of proof – Attesting witness examined; plaintiff’s admission and corroboration by DW2 accepted – No contrary plea or denial in plaint or rejoinder – Held: Will proved in accordance with law, vesting title in 1st defendant [Paras 20–23].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Will Valid – No Joint Possession Established – High Court found no illegality in concurrent findings – Suit for partition dismissed for lack of proof of joint title – Second appeal dismissed, no costs [Paras 24–25].