Criminal Law  – Cognizance Based on Magistrate’s Own Knowledge – Section 210(1)(c) BNSS – Valid Mode of Taking Cognizance – Challenge Rejected – Petitioners, police officials, challenged summons issued under Section 227(1)(b) BNSS on basis of judicial inquiry conducted under Section 196 into alleged custodial death – Held: Magistrate’s power under Section 210(1)(c) to take cognizance on own knowledge or on information other than police report is independent and exclusive – Procedure under Chapter XVI applicable only to complaint cases under Section 210(1)(a) – Summons issued were valid [Paras 13–15, 19].

Judicial Inquiry – Magistrate Competent to Take Cognizance After Conducting Inquiry – No Infirmity in Magistrate Issuing Process – Petitioners contended that the Magistrate who conducted the inquiry could not take cognizance himself – Rejected – Held: Section 196 judicial inquiry is broader in scope and distinct from investigation – Magistrate’s satisfaction drawn from sworn depositions recorded during inquiry – No legal bar to same Magistrate taking cognizance under Section 210(1)(c) [Paras 22–23].

Accused’s Right to Raise Objection – Remedy Under Section 211 BNSS Available – High Court Declines to Interfere – Petition Premature – Held: Under Section 211, accused have statutory right to seek inquiry/trial before another Magistrate if bias is apprehended – Petitioners failed to avail such remedy before challenging summoning order – Court found no merit in bypassing the statutory mechanism provided in BNSS [Paras 11, 20, 24].

Issue of Process – Sufficiency of Material – No Need for Fresh Witness Examination – Section 231 Compliance Not Required at This Stage – Petitioners argued that statements or list of witnesses not provided under Section 231 – Held: Process was issued only after judicial inquiry with 20+ depositions – Statements recorded on oath during inquiry sufficient for satisfaction of Magistrate – Section 231 compliance arises at trial stage and cannot be presumed to be violated prematurely [Paras 10, 20–21].

Final Decision – Petition Dismissed – Summoning Order Upheld – Liberty Given to Petitioners to Approach Magistrate Under Section 211 BNSS – Court upheld impugned order dated 18.02.2025 and dismissed petition with liberty to petitioners to raise objections before the concerned Magistrate as per law [Paras 23–24].

Civil Law - Trademark – Prior User Rights – Section 34 of the Trade Marks Act – Interim Injunction Refused – The plaintiff claimed rights over the mark ‘STELLADEXIN’ based on trademark registration and an exclusive agency agreement with defendant no. 5 (Chinese manufacturer) – Held: Defendant no. 5 is the prior adopter and continuous user of the marks ‘STELLA’, ‘STELLADEXIN’ and related device marks since 2013 in India, predating the plaintiff’s claimed use from 2015 – Defendant no. 5 entitled to protection under Section 34 of the Trade Marks Act – No infringement made out against defendants [Paras 12-17].

Trademark Infringement – International Exhaustion – Section 30(3) of the Trade Marks Act – Sale of Genuine Goods Not Infringement – Defendant no. 2 was importing and reselling original goods manufactured by defendant no. 5 under authorization – Held: Sale of genuine products under an authorized distribution arrangement does not amount to infringement – Applied principle of international exhaustion as upheld in Kapil Wadhwa v. Samsung Electronics and Seagate Technology LLC v. Daichi International [Paras 18-19].

Exclusive Agency Agreement – Effect of Termination – The exclusive agency agreement between the plaintiff and defendant no. 5 was terminated vide letter dated 13.11.2024 – Held: Post termination, the plaintiff cannot claim exclusivity over the mark in India – Plaintiff’s claim of monopoly over ‘STELLADEXIN’ not tenable when defendant no. 5 continues to be the rightful owner and prior user [Paras 10.7, 16-17].

Interim Relief – Balance of Convenience – Prima Facie Case Not Made Out – Interim injunction order dated 27.08.2024 vacated – Held: Balance of convenience lies in favour of defendants who were prior users – Grant of injunction would unfairly restrain the defendants from dealing in products they have lawfully sold in India since 2013 – Plaintiff merely an importer cannot claim monopoly over goods of defendant no. 5 [Paras 20-22].

Decision – Applications for interim injunction (I.A. 37339/2024 and I.A. 49076/2024) dismissed – Application by defendant no. 2 (I.A. 41504/2024) seeking vacation of interim injunction allowed – Observations confined to interim stage without prejudice to the final outcome of the suit [Paras 22-24].

Criminal Law – Sections 363, 366, 376, 511, and 354 of the IPC - Kidnapping and Attempt to Rape – Conviction Upheld – The appellant was convicted for forcibly abducting a girl, detaining her for 20 days, and attempting to rape her – The victim’s consistent testimony under Section 164 CrPC and during trial affirmed the appellant’s acts of undressing and attempting intercourse – The High Court held that such acts constituted a clear attempt to commit rape – Conviction under Sections 363, 366, 376/511, and 354 IPC confirmed [Paras 6–9, 13–14, 28–29].

Testimony of Victim – Consistent and Unshaken – Credible Evidence of Attempted Sexual Assault – Victim (PW-2) reiterated in court that she was forcibly taken and sexually assaulted without penetration – Her account remained consistent with her statement before the Magistrate – Defence failed to discredit her evidence – Held: Her testimony, being natural and credible, forms the basis for conviction [Paras 9, 13–14, 28].

FIR Delay – Justified and Not Fatal – Delay Reasonably Explained – FIR was lodged after 21 days of incident – Delay explained due to efforts to search the victim and absence of male family members – Citing Supreme Court precedents, the Court held that delay in FIR is not unusual in sexual offences due to social stigma – Delay does not impair prosecution case [Paras 3, 16].

Attempt to Rape – Legal Ingredients – Acts Towards Intercourse Sufficient – The appellant undressed the victim and tried to force intercourse, which was prevented by her resistance – The Court reiterated that absence of penetration does not negate offence under Section 376/511 IPC – Attempt to rape proved by conduct and intent of appellant [Paras 14, 18–21].

Consent – Not Established – Defence of Affair Rejected – Appellant’s defence of consensual relationship based on alleged letters was denied by the victim – No plea of consent was taken under Section 313 CrPC – Held: Consent was neither pleaded nor proved – Victim’s testimony confirmed absence of consent [Paras 3, 24, 28].

Recovery of Victim – From Accused’s Custody – Strengthens Prosecution Case – Victim was recovered from appellant’s custody on the date of FIR registration – Recovery corroborated by PW-5 and recovery memo – Held: Recovery supports prosecution’s claim of illegal detention and sexual assault attempt [Paras 6–7, 12–14].

Decision – No Infirmity in Trial Court’s Judgment – Appeal Dismissed – The Court found the prosecution evidence trustworthy and legally sufficient – Trial court rightly appreciated the facts and law – No ground for interference – Appeal dismissed as misconceived and lacking merit [Paras 28–29].

Criminal Law - Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Sections 498A, 406, 323, 34 IPC – Divorce Proceedings Pending – Allegations Found Baseless – Criminal proceeding initiated by wife alleged to be retaliatory to the matrimonial suit filed by husband – FIR contains vague and evasive allegations without specific details regarding acts of cruelty or physical harm – No material found during investigation to substantiate cruelty under Section 498A or hurt under Section 323 IPC – Further, Section 406 IPC was dropped by the investigating agency due to absence of evidence of stridhan misappropriation – Held: The criminal case amounts to an abuse of the process of law and is liable to be quashed [Paras 1-17].

Section 498A IPC – Ingredients Not Satisfied – Explanation (a) and (b) – FIR and charge sheet do not disclose conduct amounting to cruelty likely to drive the complainant to suicide or cause grave injury – Nor is there any allegation of harassment for unlawful dowry demands – Admissions by the complainant in matrimonial proceedings further negate allegations of cruelty – No prima facie case made out under Section 498A IPC [Paras 8-12].

Section 323 IPC – Allegation of Hurt – Bald Allegations – The FIR and charge sheet lack specific details such as date, time, nature of hurt, or individual roles of accused – Held: Allegations are vague, general and do not constitute an offence under Section 323 IPC [Para 13].

Evidentiary Value of Admission – Statements Made in Matrimonial Suit – Complainant’s deposition in the divorce suit showed clear admissions that no cruelty or torture was inflicted – Also stated she had no memory of filing the criminal complaint – Held: Such unimpeached admissions are reliable and valid to consider at the quashing stage under Section 482 CrPC as being of sterling quality – Statements are binding unless rebutted [Paras 12, 15].

Exercise of Inherent Power – Section 482 CrPC – Abuse of Process – The court held that continuation of the criminal case in absence of prima facie material would amount to misuse of judicial process – Criminal proceedings quashed to secure ends of justice – High Court can rely upon unimpeachable documents including admissions made in prior judicial proceedings while exercising power under Section 482 CrPC [Paras 14, 16].

Decision – Criminal Revisional Application CRR 1382 of 2018 allowed – Entire criminal proceedings being GR Case No. 1495 of 2012 pending before ACJM, Barasat arising from Barasat P.S. Case No. 508 of 2012 dated 20.03.2012 under Sections 498A/406/323/34 IPC quashed – Held: Continuation of the proceeding is an abuse of the process of the court – No order as to costs [Para 17].

Matrimonial Law - Maintenance – Ad-Interim Maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. – Scope and Applicability – Petition Partly Allowed – The petitioner challenged the Family Court orders granting ad-interim maintenance of ₹6,000/- per month to the respondent from the date of filing of the application – Held: Family Court was right in granting ad-interim maintenance based on prima facie assessment of admitted income to alleviate immediate financial hardship – However, ad-interim maintenance is a temporary measure distinct from interim maintenance and cannot be granted retrospectively from the date of application – Modified to be payable from the date of the order i.e., 24.05.2024 – Petition disposed accordingly [Paras 1, 43-46].

Ad-Interim vs Interim Maintenance – Conceptual Distinction – Explained – Ad-interim maintenance is provisional, granted at an early stage based on prima facie material, often without complete pleadings – Interim maintenance is granted after hearing both parties on the basis of affidavits and pleadings – Both serve distinct purposes – Courts cannot equate ad-interim maintenance with interim maintenance – Order directing ad-interim maintenance from date of filing held unsustainable – Modified to be payable from date of order [Paras 11-12, 39-42].

Grant of Ad-Interim Maintenance – Whether Separate Application Mandatory – Held: No separate application for ad-interim maintenance is mandatory – Courts are empowered to grant ad-interim maintenance based on facts, prima facie income, and hardship – Insistence on a separate application would defeat the object of Section 125 Cr.P.C. – Rajnesh v. Neha mandates application for interim maintenance, but does not cover ad-interim maintenance – Directions in Kusum Sharma v. Mahinder Kumar Sharma still applicable to ad-interim relief [Paras 30-37].

Maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. vs PWDV Act – Independent Proceedings – Dismissal of maintenance under Section 12 PWDV Act does not bar maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. – Both remedies are independent and concurrent – Family Court rightly disregarded petitioner’s argument that dismissal of DV Act maintenance bars claim under Cr.P.C. [Para 7].

Ad-Interim Maintenance – Date of Effect – Not Retrospective – Held: Ad-interim maintenance operates from the date of the order granting it, not from the date of filing of the application – Unlike interim and final maintenance where Rajnesh v. Neha mandates payment from date of application, ad-interim relief is a temporary measure meant to address immediate hardship pending adjudication – To direct retrospective payment defeats its purpose – Family Court’s order modified to this extent [Paras 39-42, 45-46].

Judicial Precedents – Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324 – Distinguished – Rajnesh applies to interim and final maintenance with mandatory filing of income affidavits – Does not cover ad-interim maintenance – Kusum Sharma series continues to govern grant of ad-interim maintenance based on admitted income [Paras 27-29, 37].

Decision – Petition Partly Allowed – Orders of Family Court granting ₹6,000/- ad-interim maintenance upheld in principle – However, direction to pay from date of filing set aside – Ad-interim maintenance payable from date of order i.e., 24.05.2024 – Petition disposed accordingly [Paras 46-47].

Suo Moto PIL – Protection of Right to Food, Right to Health and Addressing Malnutrition, Obesity and Mental Health Issues – Sections 4, 5, 6 of the National Food Security Act, 2013 – Section 16 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 – Article 21 and 47 of the Constitution of India – Suo moto proceedings initiated to address alarming issues of malnutrition and obesity affecting minor children, women and citizens – Court emphasized that the Right to Food and Right to Health are integral to the Right to Life under Article 21 – Noted serious failures by both Central and State authorities in effective implementation of the National Food Security Act, 2013 and the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 – Highlighted the harmful impacts of junk food, carbonated drinks, and excessive use of mobile phones on physical and mental health of children – Directed governments to submit detailed reports on compliance with statutory obligations, strengthen Anganwadi centres, enforce food safety standards in and around schools, restrict junk food, promote traditional healthy diets, and incorporate awareness in educational curriculums – Issued notices to Union of India, State of Rajasthan, FSSAI, and related authorities – Matter listed for further hearing [Paras 1-33].

Right to Food and Right to Health – Fundamental Rights under Article 21 – State’s Statutory Obligation – The Court held that the right to food and right to health are interconnected and integral parts of the right to life under Article 21 – Failure of State to ensure adequate nutrition constitutes violation of fundamental rights – Emphasis placed on constitutional mandate under Article 47 and international obligations [Paras 2-6, 13-14].

Malnutrition – Implementation of National Food Security Act, 2013 – Sections 4, 5 and 6 – Failure to comply – The Court noted gross inadequacies in the implementation of nutritional entitlements for pregnant women, lactating mothers, and children under the Act – Directed the State and Union authorities to submit reports detailing steps taken to comply with statutory obligations under the Act, including adherence to nutritional standards specified in Schedule II [Paras 9-15].

Anganwadi Centres – Essential Role in Child Nutrition – Non-functioning Anganwadis – The Court stressed that the effective functioning of Anganwadi Centres is crucial for the implementation of welfare schemes under the National Food Security Act – Directed authorities to ensure full operational status of Anganwadi Centres to combat malnutrition [Paras 14-15].

Junk Food and Carbonated Drinks – Harmful Effects on Children – Duty under Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 – The Court observed that junk food and sugary drinks significantly contribute to obesity and mental health issues among children – Noted failure of authorities to monitor and regulate sale of such food items – Referred to FSSAI Guidelines on restricting HFSS (High in Fat, Salt, Sugar) foods in and around schools – Emphasized the duty of FSSAI and State under Section 16 of the FSS Act to enforce food safety standards [Paras 16-21].

Mobile Phones – Impact on Children’s Mental and Physical Health – The Court raised serious concerns over excessive use of mobile phones by children – Held that it hinders physical growth, mental development, and intellectual abilities – Suggested that governments incorporate guidelines restricting mobile usage in educational curriculums and raise awareness among parents and teachers [Para 24-25].

Curriculum Changes – Promotion of Healthy Lifestyle – Directed Education Boards to introduce syllabus content promoting healthy eating, dangers of junk food, ill-effects of carbonated drinks, and risks of mobile overuse – Also stressed revival of traditional food habits and importance of homemade “Dadi-Nani” recipes for promoting well-being [Paras 25-27].

Government Accountability – Statutory Failure – Court expressed anguish over failure of authorities to implement the National Food Security Act and Food Safety laws in their true spirit – Held that this failure directly contributes to widespread malnutrition and obesity impacting mental health of the future generation – Issued notice to Union of India, State of Rajasthan, FSSAI, and other departments to submit reports on remedial measures – Directed the matter to be listed for further hearing [Paras 28-33].

Taxation Law - Reassessment – Change of Opinion – Section 147 of the Income Tax Act – Reopening Set Aside – The Assessing Officer issued notice under Section 148 alleging escapement of income on issues of foreign exchange gains, capitalisation of lump sum technical know-how payments and deduction under Section 80HHC – The assessee challenged the reassessment stating all relevant facts had been fully disclosed during original assessment proceedings which concluded under Section 143(3) – Both the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held the reopening invalid – Dismissing the Department's appeal, the High Court upheld these findings, ruling that the reassessment was based on a mere change of opinion without any fresh tangible material and therefore impermissible under law [Paras 1-11].

Reassessment – Query and Consideration in Original Assessment – Reopening Invalid – The High Court reiterated that where detailed queries were raised during scrutiny and assessee provided due replies, it amounts to proper application of mind by the Assessing Officer – The fact that certain matters are not discussed in the final assessment order does not negate their consideration – Held: Raising the same points in reassessment constitutes change of opinion, thus vitiating reassessment proceedings [Paras 6-10].

Limitation Period – Reassessment within Four Years – Invalid Despite Timeline Compliance – The Court clarified that reassessment within four years must still satisfy the threshold of ‘reason to believe’ – In this case, as facts were fully disclosed and already considered, reassessment was not sustainable even though it was within four years [Paras 5,9].

Binding Precedents – Application of Aroni Commercials Principle – Following the ruling in Aroni Commercials Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Bombay High Court), the High Court held that once a query is raised and replied to during original assessment, revisiting the same issue later without fresh material amounts to mere change of opinion, which cannot justify reassessment under Section 147 [Para 10].

Final Outcome – Appeal Dismissed – Upholding CIT(A) and ITAT orders, the Court dismissed the revenue’s appeal, answering both substantial questions of law in favour of the assessee – Reassessment proceedings quashed as invalid under law [Para 11].

Civil Law – Permanent Injunction Suit – Claim of Possession as Gair Mourusi Tenant – Dismissed – Plaintiff-Appellants claimed tenancy rights based on long possession of 70 years but failed to produce any documentary evidence to prove tenancy or possession – Both Trial Court and First Appellate Court concurrently held that revenue entries in favour of plaintiffs were incorrect and without foundation – Counterclaim of defendants decreed holding them owners in possession – Regular Second Appeal dismissed as devoid of merit [Paras 1-10].

Tenancy Rights – Burden of Proof – Mere oral assertions without documentary evidence not sufficient – Plaintiffs failed to produce any tenancy records, rent receipts, or corroborative evidence showing possession – Admission by plaintiff in cross-examination that they were neither owners nor tenants fatal to their claim – Held: Courts below rightly dismissed the suit for injunction [Paras 9-10].

Revenue Entries – Presumption – Revenue entries in favour of plaintiffs declared incorrect – Presumption attached to revenue entries rebuttable when shown to be incorrect or made without factual basis – Defendants proved possession with construction of boundary walls and gate – Courts directed correction of revenue records in favour of defendants [Paras 6, 9].

Counterclaim – Decreed in Favour of Defendants – Plaintiffs failed to contest the counterclaim either factually or legally during appeal – Defendants successfully established ownership and possession – Courts restrained plaintiffs from interfering in possession of defendants [Paras 6, 9].

Regular Second Appeal – No Substantial Question of Law – Findings based on facts and evidence – No legal infirmity in judgments of courts below – Held: No question of law arises requiring interference under Section 100 CPC – Appeal dismissed [Paras 9-10].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – No merit found in the claim of plaintiffs – Decrees of Trial Court and First Appellate Court upheld – Pending applications also disposed of [Para 10].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Cheque Dishonor – Proprietorship Concern – Liability under Section 138 – Acquittal Upheld – A cheque drawn on the account of M/s Udai Continentals was dishonored – Appellant failed to prove that Respondent No. 2 (D.P. Singh) was the proprietor of Udai Continentals – Evidence established that the actual proprietor was Ms. Sarika Singh Kuchhawaha, who was not arraigned as an accused – Held: For proprietorship concerns, only the proprietor can be held liable – No vicarious liability arises under Section 141 of NI Act for proprietorships – Complaint against Respondent No. 2 dismissed [Paras 28-38].

Proprietorship Concern – Distinction from Companies and Firms – Jurisprudence – A proprietorship firm has no separate legal entity from its proprietor – Cited Supreme Court judgment in Raghu Lakshminarayanan vs. Fine Tubes (2007) 5 SCC 103 and Delhi High Court in M.M. Lal vs. State NCT of Delhi 2012 (4) JCC 284 – Held: Only the sole proprietor can be held responsible under Section 138 of NI Act – Vicarious liability does not extend to non-proprietors even if they are related or involved in the business [Paras 30-34].

Cheque Dishonor – Demand Notice – Discrepancy in Amount – The court rejected the appellant’s contention that demand notice claiming Rs. 62,000 (including interest) for a dishonored cheque of Rs. 60,000 was valid – Observed that the cheque liability must match the amount demanded under Section 138 – However, the core reason for acquittal remained the appellant’s failure to establish that the respondent was the drawer or proprietor [Paras 21, 38].

Misrepresentation – Proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. – Allegation that Respondent No.2 misrepresented himself as proprietor – Trial Court rightly dismissed application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. – High Court affirmed that no material supported claim that Respondent No.2 was the proprietor – Observed that evidence from the bank clearly identified Ms. Sarika Singh Kuchhawaha as proprietor – Held: Appellant’s failure to implead the correct person was fatal [Paras 12, 35-37].

Decision – Criminal Appeal Dismissed – Acquittal of Respondent No. 2 under Section 138 NI Act upheld – Appellant failed to establish the basic requirement of the drawer-proprietor relationship – Complaint suffered from fatal defects in impleadment of parties – No interference warranted in the trial court’s acquittal order dated 24.09.2011 [Paras 38-39].