Criminal Law – Quashing - Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120B of the IPC - Forgery Allegations – Absence of Material Linking Accused to Document Creation – Quashing Allowed – Petitioner accused of forging landlord’s signature on settlement letter to regain possession of shop post-eviction – Held: No prima facie material showing petitioner authored or procured forged letter – No evidence of link between petitioner and preparation of document – Offence under Sections 467/468/471 IPC not made out – Proceeding quashed qua petitioner [Paras 20-21, 24-25].

Parallel Civil Proceedings – Adjudication of Disputed Document – Criminal Case Prejudicial – Civil Suit Pending Regarding Tenancy and Letter Authenticity – Held: When genuineness of document is under civil court's consideration, criminal prosecution on same issue improper – FIR continuation would prejudice civil adjudication – Criminal case quashed following ratio in Rajeshbhai Patel and Chandanpal Singh [Paras 21-22].

Forgery – Use of Photocopy Not Enough – Primary Evidence Not Seized – No Expert Verification – Held: Prosecution relied on secondary evidence without seizing original or conducting signature comparison – Criminal forgery charges require stringent proof – Standards in criminal trial higher than civil – Penal provision cannot be invoked without statutory compliance [Paras 21, 24].

Civil Dispute Masquerading as Criminal Offence – Allegation of Malafide – Held: Petitioner paid dues as per alleged settlement and filed civil suit before criminal case lodged – Complaint filed one and a half years after failed attempt to vacate injunction – Indicates mala fide initiation to pressure petitioner – Abuse of process [Paras 6, 10, 22].

Multiple Complaints – Bar on Second FIR Not Attracted – Distinct Cause of Action – Earlier complaint related to trespass, current one to forgery – Held: Prior complaint under Section 156(3) CrPC not treated as FIR – Instant FIR based on different factual foundation – Not barred [Para 14].

Decision – Criminal Proceedings Quashed – No Prima Facie Evidence Against Petitioner – Criminal proceeding in GR Case No. 830 of 2020 quashed qua petitioner Kamala Devi Goyal – CRR 2730 of 2022 allowed – Connected applications also disposed [Paras 25-26].

Civil Writ – Constitutional Law - No Caste No Religion Certificate – Right under Article 25 – Rejection by Authorities – Set Aside – Appellant sought a certificate declaring that he and his family do not belong to any caste or religion – Writ Court rejected the plea citing lack of government authorization to Tahsildars – Held: Article 25 guarantees freedom of conscience and the right to profess, practice, or not follow any religion – The absence of specific rules or government orders cannot override this constitutional mandate – Revenue authorities are duty-bound to recognize and issue such certificates when sought voluntarily [Paras 5-8].

Issuance of Similar Certificates – Precedent Exist – Appellant placed on record earlier instances where similar “No Caste No Religion” certificates were issued by Tahsildars in Tirupathur, Coimbatore, and Ambattur – Held: State cannot adopt inconsistent positions when the same relief has already been granted in prior cases – The objection of the authorities is untenable and arbitrary [Para 7].

Promotion of Casteless Identity – A Constitutional Goal – Right to be Identified Without Caste or Religion – Upheld – Court observed that the appellant’s request promotes the constitutional objective of eradicating caste-based discrimination and is in line with the spirit of equality and secularism – Such initiatives are laudable and set a progressive example for the society [Para 9].

Government Obligation – Direction Issued – Held: Government of Tamil Nadu is directed to issue necessary Government Orders instructing Revenue Authorities to entertain applications seeking a “No Caste No Religion” certificate and to act on them positively – Existing legal vacuum cannot be used to deny the constitutional right of the citizens [Para 10].

Decision – Writ Appeal Allowed – Order of the Writ Court dated 22.01.2024 set aside – Direction issued to the District Collector and Tahsildar, Thirupathur District, to consider the appellant’s representations dated 25.09.2023 and 15.12.2023 and issue the requested certificate within one month – No costs [Para 11].

Criminal Law - Section 138 and Section 141 of the N.I. Act - Dishonour of Cheque – Vicarious Liability – Company Under Liquidation – Acquittal Upheld – Respondent was a director of the company which went into liquidation on 29.07.2013 – Cheque in question dated 28.10.2013 issued post-liquidation – Held: Complainant failed to establish that respondent was in charge of or responsible for the business at the time offence was committed – Mere designation insufficient without proof of role – Vicarious liability not attracted [Paras 13-18].

Evidence – Lack of Proof of Demand Notice – Mandatory Requirement Not Met – Complainant failed to prove service of demand notice under Section 138(b) NI Act – No demand notice exhibited or served on respondent – Held: Statutory condition precedent not satisfied – Criminal liability cannot be fastened in absence of compliance with essential legal requirement [Para 21].

Presumption of Innocence – Acquittal Strengthens Presumption – Appeal Fails to Dislodge – Trial court acquitted accused after detailed assessment – Appellate court emphasized enhanced threshold to overturn acquittal – Held: No compelling grounds shown to reverse acquittal – Presumption of innocence reinforced post-acquittal as per Mallappa case – Appeal dismissed [Para 22].

Director’s Liability – Specific Role Must Be Alleged and Proved – Liquidator Took Charge – Complainant alleged director was in charge of day-to-day affairs but provided no specific role post-liquidation – Held: Legal fiction under Section 141 NI Act not invoked without pleading and proof of active responsibility – Presence as director before liquidation insufficient [Paras 16-20].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – No Grounds to Interfere with Acquittal – Acquittal of respondent/accused no.4 upheld – Appellate court found no misapplication of law or error in appreciation of facts by trial court – CRA (SB) 91 of 2024 dismissed [Paras 23-24].

Arbitration Law - Arbitration Agreement – Prima Facie Existence – Appointment of Arbitrator – Arbitration Clause Survives Termination of Contract – Respondents objected to invocation of arbitration on the ground that the MoU and Agreement of Sale stood terminated by efflux of time – Held: The arbitration agreement is a separate contract and survives the termination of the principal contract – The effect of the Indemnity Bond and the claim of termination are issues to be decided by the arbitral tribunal and not at the Section 11 stage – Appointment of arbitrator ordered [Paras 14-16].

Insufficient Stamping – Objection Not Maintainable at Referral Stage – Respondents objected to enforceability of arbitration clause citing insufficient stamping – Held: Following the 7-Judge Bench decision in In Re: Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements and Stamp Act, the referral court under Section 11 cannot decide stamping objections – Such objections are to be dealt with by the arbitral tribunal – Objection rejected [Paras 13].

Interpretation of Arbitration Clause – Use of Word ‘May’ – Whether Mandatory or Directory – The arbitration clause in the Agreement of Sale used the word ‘may’ – Held: Where the intention to arbitrate is clear from reading the MoU and the Agreement of Sale together, use of ‘may’ does not dilute the enforceability of the arbitration clause – MoU contains a clear binding arbitration clause – Both agreements are interconnected and form part of the same transaction – Arbitration clause held valid and binding [Paras 17-18].

Scope of Court’s Power Under Section 11 – Referral Court’s Role Limited – Courts at Section 11 stage cannot decide on the merits of termination, novation, or arbitrability of disputes – The court’s role is limited to examining whether a prima facie arbitration agreement exists – Issues such as termination of contract, effect of the indemnity bond, and whether disputes are arbitrable fall within the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal [Paras 15-16].

Decision – Arbitration Application Allowed – Justice V.V.S. Rao (Retd.) appointed as sole arbitrator – Parties are at liberty to raise all issues including termination, stamping, and arbitrability before the arbitral tribunal – Miscellaneous applications stand closed [Para 20].

Arbitration and Land Acquisition – Solatium under Section 23(2) of Acquisition Act – Scope of Section 37 of Arbitration Act – Appeals Dismissed – Petitioners sought inclusion of solatium in compensation for land acquired under the Highways Act – Held: Though solatium is statutorily payable after the striking down of Section 3J in Tarsem Singh, neither the arbitral award nor the Section 34 judgment could be modified to include solatium – Jurisdiction under Section 37 does not permit modification of arbitral awards – Court upheld the impugned judgment dismissing the challenge under Section 34 [Paras 6–8, 27–34, 37].

Jurisdictional Limits – Section 34 and Section 37 of Arbitration Act – No Power to Modify Arbitral Award – Legal Framework Reaffirmed – Arbitral award passed when Section 3J was in force did not consider solatium – Held: Courts under Section 34 or Section 37 cannot modify arbitral awards to grant statutory entitlements not forming part of the original award – Reliance placed on M. Hakeem, Rishabhkumar, and Gayatri Balasamy – Petitioners directed to pursue other legal remedies for enforcement of solatium [Paras 20–28, 32–34, 37].

Constitutional Law – Striking Down of Section 3J of Highways Act – Consequence on Pending Arbitration Awards – No Retrospective Rectification by Section 37 Court – Though Tarsem Singh declared Section 3J unconstitutional and confirmed entitlement to solatium for acquisitions between 1997 and 2015, Court held that awards passed before the ruling cannot be retrospectively modified in proceedings under Section 37 – Petitioners' entitlement remains intact, but cannot be granted in current jurisdiction [Paras 14–16, 30–31, 37].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Impugned judgment under Section 34 upheld – Arbitral awards not interfered with – Petitioners’ entitlement to solatium recognized but must be pursued through appropriate legal remedies – No order as to costs [Paras 37–38].

Criminal Writ - Illegal Arrest – Grounds of Arrest Not Effectively Communicated – Violation of Article 22(1) – Petitioner alleged that accused was arrested without proper intimation of arrest grounds to relatives and in violation of constitutional rights – Held: Arrest must comply with Article 22(1), and grounds must be meaningfully conveyed – However, in present case, remedy lies via habeas corpus, not under Articles 226/227 – Writ not maintainable [Paras 1, 14, 21].

Habeas Corpus vs. Mandamus/Certiorari – Judicial Remand Order Bars Writ Relief – Detention pursuant to Magistrate’s remand order cannot be challenged through writs of mandamus or certiorari – Proper procedure is habeas corpus, to be filed before Division Bench – Single Bench cannot issue such relief under writ jurisdiction in the facts presented [Paras 14, 20-21].

Custodial Torture Allegations – Show Cause Against Investigating Officer – Petitioner’s plea for action against IO on grounds of custodial assault rejected – Court emphasized available remedies through appropriate forums rather than constitutional writ for such claims [Para 1, 21].

Constitutional Safeguards – Grounds of Arrest Must Be Specific, Not Formal – Reiterated that ‘grounds’ are distinct from generic ‘reasons for arrest’ – Cited landmark rulings affirming need for specific, comprehensible, and written communication – However, current case lacks sufficient cause for interference under writ jurisdiction [Paras 15-17, 21].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed as Not Maintainable – Petitioner directed to approach appropriate forum for habeas corpus – Writ Court declined relief under Articles 226/227 in light of existing judicial remand and absence of manifest illegality [Para 21].

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIRs - Multiple FIRs – Separate Incidents at Different Locations – Quashment Denied – Petitioner sought to quash FIR in Guruvayoor crime alleging abuse of process due to multiple FIRs – Held: FIRs concern distinct offences at different times and places – Each incident constitutes a separate and independent transaction – No violation of Article 20(2) or double jeopardy principles [Paras 4-7].

Jurisdictional Separation – Guruvayoor and Thiruvananthapuram Offences Independent – FIRs Not Interchangeable – Held: FIR and final report from Thiruvananthapuram did not cover Guruvayoor incident – Charge framing for Guruvayoor offence not shown – Separate investigation and trial warranted [Paras 5-6].

Misuse of Process – No Prima Facie Case of Abuse – Petitioner failed to produce charge documents to show overlap in trial – Court found no legal infirmity or duplication in parallel FIRs – Dismissal of Section 482 petition justified [Paras 6-8].

Directions Issued – Clarity in Trial Scope – Trial Court to Limit Charges – Directed Nedumangad Special Court to confine trial to Thiruvananthapuram incident – Any overlap with Guruvayoor incident to be rectified via alteration of charge [Para 8].

Decision – Petition Dismissed – Section 482 CrPC Invocation Unmerited – No bar on Guruvayoor FIR proceeding – Liberty given to ensure distinct prosecution and avoid prejudice to accused [Paras 8-9].

Anticipatory Bail – Alleged Caste-Based Assault – Sections 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of the SC & ST Act - Prima Facie Offence Under SC/ST Act Not Attracted – Appeal Allowed – Appellant accused of attacking de facto complainant and using caste-based slur – Held: Allegations serious, but no prior criminal record – Prima facie ingredients of SC/ST Act offences not clearly made out – Anticipatory bail granted with strict conditions [Paras 1-6].

Recovery Pending – Deemed Custody Protection – Not a Bar to Bail – Prosecution objected to bail citing incomplete recovery – Held: Appellant to be deemed in custody for recovery purposes – Bail not denied solely on this basis [Paras 6-7].

Conditional Bail – Safeguards Imposed – Court imposed standard bail conditions including bond, cooperation with investigation, non-tampering of evidence, and restraint from further offences – Explicit caution of cancellation on breach of conditions [Paras 7-8].

No Criminal Antecedents – Favourable Consideration – Appellant’s clean record considered as mitigating factor – Court inclined to extend benefit of anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC [Para 6].

Decision – Anticipatory Bail Granted – Trial Court Order Set Aside – Special Court’s rejection order dated 25/03/2025 quashed – Criminal appeal disposed of with directions and safeguards [Para 7].

Civil Law - Court Fees – Partition Suit – Article 17(vi) vs. Section 7(iv)(b) of the Court Fees Act – Fixed Court Fee Payable – Defendant no.2 sought rejection of plaint arguing plaintiff was not in possession and must pay ad valorem court fee – Plaintiff, as Class II heir, pleaded constructive possession and cited tenancy in one of the properties – Held: Plaintiff deemed in constructive possession in law – No averment of ouster – Fixed court fee under Article 17(vi) applicable – Application rejected [Paras 1, 5-7, 13, 21-27, 31-37].

Constructive Possession – Co-ownership in Partition Suit – Presumption in Law – Plaintiff being Class II heir claimed 50% share in estate of deceased brother – Some properties were tenanted and under interim court custody – Held: Law presumes joint possession among co-owners unless ouster is pleaded – Plaintiff successfully averred constructive possession – Ad valorem court fee not attracted [Paras 20-26, 31-34].

Delay in Objection – Application after Three Years – Not Fatal but Considered – Application filed three years after defendants' appearance – Held: While delay alone is not conclusive, timing reflects lack of merit – Application under Order VII Rule 11(c) held to be misconceived [Paras 10, 23].

Distinction from Cited Precedents – Ramesh Kumar Bhagchandka and Om Prakash Arora – Not Applicable – Plaintiff in present case is legal heir with pleaded constructive possession – In contrast, cited precedents involved either admission of ouster or absence of co-ownership – Held: Precedents not applicable to facts of present case [Paras 16, 35].

Decision – Application Dismissed – Fixed Court Fee Found Proper – Plaintiff not required to pay ad valorem court fee – No averment of ouster – Constructive possession deemed in law – Application under Order VII Rule 11(c) dismissed [Paras 33-37].