Criminal Law – Quashing of Summoning Orders and Complaints – Criminal petitions filed against summoning orders of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate – Allegations of forgery and fabrication of trade mark registration certificates – Complaint filed under Sections 463, 464, 465, 469, 470, 471, 474, 475, 477-A of IPC – Held that the foundational facts for initiation of prosecution under Section 193 of IPC necessitate verifying the authenticity of the documents from the Trade Marks Registry – Complaint under Section 340 CrPC filed by the respondents concerning the same documents – Bar under Section 195(1)(b) of CrPC applied – Complaint and summoning orders quashed. [Paras 1-33]

Forgery – Prima Facie Case – Analysis – Held – The alleged forgery of trade mark registration certificates requires verification from the Trade Marks Registry – The Deputy Registrar admitted issuance of the certificate – No evidence of seals or signatures being forged – The alleged forgery was not established – Proceedings deemed improper. [Para 12-22]

Maintainability of Complaint – Section 195 CrPC – Bar Applied – Held – If the alleged forgery is central to an offense requiring a court complaint, splitting offenses is not permissible – Complaint under Section 340 CrPC already pending on the same facts – Maintaining a private complaint would lead to evasion of the statutory bar – Complaint and summoning orders quashed as impermissible under Section 195(1)(b) of CrPC. [Paras 23-30]

Decision – Quashing of Summoning Orders and Complaints – The Court quashed the summoning orders and complaints against the petitioners, holding that the bar under Section 195(1)(b) of CrPC applied – The continuation of proceedings against the petitioners was found to be an abuse of the process of law. [Paras 31-33]

Criminal Law – Appeal against denial of bail under Sections 120-B & 153-A IPC and Sections 17, 18, 18B, 20, 22, 38 & 39 of UAPA – High Court upheld denial of bail due to substantial evidence against the appellant, including involvement in PFI’s activities aimed at establishing Islamic Caliphate, radicalizing youths, and facilitating terrorist training – Appellant’s past association with SIMI and role in PFI’s National Executive Council corroborated involvement – Appeal dismissed based on prima facie evidence supporting charges under UAPA [Paras 1-113].

Evidence Evaluation – High Court found statements of protected witnesses and documentary evidence sufficient to establish prima facie case – Witnesses detailed appellant’s role in radicalizing and training for jihad, managing funds for terrorist activities, and making inflammatory speeches – Court emphasized necessity of considering totality of evidence without detailed evaluation at bail stage [Paras 60-92].

Medical Grounds – Appellant’s plea for bail on medical grounds due to Parkinson’s disease and other ailments rejected – Court noted previous directions ensuring appellant’s treatment in AIIMS with appropriate care – Lack of cooperation from appellant regarding medical treatment noted – Further medical review allowed if condition worsens [Paras 99-107].

Decision – Dismissal of Appeal – Held – Appeal against denial of bail dismissed – High Court confirmed prosecution’s case as prima facie true, found no violation of fundamental rights, and upheld trial court’s directions for medical care – Court directed trial to proceed without prejudice from observations in bail decision [Paras 108-114].

Criminal Procedure Code – Statutory Bail under Section 167(2) – Filing of Charge Sheet – Criminal revision petition against order rejecting statutory bail – Allegation of robbery at gunpoint – FIR registered and petitioner apprehended – Charge sheet filed electronically within 90 days but physically submitted after 90 days – Petitioner’s claim of right to statutory bail before physical submission – Court examines procedural compliance with e-filing rules and guidelines.

Statutory Right to Bail – E-Filing of Charge Sheet – Analysis – Held – E-filing recognized under guidelines and confirmed charge sheet filed electronically within statutory period – Physical submission delay immaterial if e-filing within period – Indefeasible right to bail extinguished once charge sheet e-filed within 90 days.

Decision – Dismissal of Bail Petition – Court finds electronic filing of charge sheet within statutory period suffices – Petitioner’s right to statutory bail ends with electronic filing – Petition dismissed.

International Taxation – Taxability of Guarantee Charges – Indo-UK DTAA – Income Accruing in India – The appeal involves the issue of whether the guarantee charges received by the appellant, a UK-based company, from its Indian subsidiaries for providing parental corporate guarantees to foreign banks can be taxed in India. The appellant contended that since the source of the guarantee is outside India, the charges should not be taxable in India under Article 12 of the DTAA. The Tribunal held that the charges were not in the nature of ‘interest’ under Article 12 but classified under ‘other income’ in Article 23 of the DTAA. The High Court upheld the Tribunal’s decision, finding that the guarantee charges accrued in India as they were directly tied to the loan transactions undertaken by the Indian subsidiaries. [Paras 1-39]

Interpretation of DTAA – Guarantee Charges Not ‘Interest’ – Article 12 and Article 23 of Indo-UK DTAA – The Tribunal correctly concluded that guarantee charges do not qualify as ‘interest’ under Article 12 of the DTAA. The charges were not linked to any debt claim or borrowing by the appellant from the Indian subsidiaries but were remuneration for providing assurance to foreign financial institutions for loans extended to Indian subsidiaries. [Para 20-24]

Accrual of Income – Section 5(2) of the Income Tax Act – Income Arising in India – The guarantee charges were held to have accrued in India as they were based on services utilized by the Indian subsidiaries, and the right to receive the income arose directly from the Intra Group Agreement. The income was characterized as having a regular periodic return derived from sources in India. [Para 25-34]

Decision: The appeals are dismissed. The guarantee charges are held to be taxable in India under Article 23 of the Indo-UK DTAA, and the question of their classification as ‘business income’ under Article 7 is kept open for future cases. [Para 38-39]

Medical Reimbursement – Ayushman Bharat Scheme – Respondent underwent heart surgery and incurred Rs.1,24,000 in expenses at petitioner hospital – Hospital charged respondent as no proof of insurance under Ayushman Bharat Scheme was provided – Post-treatment, respondent submitted requisite documents to District Collector for reimbursement, which was denied – Permanent Lok Adalat directed hospital to reimburse Rs.1,16,420 plus Rs.5000 costs – High Court upholds reimbursement order, quashing cost imposition [Paras 1-14].

Delayed Submission of Documents – Respondent’s family did not submit insurance proof during critical treatment – High Court finds this does not disqualify respondent from benefits under Ayushman Bharat Scheme – Proper documents submitted post-treatment entitles reimbursement – Hospital to seek reimbursement from State Government [Paras 6-13].

Decision – Writ Petition Disposed – Petitioner to reimburse Rs.1,16,420 to respondent within two weeks upon submission of insurance documents – Petitioner to seek reimbursement from State Government within eight weeks – Rs.5000 cost imposed by Lok Adalat quashed [Paras 12-14].
 

Criminal Law - Quashing of FIR - Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Criminal petition for quashment of FIR under Sections 377, 498-A, 294, 506 IPC - Allegations include unnatural sex, dowry demand, and harassment - Petitioner argues the allegations are false, motivated by matrimonial discord, and supported by insufficient evidence - Court analyzes the amended definitions of rape and considers marital exceptions - Held, offences under Sections 377, 294, and 506 IPC not made out due to lack of evidence and non-recognition of marital rape in the current legal framework - However, offence under Section 498-A IPC prima facie established due to specific allegations of dowry demand and harassment - Petition partly allowed. [Paras 1-22]

Legal Analysis - Offence under Section 377 IPC - Marital Rape - Analysis - Unnatural sex by husband with wife - Legal interpretation of Section 377 IPC vis-a-vis Section 375 IPC (rape) - Amended definition includes all unnatural acts as part of rape - Exception to marital rape under Section 375 IPC - Court reiterates non-recognition of marital rape - Offence under Section 377 IPC not applicable to husband-wife relationship - Prior judgments cited to support interpretation - FIR under Section 377 quashed. [Paras 8-15]

Offence under Sections 294 and 506 IPC - Absence of Evidence - Sections 294 and 506 IPC - Lack of prima facie evidence for obscene acts and threats - Omnibus and unsubstantiated allegations - FIR quashed for these offences. [Paras 16-17]

Offence under Section 498-A IPC - Dowry Demand and Harassment - Specific allegations and corroborating evidence - Prima facie offence under Section 498-A IPC made out - Petition dismissed concerning this offence. [Paras 18-19]

Decision - Quashing of FIR - Sections 377, 294, and 506 IPC - FIR and consequential proceedings quashed for lack of evidence - Section 498-A IPC - FIR upheld, petition dismissed in this respect - Clarification provided that observations are not binding on trial court merits. [Paras 20-22]

Criminal Law – Abetment of Suicide – Quashing of FIR - Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash FIR and charge-sheet for offences under Sections 306 and 34 IPC. FIR filed following husband’s suicide allegedly due to wife’s FIR under Sections 498-A, 406, 294, 506 IPC and Sections ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act. Held that lodging an FIR against in-laws for cruelty cannot be construed as abetment to suicide. Abetment requires a positive act of instigation or aid. No mens rea or direct act leading to suicide by applicants. FIR and charge-sheet quashed. [Paras 1-25]

Role of Accused in Abetment of Suicide – Analysis - mere lodging of FIR for cruelty without intent to incite suicide does not fulfill abetment criteria. Emphasized need for direct or proximate cause linking accused’s actions to suicide. [Paras 9-18]

Decision – Quashing of FIR and Charge-Sheet against Applicants - continuation of proceedings against applicants is misuse of legal process as allegations do not constitute abetment of suicide. Lodging of FIR by wife for cruelty within legal rights. Proceedings quashed as abuse of process with no evidence of abetment. [Paras 24-25]

Jurisdiction - Coram Non-Judice - Caste Certificate Cancellation: 

Proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner were deemed coram non-judice as he lacked the authority to review an order that was essentially an implementation of a superior officer’s directive. The Tahsildar's cancellation of the caste certificate was based on the Committee's decision, and the Assistant Commissioner, a subordinate officer, could not act as an appellate authority over such a decision. The appeal should have been made to the appropriate appellate authority as defined by the relevant legislation. [Paras 12-14]

Power of Tahsildar - Scope of Jurisdiction: 

The Court clarified that the Tahsildar's role under Section 4A of the Act is limited to issuing or rejecting caste certificates based on applications. The Tahsildar does not have the authority to cancel a caste certificate independently, especially when acting on the directives of the Caste Verification Committee. The correct appellate process involves appealing to higher authorities designated under the Act. [Paras 13-14]

Role of Committee - Caste Certificate for Election Purposes-The Caste Verification Committee’s jurisdiction extends to caste certificates used for election purposes, contrary to its earlier erroneous decision. The Supreme Court in Bharati Reddy v. State of Karnataka had established that such committees have the authority to review caste certificates issued for elections. The Committee's decision to dismiss the complaint on jurisdictional grounds was incorrect. [Para 15]

Decision:  The writ petition was allowed, and the proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner in MSC/CR/113/20-21 were annulled. The parties were given the liberty to pursue any remedies available under the law. The Court also left open all contentions not addressed in this decision. [Para 16]

Criminal Law – FIR Quashing – Sections 420, 120-B IPC – Alleged Evasion of Stamp Duty – Petitioners sold property recorded as residential land in revenue records – FIR alleged commercial land sold as residential to evade stamp duty – Petitioners contended liability to pay stamp duty rests on purchaser – Court found no misdescription by petitioners regarding land use – FIR quashed [Paras 2-29].

Mens Rea – Essential Element of Crime – Absence of Criminal Intent – No False Declaration – Petitioners did not misrepresent land use – Absence of mens rea for evading stamp duty – Investigating Agency’s action deemed misuse of authority [Paras 20-27].

Judicial Review – Scope under Article 226 – High Court's Interference – Criminal Proceedings – FIR found inherently improbable – Allegations insufficient to make out prima facie case – Investigation not warranted [Paras 9-11, 26-29].

Decision: FIR in Crime No.88/2022 registered by EOW, Bhopal quashed. Petition allowed.