Criminal Law – Cheque Bounce - Power of Attorney – Locus Standi and Knowledge of Transaction – Section 138 of NIA – Complaint Filed by Power of Attorney Holder – Not Maintainable - The complainant’s Power of Attorney Holder neither witnessed the transaction nor had sufficient knowledge of the facts as required under law – The Supreme Court mandates specific assertions about the POA holder’s knowledge in the complaint and evidence – Held: The complaint and evidence did not meet the legal threshold; hence, POA holder's testimony was insufficient [Paras 13-16, 25].

Legally Enforceable Debt – Presumption Not Rebutted – Insufficient Proof – Dishonour of Cheque – Complainant Failed to Prove Debt – No Documentary Evidence – The applicant failed to establish that the cheque was issued towards a legally enforceable debt – No agreement to sale or transaction document was produced – Held: In absence of such documents, presumption under Section 139 stands rebutted, and Section 138 is not attracted [Paras 17-23].

Rebuttal of Presumption – Standard of Proof – Preponderance of Probability – Accused Not Required to Prove Beyond Reasonable Doubt – Held: Accused can rebut presumption under Section 139 of NIA through cross-examination and circumstantial evidence – Burden discharged adequately [Paras 24-25].

Decision – Criminal Revision Dismissed – Acquittal Upheld – The Appellate Court’s finding that there was no legal and enforceable liability was correct – No illegality or perversity found in judgment – Revision dismissed as devoid of merit [Paras 25-26].

Copyright Infringement – Film piracy – Dynamic+ injunction – Websites restrained from illegally streaming Plaintiff’s film “Jolly LLB 3” – Domain registrars, ISPs, DoT and MeitY directed to block infringing domains – Strong interim relief granted considering imminent release [Paras 34–43].

Commercial Courts Act – Pre-institution Mediation – Section 12A – Exemption granted – Suit involving urgent interim relief falls within exception as per SC judgment in Yamini Manohar v. T.K.D. Krithi, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1382 [Para 8].

Copyright – Ad-interim Injunction – Plaintiff, exclusive owner of “Jolly LLB 3” rights, established prima facie case – Unauthorized dissemination through rogue websites would cause irreparable harm and undermine investment – Balance of convenience in Plaintiff’s favour – Ex-parte injunction granted restraining 24 infringing websites [Paras 34–40].

Dynamic+ Injunction – Application of precedent – Following Universal City Studios LLC v. Dotmovies.baby, 2023:DHC:5842, Court extended relief not only to present infringements but also to future rogue websites discovered during proceedings – Ensures real-time blocking without repeated court intervention [Paras 37–42].

Defendants – Directions to DNRs and ISPs – Domain registrars (Namecheap, Cloudflare, Dynadot, Tucows, etc.) ordered to suspend and furnish details of registrants of infringing domains – ISPs directed to block access – DoT and MeitY to notify all ISPs to enforce blocking – Mechanism created for Plaintiff to notify fresh infringing domains for immediate blocking [Paras 40(b)–(f)].

Procedural Directions – Plaintiff to continue filing affidavits disclosing newly discovered infringing domains/URLs – Any wrongly blocked website permitted to approach Court with undertaking – Compliance with Order 39 Rule 3 CPC mandated within two days [Paras 42–45].

Disposition – Ad-interim injunction granted against 24 infringing websites – Domain registrars, ISPs and government authorities directed to ensure compliance – Matter listed for further hearing on 20.01.2026 [Paras 40–46].

Taxation Law - Income Tax Act – Scope of Rectification under Section 254(2) – Subsequent Decision Not a Ground – The ITAT had originally allowed the assessee’s appeal, holding the amendment to Explanation 5 of Section 43B to be prospective – Revenue sought rectification based on subsequent Supreme Court ruling in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. – Held: The decision in Checkmate was rendered after the ITAT's original order and hence could not form the basis for rectification under Section 254(2) – There was no mistake apparent from the record at the time the ITAT passed its original order – The invocation of Section 254(2) in such context was held to be without jurisdiction [Paras 10–14, 24–26].

Judicial Discipline – Limited Scope of Review/Rectification – Section 254(2) is Akin to Order 47 Rule 1 CPC – The High Court reaffirmed that subsequent overruling of a precedent or change in legal interpretation does not permit review or rectification – Cited Supreme Court precedents in Reliance Telecom Ltd., Gracemac Corporation, and K.L. Rathi Steels – Held: Judicial review or rectification cannot be founded on developments in law occurring after the judgment sought to be reviewed [Paras 15–20].

Precedential Value – Distinction Between Binding Ratio and Contextual Facts – Cited principle that judgments are not to be read as statutes – The Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. case was distinguished on facts, as it dealt with non-consideration of an existing precedent at the time of decision – Checkmate being a subsequent decision does not retrospectively create an error in the original order [Paras 14.3–14.8, 21–22].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – ITAT’s order recalling its previous order and dismissing the assessee’s appeal was quashed – Revenue's rectification plea was held to be without legal basis – IT Appeal dismissed as infructuous [Paras 25–30].

Child Custody – Direction to Produce Child – Writ of Habeas Corpus – Contempt of Court Established – The respondent failed to comply with the High Court’s order dated 12.04.2019 in W.P. No. 47795 of 2018, which required her to produce the minor child before the Family Court at Tirupati – Held: Non-compliance constitutes willful disobedience – Subsequent developments and foreign court orders do not absolve the contemnor – Contempt established [Paras 21, 33-36, 41].

Foreign Court Orders vs Indian Court Directions – No Supersession of High Court Orders by U.S. Court Proceedings – Orders from Texas court obtained by the respondent were not barriers to compliance – Respondent willfully approached foreign courts to circumvent Indian judicial directions – Indian court’s directions remained valid and binding despite foreign judgments [Paras 14, 27-33, 36, 40].

Effect of Supreme Court Observations – No Bar to Enforcement of High Court Directions – Supreme Court’s observation in SLP (Crl.) No. 6436/2019 about non-requirement of child’s production was based on dismissal of FCOP – Once FCOP was restored and appeal allowed, the High Court’s order revived – Supreme Court’s later dismissal of Civil Appeal No. 6363/2022 confirmed High Court's direction [Paras 29-33].

Jurisdiction – Family Court at Tirupati Competent – Family Court at Tirupati had jurisdiction as the child was residing in India at the time of initial proceedings – Contention that only U.S. courts had jurisdiction rejected – Jurisdiction issue previously settled by Division Bench in FCA No. 172/2019 and affirmed by the Supreme Court [Paras 25, 30].

Welfare of the Child – Relevance in Enforcement Proceedings – Welfare of the child is a matter for the Family Court to decide upon production – Respondent cannot avoid compliance by invoking child’s welfare as defense against contempt – Production is procedural for custody determination, not final custody resolution [Paras 23-24].

Civil Contempt – Willful Disobedience – Consequences – Respondent’s actions amounted to deliberate defiance and breach of court order – Despite multiple opportunities and legal remedies, she chose to evade compliance – Held: Guilty of civil contempt under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 [Paras 38-41].

Judgment – Opportunity to Purge Contempt Given – Court granted respondent three months’ time to produce the child before the Family Court, Tirupati – Non-compliance would result in simple imprisonment for two weeks and fine of Rs. 2,000 – Further three days’ imprisonment upon failure to pay fine [Para 43].

Registration – Sub-Registrar’s Powers – Refusal Memo – Third-Party Objections – Sub-Registrar refused registration citing rival claim based on alleged prior unregistered agreement – Held: Registrar has no authority to adjudicate title disputes or act on police complaints/letters – Only grounds under Rule 162, Sections 22-A & 22-B are valid for refusal – Refusal beyond these grounds is without jurisdiction [Paras 6-9, 17-20].

Rule 162 & Limited Grounds – Refusal permissible only for defects in language, identification, appearance, execution denial, forged document, prohibited transactions, or attachments recognised by law – Objections like absence of patta, chitta, parent document, undervaluation, rival title, pending civil suits, police letters, mortgages, or leases not grounds for refusal [Paras 9-13, 17-19, 29-31].

Administrative Circulars – Sections 68 & 69 – Circulars requiring patta, FMB sketch, no objection from mortgagee/lessee, barring registration due to civil disputes or attachments – Held: unenforceable – Cannot override statute – Courts alone have interpretative power – Inspector General cannot expand grounds for refusal [Paras 13, 29-31].

Encumbrance & Attachment – Section 64 CPC – Private alienation post-attachment void only against enforceable claims, not void generally – Registrar must allow registration with endorsement to notify purchaser – Attachments for trivial sums cannot freeze alienability indefinitely [Paras 26-28].

Civil Disputes – Pendency of suits or rival title claims – Not bar to registration – Sub-Registrar’s enquiry is administrative/executive, not quasi-judicial – Execution/title disputes can only be adjudicated by civil courts [Paras 15-16, 20-23].

Mortgage & Lease – Existence of mortgage or lease not bar to further transfer – Subsequent transferee steps into shoes of mortgagor/lessor – Registrar cannot insist on mortgagee/lessee’s “No Objection” – Rule 55-A’s proviso struck down as ultra vires [Paras 29-31].

Supreme Court Precedents – Reconstruction Co. v. Velayutham (2022) 8 SCC 210 and Satya Pal Anand (2016) 10 SCC 767 – Registration function is executive, not quasi-judicial – Disputes over execution or title to be resolved in civil court, not by Sub-Registrar [Paras 14-16].

Decision – Refusal memo dated 02.09.2025 quashed – Respondent Sub-Registrar directed to register sale deed dated 25.08.2025 within two weeks – Writ petition allowed [Paras 8-9].

Criminal Law – Attempt to Murder – Section 307 IPC – Conviction Upheld – Accused stabbed PW2 in abdomen with knife after altercation regarding illicit liquor sale – Evidence of injured PW2 corroborated by wife (PW1), medical officers (PWs 3 & 4), and recovery of bloodstained knife (MO1) with matching blood group – Held: Injury and circumstances established intent/knowledge required under Section 307; conviction and sentence proper [Paras 9-14, 16-19, 26].

Evidence – Injured Witness – Higher Evidentiary Value – Testimony of PW2, injured victim, supported by PW1, consistent and reliable – Minor contradictions immaterial – Injured witness unlikely to falsely implicate and allows safe reliance; corroborated by scientific and medical evidence [Paras 15-16].

Criminal Law – Attempt to Murder – Intention vs. Result – Law Clarified – Citing precedents (State of M.P. v. Kashiram; State of Maharashtra v. Balram Bama Patil; R. Prakash v. State of Karnataka; Jage Ram v. State of Haryana; State of M.P. v. Kanha; State of M.P. v. Saleem) – Held: Section 307 does not require fatal injury; sufficient if act done with requisite intention/knowledge and overt act present [Paras 19-24].

Sentence – Seven Years’ Rigorous Imprisonment & Fine – Upheld considering seriousness of offence; no interference warranted [Paras 26-27].

Decision – Appeal by A1 Dismissed – Conviction and sentence confirmed; appeal abated qua A2 due to death; bail bond cancelled, A1 directed to surrender [Paras 2, 26-27].

Habeas Corpus – Missing Woman – Systemic Safeguards – Detenue untraced since Dec 2023 – Court reviews statutory provisions, government circulars, and judicial precedents – Held: FIR mandatory; proactive investigation within first 24 hours crucial; every missing woman/child case to be presumed trafficking/abduction unless proved otherwise – Petition disposed with comprehensive directions for systemic monitoring [Paras 2-7, 27-29].

Police Duties – Registration of Complaints – Police cannot refuse or delay registration of missing complaint; jurisdictional objections impermissible – FIR to be registered forthwith and forwarded to AHTU; DNA samples, recent photographs, forensic evidence, and wide publicity mandatory – Delay or refusal may invite disciplinary action [Paras 33A-C].

Committee Supervision – Court directs constitution of Committee comprising IGP, SP, and DySP – Committee to review cases pending over 2 months, oversee investigation, recommend change of IO if unsatisfactory – Reports to Registrar (Judicial) bi-annually until recovery or 7 years – State to notify and operationalize within stipulated time [Paras 23, 35-35.3].

Judicial Precedents – Supreme Court in Bachpan Bachao Andolan (2015), Hori Lal (2002), Pinki (2025); Karnataka HC in C. Shiva (2007), High Court Legal Services Committee (2018); Delhi HC in Vinod (2024), Lamboder Jha (2023) – Consistently mandated prompt FIRs, SOP compliance, victim-centric approach, inter-agency coordination, and task-force monitoring [Paras 17-22, 28-29].

State and Central Circulars – Karnataka Standing Orders and DGP circulars (1977–2020) and MHA Advisories (2005, 2012, 2013) integrated – JJ Act, 2015 and Rule 92 of Model Rules, 2016 codify mandatory enquiry and AHTU transfer if child not traced within 4 months – Court directs State to issue consolidated circular incorporating all prior SOPs, with disciplinary consequences for violations [Paras 26, 34].

Decision – Habeas corpus petition disposed of – Missing daughter not yet traced – Court institutionalizes framework: mandatory FIRs, forensic measures, technological tracking, publication, inter-agency cooperation, committee supervision, and compliance affidavits – Next compliance date fixed for 15.10.2025 [Paras 36-38].

Service Law – Pension Recovery – Excess Payment – Recovery Barred – Petitioner, a widow, subjected to deduction of family pension for alleged excess payment between 2008 and 2019 – No fraud, misrepresentation, or connivance on her part; excess caused by systemic lapse – Held: Recovery from retired employees or widows impermissible as per Supreme Court ruling in Rafiq Masih; recovery quashed [Paras 3, 5, 7-8].

Precedent – Applicability of Rafiq Masih – Excess Payment Recovery – Court reiterated five categories where recovery cannot be effected, including retired employees, payments beyond 5 years, and cases of undue hardship – Petitioner’s case squarely covered; recovery unjust and inequitable [Paras 5-6].

Decision – Petition Allowed – Respondents restrained from effecting further recovery from petitioner’s pension – Writ petition disposed of in favour of petitioner [Paras 7-8].

Criminal Law – Murder – Section 302 IPC – Conviction Set Aside – Appellant accused of killing his wife by pressing her mouth; conviction primarily based on testimony of child witness (PW2) and complainant – Evidence riddled with contradictions; complainant not present at incident; FIR delayed; inquest report and immediate family gave no suspicion of foul play; recovery of pillow unsupported by forensic evidence – Held: Prosecution failed to prove case beyond reasonable doubt; conviction unsustainable. Acquittal. [Paras 10-17, 25].

Child Witness – Evidentiary Value – PW2 aged about 10–11 years claimed to witness assault – Testimony inconsistent, improbable, and contradicted by medical and post-mortem evidence – Supreme Court precedents (Rai Sandeep alias Deepu v. State (NCT of Delhi); Digamber Vaishnav v. State of Chhattisgarh) cited—Held: Child witness testimony requires corroboration and must inspire confidence; in present case, it did not [Paras 14, 22-24].

Defence Witness – Daughter of Deceased – Reliable – Defence produced DW1 (14-year-old daughter) who testified appellant was away caring for grandmother on night of incident; supported good relations between parents; cross-examination did not shake testimony – Trial court failed to consider her evidence – Held: Her version credible, raising doubt in prosecution case [Paras 18, 25].

Investigation – Lapses – IO ignored initial report by deceased’s son-in-law describing sudden death without suspicion; failed to examine material witnesses; site plan inconsistencies – Held: Investigation deficient, undermining prosecution case [Paras 11, 19].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Judgment and order of conviction dated 27.09.2013 in S.T. No.19/2012 set aside; appellant acquitted of charge under Section 302 IPC [Paras 25-26].