Criminal Law - Human Trafficking – Sections 366, 366B, 370, 370A(2) IPC – Conviction Upheld – Victim alleged that she was brought from Bangladesh by Sumi, handed over to Subir Jana, and later to Surya Pradhan in Bhubaneswar where she was forced into prostitution – Victim identified both appellants in Test Identification Parade and in court – Medical report corroborated repeated sexual assault – Held: Victim’s testimony consistent, reliable, and trustworthy – Conviction sustained [Paras 14, 17, 19, 27-28].

Victim’s Sole Testimony – Corroboration Not Mandatory – Courts observed that the testimony of a prosecutrix in sexual offences can be the sole basis of conviction if it inspires confidence – Minor discrepancies in statements under Section 164 CrPC do not undermine substantive evidence – Reliance placed on Gurmeet Singh (1996), Rajinder @ Raju (2009), Manga Singh (2019), Vinod Kumar Garg (2020) – Held: Victim’s account trustworthy; corroboration not required [Paras 20, 22, 24-26].

Test Identification Parade – Validity – Defence argued that presence of police vitiated TIP and identification doubtful – Held: TIP conducted by Magistrate following due procedure; 30 under-trials of similar height, build and complexion included – No evidence that police influenced victim – Report reliable; identification corroborates victim’s testimony – Delay in holding TIP not fatal [Paras 15, 26-27].

Contradictions and Omissions – Not Material – Defence highlighted inconsistencies between FIR, Section 164 statement, and trial testimony – Court held that contradictions not material and did not affect core allegations – Statement before Magistrate corroborated gist of victim’s testimony – Cross-examination failed to discredit victim – Held: Minor contradictions natural due to lapse of time, do not weaken prosecution case [Paras 14, 17-18, 22].

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 366, 366B, 370, 370A(2), and 120B IPC affirmed – Both appellants to continue serving sentence [Paras 27-28].

Murder Trial – Circumstantial Evidence – Conviction Upheld – Appellant charged with murder of deceased on pretext of repaying loan of ₹10,000 – Prosecution proved circumstances: last seen together, appellant returning alone in blood-stained clothes, extrajudicial confession, recovery of weapon at his instance, seizure of deceased’s articles, medical and forensic corroboration – Chain of evidence complete and consistent with guilt of accused – Conviction under Sections 302 and 201 IPC sustained [Paras 9-19].

Homicidal Death – Medical Evidence – Post-mortem established cut-throat injury by sharp weapon sufficient in ordinary course to cause death – Burns were post-offence attempt to destroy identity – Finding of homicidal death affirmed [Para 10].

Motive – Loan of ₹10,000 – Evidence of deceased’s sister and father proved loan taken by appellant for his sister’s marriage – Though absence of documentary proof, oral testimony found credible – Motive sufficiently established [Para 11].

Last Seen Theory – Section 106 Evidence Act – Deceased last seen with appellant around noon, appellant returned alone shortly after with blood-stained clothes – Burden on accused to explain circumstances – No explanation offered – Last seen theory accepted as strong incriminating circumstance [Paras 12-14].

Extrajudicial Confession – Admissibility – Appellant voluntarily confessed before neutral witnesses when confronted – Not made under inducement, threat, or coercion – Corroborated by recovery and medical evidence – Reliance justified [Para 15].

Recovery under Section 27 Evidence Act – Knife recovered from ashes at instance of appellant – Chemical examination confirmed presence of human blood – Seizure of deceased’s mobile, voter ID, and purse from appellant further corroborated – Admissible discovery evidence strengthens prosecution case [Para 16-17].

Injuries on Accused – Medical report proved incised injuries on appellant’s hands consistent with struggle by deceased – Accused failed to explain injuries – Circumstance adds to chain of guilt [Para 18].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 302 and 201 IPC affirmed – Life imprisonment and fine upheld – Chain of circumstances formed complete and unbroken proof of guilt [Para 19].

Section 528 BNSS - Right to Travel Abroad – Article 21 of Constitution – Permission to Study Overseas Granted – The petitioner, a 21-year-old student, sought permission to go abroad for higher studies in Germany but was denied by the trial court on apprehension of absconding – Held: Right to travel abroad is an integral facet of personal liberty under Article 21 – Courts can secure presence of accused by imposing stringent conditions such as heavy surety and undertakings – Trial Court erred in denying permission solely on apprehension – Order set aside – Petition allowed subject to conditions [Paras 8-17].

Bail Conditions and Judicial Discretion – Accused on Bail – Future Prospects – The petitioner was already on bail in connection with offences under IPC and SC/ST Act – Court held that denial of study opportunities would be detrimental to his reformation and career prospects – Liberty to impose strict conditions to ensure trial participation – Petition accepted [Paras 3-4, 13-17].

Decision: Impugned order dated 13.08.2024 set aside – Petitioner permitted to go abroad for studies subject to stringent conditions, including heavy surety and undertaking to not object to trial proceedings in absence – Petition allowed [Paras 16-18].

Suspension of Sentence – Section 389 CrPC – Convict for Possession of Counterfeit Currency – Relief Denied – Petitioner convicted under Sections 489-B and 489-C IPC for recovery of ₹31,27,500/- counterfeit currency notes – Application under Section 389(1) CrPC seeking bail pending appeal rejected – Revision filed challenging rejection – Held: Mere allegation of procedural lapses, non-examination of forensic expert, and lack of independent corroboration cannot justify suspension of sentence – Evidence including seizure, recovery, and forensic report prima facie established guilt – Presumption of innocence no longer available post-conviction – Suspension of sentence not warranted [Paras 16-21].

Procedural Lapses – Alleged Defects in Seizure and Resending of Exhibits – Court held that such issues fall within appellate jurisdiction and cannot be examined in detail at revision stage – Alleged irregularities regarding sealing, forwarding, and forensic examination not grounds for bail under Section 389 CrPC – To be adjudicated in appeal on merits [Paras 17-20].

Right to Appeal – Custody Since 2023 – Article 21 – Prolonged detention argued as ground for bail – Court reiterated principle in Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai that appeals should be disposed of expeditiously to avoid futility – Directed Appellate Court to conclude appeal within one month – Rejection of suspension of sentence affirmed [Paras 21-24].

Decision – Criminal Revision Dismissed – Impugned order of Additional Sessions Judge, Titilagarh, refusing suspension of sentence affirmed – Appeal to be disposed of on merits expeditiously without being influenced by present observations [Para 24].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Dishonour of Cheque – Section 138 NI Act – Conviction and Sentence – Compounded by Settlement – Petitioner convicted under Section 138 NI Act for dishonour of cheque of Rs.17 lakhs and sentenced to six months’ imprisonment with Rs.2 lakhs compensation – Appellate Court enhanced compensation to Rs.5 lakhs – During pendency of revisions, parties entered into compromise deed dated 26.05.2025, later formalised before Mediation and Conciliation Centre – Settlement terms included full satisfaction of complainant’s claim, no objection to quashing of conviction, and refund of Rs.5 lakhs deposited with Registrar General – Held: In view of the settlement, conviction and sentence rendered inoperative; offence compounded – CRR-2090-2022 and CRR-2061-2022 allowed [Paras 2-7, 13-15].

Criminal Procedure – Power of High Court – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Compounding of Non-compoundable Offences – Principle – Court reiterated that under Section 482 Cr.P.C., High Court has wide inherent powers to quash proceedings to secure ends of justice notwithstanding bar under Section 320 Cr.P.C. – Cited Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466; Ramgopal v. State of Madhya Pradesh 2021 SCC OnLine SC 834 – Compromise upheld as the “finest hour of justice” when parties resolve dispute amicably – Application of these principles to cheque dishonour case justified compounding of offence [Paras 28-33].

Compromise – Effect on Connected Revisions – CRR-2663-2022 filed by complainant seeking further enhancement of compensation – In view of compromise and quashing of conviction, complainant sought withdrawal – Petition dismissed as withdrawn [Para 16].

Refund of Deposited Amount – Rs.5 lakhs deposited before Registrar General pursuant to earlier court order – Since petitioner paid Rs.5 lakhs directly to complainant as per settlement, amount with Registrar General directed to be refunded to petitioner – Application disposed accordingly [Para 18].

Specific Relief Act  - Agreement to Sell – Claim of Earnest Money by Stranger – Concurrent Findings Against Plaintiff – Dismissal Upheld – Appellant claimed to have paid ₹46,85,625/- as earnest money and to have inserted respondent no.1’s name in agreement dated 14.10.2011 in good faith – Both Trial and First Appellate Courts held that agreement (Ex.P1) showed respondent no.1 as buyer and no evidence supported appellant’s plea – Bank records proved earnest money was paid by respondent no.1 from funds withdrawn from his and his wife’s accounts – Held: No cogent evidence by appellant; concurrent findings sustained [Paras 2–9].

Scope of Second Appeal – Section 100 CPC – No Substantial Question of Law – Appeal Dismissed – Findings of fact by both courts below that appellant was never part of transaction and consideration flowed from respondent no.1 – High Court found no substantial question of law arising – Appeal dismissed as devoid of merit [Paras 9–10].

Final Decision – Writ for Declaration/Recovery – Relief Denied – In absence of proof of involvement or payment by appellant, suit rightly dismissed; second appeal also dismissed – Pending applications disposed of [Para 10].

Agreement to Sell – Suit for Mandatory Injunction Instead of Specific Performance – Maintainability – Appeal Dismissed – Appellant relied on agreement to sell dated 24.12.2008 (Ex.P1) and claimed to have paid ₹24,00,000/- – Both Courts below found suit misconceived since relief ought to have been one for specific performance, not mandatory injunction – Further, appellant himself was attesting witness to sale deed dated 22.04.2009 in favour of respondents 3 & 4, which was never challenged – Agreement to sell not proved; no evidence beyond appellant’s self-serving statement – Held: Suit rightly dismissed as not maintainable [Paras 2–8].

Fraud and Coercion Allegations – Evidentiary Deficiency – No Relief – Appellant alleged coercion, threats, forced signatures, and FIRs – However, Courts found absence of corroborative evidence and noted contradictions including attestation of rival sale deed by appellant – Hence, plea of fraud rejected [Paras 2–8].

Second Appeal – Section 100 CPC – No Substantial Question of Law – Outcome: Appeal Dismissed – High Court held that concurrent findings based on evidence raised no substantial question of law – Second appeal dismissed as meritless [Paras 8–9].

Final Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Pending applications also disposed of – No relief granted to appellant [Para 9].

Criminal Revision Against Rejection Of Discharge Plea - Loan Fraud – Advocate’s Attestation of False Declaration – Prima Facie Conspiracy Established – Revision Dismissed – Accused lawyer (A8) attested affidavit declaring impersonator (A5) as personally known to him, enabling fraudulent sanction of ₹44 lakh loan – Held: Unlike erroneous legal opinion (as in CBI v. K. Narayana Rao, (2012) 9 SCC 512), false certification of identity directly facilitated impersonation and cheating – Attestation cannot be brushed aside as innocuous; prima facie complicity made out – Discharge rightly refused [Paras 5–11].

Scope of Discharge – Standard at Pre-trial Stage – Whether Advocate Acted Innocently is Matter of Trial – Court observed that whether attestation was done inadvertently or knowingly is an issue of evidence – At discharge stage, court cannot conclude innocence; sufficient material exists for framing charge [Paras 7–11].

Parity with Discharge of Co-Accused – Not Applicable – Though Special Court discharged A1, reasons not automatically extendable to A8 – Allegations differ; specific charge of false attestation against A8 stands on distinct footing [Para 9].

Final Decision – Revision Petition Dismissed – Interim stay vacated – Trial to proceed uninfluenced by observations herein [Paras 12–13].

Criminal Law - Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Civil Dispute Cloaked as Criminal Offence – Sections 406, 420 IPC – Quashment Allowed – Petitioners (OYO and its Directors) challenged proceedings initiated by the complainant alleging cheating, breach of trust and conspiracy regarding hotel management agreements – The dispute pertained to contractual breaches, revenue sharing, and claims already referred to arbitration and IBC proceedings – Held: No entrustment of property or dishonest inducement at inception – Essential ingredients of Sections 406 and 420 IPC absent – Criminal law cannot be invoked to settle civil scores – Continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process – Proceedings quashed [Paras 7-11, 13-19].

Abuse of Process – Invocation of Criminal Law in Contractual Disputes – Section 482 CrPC – Petitioners contended that multiple similar complaints had already been quashed by coordinate benches; complainant cleverly drafted complaint to give colour of criminality – Court held that criminal process cannot be used as a cudgel for recovery of money or arm-twisting in commercial disputes – Reliance placed on Paramjeet Batra, Sarabjit Kaur, Naresh Kumar, Manish, Rikhab Birani, and S.N. Vijayalakshmi – Complaint held to be mala fide and vexatious [Paras 12-16].

Civil and Criminal Proceedings – Simultaneous Remedies – While in law civil and criminal proceedings may coexist, such coexistence requires a demonstrable element of criminality – In the present case, substratum of dispute was purely civil – Invocation of criminal law deprecated – Reliance on Punit Beriwala distinguished as facts revealed fraudulent intent at inception in that case, unlike present matter [Paras 17-18]

Decision – Criminal Petition Allowed – Proceedings in C.C.No.10486/2023 before IV ACMM, Bengaluru quashed – Clarified that observations confined to exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC and shall not influence other proceedings [Para 20].