Criminal Law - Forgery and Cheating - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Sections 420 467 468 and 471 - Quashing of chargesheet - Applicant was named as guarantor for a bank loan of Rs 10 lakhs sought by his parents - Allegations that loan application was based on forged documents of land belonging to persons deceased since 1990 - Investigation revealed co-accused Vikram Asthana produced a forged power of attorney - Applicant and parents entered agreement to sell and paid advance money in bona fide belief - Bank advocate certified the title documents as genuine - No evidence of applicant signing forged family settlement or participating in fabrication of documents - No loan disbursed by the bank - Court found applicant and parents were befooled by Asthana - Held - Continuation of criminal proceedings would be an abuse of process of law - Chargesheet against applicant quashed - [Paras 1-40].

Criminal Law - Ingredients of Forgery - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Sections 463 464 467 and 468 - Definition of making a false document - Reliance on Sheila Sebastian vs R Jawaharaj - A person is said to make a false document only if he is the maker of the same or causes it to be made - Forgery cannot lie against a person who has not created or signed the document - Maker of document is distinct from person causing it to be made - Held - Charge of forgery cannot be imposed on a person who is not the maker of the instrument - [Paras 29-33].

Criminal Law - Cheating - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Section 420 - Mens rea - Dishonest intention must exist from inception of the transaction - Deception and fraudulent inducement to deliver property are essential components - Applicant and parents were themselves deceived by co-accused - No evidence of dishonest intent to defraud the bank - Held - Offence of cheating not made out against the applicant - [Paras 31-36].

Criminal Law - Inherent Powers - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 482 - Abuse of process of law - Criminal proceedings pending for nearly 19 years - Allegations even if taken at face value do not constitute an offence against the applicant - Chances of ultimate conviction are bleak - Held - Court must ensure criminal prosecution is not used as an instrument of harassment - Application allowed - [Paras 30-40].

Decision: Application allowed – Chargesheet and all incidental proceedings against Ritesh Jaiswal are quashed – Trial directed to proceed against remaining accused – Liberty granted to co-accused Smt. Aarti Jaiswal to move discharge application.

Criminal Law - Anticipatory Bail - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 - Section 482 - Maintainability against Proclaimed Offender - Applicant sought pre-arrest bail in a case involving Section 108 BNS regarding the suicide of a victim after a physical relationship on false promise of marriage - Applicant previously filed a writ petition for quashing FIR which was dismissed with a direction to apply for bail - Applicant failed to appear before the trial court - Proceedings under Section 82 CrPC initiated - Applicant subsequently obtained an order setting aside Section 82 notice upon assurance of cooperation - Police report indicated subsequent non-cooperation and failure to record statement - Court examined whether a proclaimed offender or absconder is entitled to discretionary relief - Held - As per settled law of the Apex Court in Lavesh vs State and Srikant Upadhyay vs State an accused who is absconding or concealing himself to avoid execution of warrant and is declared a proclaimed offender is not entitled to the extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail - Application rejected - [Paras 1-22].

Criminal Law - Proclaimed Offender - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 82 - Effect on Pre-arrest Bail - Ratio Decidendi - The power to grant anticipatory bail is an extraordinary power and must be exercised sparingly and with caution - When an accused willfully defaults by not cooperating with the investigation and defies court orders leading to the initiation of proclamation proceedings under Section 82 CrPC his claim for anticipatory bail under the roof of a rare and exceptional case is denuded - Judicial discretion for pre-arrest bail is not a matter of rule and cannot be granted to those continuously defying orders and remaining out of reach of investigating agencies - Held - The applicant being a willful defaulter is not entitled to any relief from the Court - [Paras 12-21].

Decision: Anticipatory bail application rejected – The Court declared the application not maintainable due to the conduct of the applicant as an absconder and a willful defaulter.

Civil Law - Recovery of Possession - Specific Relief Act 1963 - Section 6 - Presidency Small Causes Courts Act 1882 - Section 41 - Appeal against order returning plaint under Order VII Rule 10 CPC for presentation before Small Causes Court - Appellant inducted as licensee was allegedly dispossessed forcibly and instituted suit within six months seeking restoration of possession under Section 6 of Specific Relief Act - Trial Court held that Small Causes Court had exclusive jurisdiction as dispute was between licensor and licensee relating to recovery of possession - High Court reversed findings noting that inquiry under Section 6 is strictly limited to prior possession and dispossession otherwise than in due course of law - Question of title or jural relationship is irrelevant in a summary possessory suit - Foundation of instant suit was alleged unlawful dispossession and not enforcement of contractual rights flowing from leave and license agreements - Trial Court erred in proceeding solely on existence of licensor licensee relationship while ignoring true nature of cause of action and reliefs claimed - Held - Suit as framed is maintainable before City Civil Court and is not barred by Section 41 of Presidency Small Causes Courts Act - Impugned order set aside and suit restored to file - [Paras 33-48, 55-56].

Civil Law - Rejection of Plaint - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order VII Rule 11 - Order VII Rule 10 - Respondents preferred Cross Objections contending that Trial Court having found suit barred by jurisdiction ought to have rejected plaint instead of returning it - High Court held that once City Civil Court is found to possess jurisdiction to entertain suit as framed the question of rejection under Order VII Rule 11 does not arise - Bar of law applies only where statements contained in plaint itself demonstrate such bar - No such statutory bar made out - Held - Cross Objections dismissed - [Paras 49-51, 56].

Decision: Appeal allowed - Impugned order dated 31/08/2024 returning the plaint set aside - Suit restored to the file of the City Civil Court at Mumbai - Cross Objections seeking rejection of the plaint dismissed - Ad-interim protection directed to continue for six weeks.

Family Law - Return of Property - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 3 - Matrimonial Appeal against Family Court judgment directing return of 80 sovereigns of gold and Rs 500000 and marriage expenses - Appellant husband challenged findings on entrustment and expenditure - High Court evaluated evidence on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities - Finding regarding Rs 500000 confirmed based on oral testimony of witnesses and documentary evidence of source of funds - Regarding gold ornaments Family Court awarded 80 sovereigns based on marriage register entries - High Court found evidence of entrustment only for 242.9 grams pledged by husband shortly after marriage - Contention that pledged gold belonged to sister rejected due to timing and lack of specifics - Entrustment for remaining gold not proved through material facts - Claim for marriage expenses set aside - Held - Liability to refund marriage expenses is unjustified where marriage is valid and expenses are voluntary - Entitlement to gold limited to 30 sovereigns - Appeal partly allowed - [Paras 1-18].

Evidence Law - Standard of Proof - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 3 - Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023 - Preponderance of probabilities in matrimonial disputes - Initial burden of proof on claimant to show entrustment of gold or money through material facts - Burden shifts to husband only upon discharge of initial burden - Court cannot rely on speculative inferences or assumptions of general practices or customs - Judicial notice of changing social realities where educated women retain control over property - Held - Findings must rest on robust common sense and evidence rather than trained intuition or conjecture - [Paras 7-10].

Family Law - Marriage Expenses - Recovery - Claim for refund of expenses incurred for engagement and wedding - Family Court awarded expenses citing divorce on ground of cruelty - High Court found no legal basis for refund where marriage was not null or void - Expenses are common to both parties and levels of extravaganza are personal choices - Held - Saddling the husband family with liability to refund expenses incurred by wife family is unjustified - [Para 17].

Decision: Matrimonial Appeal is partly allowed – Impugned judgment set aside to the extent of marriage expenses and gold quantity – Appellants directed to return Rs 5,00,000 with 6 percent interest and 30 sovereigns of gold or its market value to the respondent.

Criminal Law - Dowry Death - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Sections 304-B and 498-A - Appellant-husband convicted for causing death of wife within nine months of marriage by burning - Prosecution alleged demand for scooter and cash - High Court found that the allegations of dowry demand by PW-1 and PW-2 were general and vague without specific instances of cruelty - Letter written by deceased (Ext Ka-1) three months prior to death mentioned husband's frequent stays with sister-in-law but contained no mention of dowry demands or harassment - Incident occurred on 29.02.1988 while the last reported harassment was in October 1987 - Appellant sustained 15 percent burn injuries while attempting to save the deceased and admitted her to the hospital - Conduct of the appellant was found inconsistent with the prosecution story - Held - Prosecution failed to prove the nexus between dowry demand and death - Conviction set aside - Appeal allowed - [Paras 1-61].

Evidence Law - Statutory Presumption - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 113-B - Burden of Proof - Mandatory requirements for attracting presumption of dowry death - Prosecution must establish that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with dowry demand "soon before her death" - The phrase entails a proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty and the consequential death - Evidence showed a gap of four months between the last alleged harassment and the death without intervening complaints - Initial burden to prove dowry-related cruelty not discharged by prosecution - Held - Presumption under Section 113-B cannot be invoked where the demand of dowry is remote in time and not proved beyond reasonable doubt - [Paras 35-45].

Criminal Law - Trial Procedure - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 222 - Conviction for graver offence - Distinction between Section 302 and Section 304-B IPC - Deceased's dying declaration alleged she was set on fire by the husband and in-laws - Investigating Officer filed charge-sheet only under Section 304-B and trial court failed to frame alternative charge under Section 302 - Section 304-B is not a minor offence relative to Section 302 as their compositions are vastly different - Court cannot convict an accused for a graver offence for which no charge was framed and no opportunity was given during Section 313 CrPC examination - Held - Appellate Court cannot remand the matter for re-trial after 38 years due to failure of trial court to frame appropriate charges - [Paras 53-60].

Decision: Appeal allowed - Conviction and sentence under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC set aside - Appellant acquitted of all charges - Bail bonds cancelled.

Criminal Law - Criminal Contempt - Contempt of Courts Act 1971 - Section 2(c) - Scandalising the Court - Interference with administration of justice - A large group of individuals unlawfully assembled at Kiran Sankar Roy Road and blocked the entrance to the building housing advocates chambers - Protesters wrongfully restrained advocates and litigants while shouting abusive and provocative slogans - Photographs of a sitting Judge were displayed on placards and trampled upon in public view - Contemnors C-1 to C-7 admitted to the acts but cited frustration over delayed teacher recruitment appointments as justification - Held - Frustration or emotional outbursts do not justify scurrilous attacks on the judiciary - The acts lowered the majesty of the Court and sanctity of its orders - Stamping on a Judge's photograph is a manifest act of desecration striking at the root of judicial authority - [Paras 1-8, 68-75].

Criminal Law - Maintainability of Suo Motu Proceedings - Constitution of India - Article 215 - Contempt of Courts Act 1971 - Section 15 - Inherent Power - Alleged Contemnor No. 8 challenged maintainability arguing that proceedings initiated on private affidavits required written consent of the Advocate General - Contended that the Chief Justice could not assign the entire matter to a Special Bench via administrative order - Held - Article 215 preserves the inherent power of the High Court as a Court of Record to punish for contempt of itself - This power is absolute and cannot be curtailed by procedural technicalities of the 1971 Act - Section 15 is not the source of power but a procedural safeguard to filter frivolous complaints - The Court has discretion to treat information from private informers as the basis for suo motu action - The Chief Justice as Master of Roster possesses plenary power to assign any matter to any Bench - Procedural rules are handmaids of justice and not its mistress - [Paras 11, 15-16, 25-32, 40-54].

Criminal Law - Liability of Non-Present Contemnor - Contempt of Courts Act 1971 - Section 2(c) - Imputing Bias - Contemnor No. 8 (Kunal Ghosh) was not physically present at the protest site but gave a media interview - Alleged that the sitting Judge was partisan and swayed by specific political and legal camps - Claimed his remarks were political rebuttals to advocate-politicians - Held - Physical presence at the scene of occurrence is not an essential ingredient of criminal contempt - Imputing improper or dishonest motives to a Judge in a media interview constitutes scandalising the Court - Such statements undermine public confidence in the impartiality and independence of the judiciary - The statements were not fair criticism but calculated imputations - [Paras 11-13, 19-20, 76-79].

Criminal Law - Acceptance of Apology - Contempt of Courts Act 1971 - Section 12 - Justification - Contemnors tendered apologies while simultaneously justifying their conduct and challenging the jurisdiction of the Court - Held - A true apology must be unconditional- sincere and genuine- reflecting real contrition - Apology and justification cannot go hand in hand as they are mutually exclusive - Using an apology as a second line of defense when a challenge to maintainability fails is not acceptable - The "slap and say sorry" practice cannot be countenanced - [Paras 36, 74-75, 80-81].

Decision: All alleged contemnors found guilty of criminal contempt - Fine of Rs. 1000/- imposed on Contemnor Nos. 1 to 7 each - Fine of Rs. 2000/- (maximum) imposed on Contemnor No. 8 - Default sentence of 3 days simple imprisonment ordered - Prayer for stay of judgment refused.

Writ Law - Prohibited Property List - Registration Act 1908 - Section 22-A(1)(c) - Alternative Remedy - Deletion of property from prohibited list - Petitioner purchased Ac.3.86 cents in Sy.No.34/1A-1 through registered sale deed in 2012 and obtained layout approval in 2013 - Sub-Registrar refused registration of subsequent sales to third parties on ground that land was listed as prohibited under Section 22-A(1)(c) - Assistant Commissioner of Endowments rejected petitioner's representation for deletion stating land belongs to Sri Kommuru Appadu Dora Trust - Petitioner contended Re-Survey Register (RSR) and revenue records show land as private property - Respondents argued land is recorded in the register maintained under Section 43 of A.P. Act 30 of 1987 and revenue records do not confer title - Held - When property is registered under Section 43 of the Endowments Act 1987 the remedy for an aggrieved party is to approach the Endowments Tribunal under Section 87 of the Act - High Court in writ jurisdiction cannot adjudicate disputed questions of fact regarding title - Writ Petition dismissed as not maintainable - [Paras 1-11].

Writ Law - Endowments - A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institution and Endowments Act 1987 - Sections 43 and 46(3) - Presumption of correctness of entries - Petitioner claimed land based on RSR and mutation in revenue records - Respondents asserted property is listed in Trust register under Section 43 - Held - Under Section 46(3) of Act 30 of 1987 entries in the register are deemed genuine until contrary is established - Mutation or entry in revenue records does not confer title - RSR is only prima facie evidence - Dispute regarding inclusion of property in the register must be adjudicated by the Endowments Tribunal - [Paras 4-8].

Writ Law - Alternative Remedy - Endowments Tribunal - Ratio Decidendi - Division Bench and Full Bench precedents - Full Bench in Vinjamuri Rajagopala Chary case and subsequent Division Bench orders established that grievances regarding entries in the register of properties maintained under Section 43 of Act 30 of 1987 must be redressed before the Endowments Tribunal under Section 45 read with Section 87 - Held - Remedy for deletion of entry in the register of properties which triggers prohibition under Section 22-A of the Registration Act lies exclusively before the Endowments Tribunal - [Paras 9-10].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – Petitioner relegated to the Endowments Tribunal under Section 87 of the Act 30 of 1987 – No order as to costs.

Civil Law - Execution Proceedings - Gujarat Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act 1947 - Section 29(2) - Third-Party Objections - Resistance to Execution - Eviction suit filed in 1975 was decreed in 1978 and confirmed by High Court in 2003 - Petitioner No. 1 being a legal heir of the original tenant gave an undertaking to vacate but subsequently filed objections in Execution Petition No. 74 of 2005 - Objectors claimed a fresh tenancy and ownership interest based on a Sale Agreement - Rent Agreement - Memorandum of Understanding and Power of Attorney executed by only one of the co-owners in 2003-2004 - Executing Court rejected objections and Appellate Court dismissed the appeal - High Court noted that the documents were unregistered and prepared on insufficient stamp paper - High Court further observed that an agreement with only one co-owner cannot bind other decree-holders - Held - The executing court cannot go beyond the decree - No perversity in concurrent findings of fact - Revision application rejected - [Paras 1-22].

Civil Law - Procedure - Ahmedabad Small Cause Court Rules 1961 - Rule 1(2) - Summary Inquiry - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order 21 Rule 97 - Petitioners argued that the Executing Court failed to frame issues or record oral evidence as required under Rule 294 of the Gujarat Civil Manual - High Court held that the Ahmedabad Small Cause Court Rules provide for disposal of Rule 97 applications by affidavit - The inquiry is summary in nature and does not require a full trial like a regular civil suit - Objectors failed to request the leading of oral evidence before the executing court and cannot raise it as an afterthought - Held - Procedure followed was correct and consistent with special rules governing Small Causes Courts - [Paras 11.1-11.6].

Property Law - Registration - Registration Act 1908 - Section 17 - Admissibility - Objectors relied on an unregistered Sale Deed and an unregistered Irrevocable Power of Attorney coupled with interest to claim rights in the suit property - High Court held that under Section 17 of the Registration Act any document creating an interest in immovable property requires compulsory registration - Documents prepared on inadequate stamp paper and not registered cannot transfer right - title or interest - Held - Such documents are inadmissible to prove title or avoid eviction - [Paras 15.2-15.3].

Civil Law - Rent Act - Suspension of Operation - The objectors claimed a fresh tenancy created in 2004 - High Court observed that the operation of the Gujarat Rent Act was already suspended by the State since 2001 - Any fresh tenancy created after suspension would not be governed by the Rent Act - Furthermore the alleged fresh tenancy period of 11 months and 29 days had expired in 2005 - Held - Objectors had no legal right to retain possession after the expiry of the alleged fresh term - [Paras 15.1-17.1].

Evidence Law - Settlement Outside Court - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order 21 Rule 2 - Ratio Decidendi - Any satisfaction or compromise of a decree recorded outside the execution proceedings between the parties does not amount to a valid satisfaction of the decree unless it is recorded by the Court - Agreements with a single co-owner without the consent of other decree-holders do not stall the execution of an eviction decree - Held - Followed ratio in Lakshmi Narayan vs. S.S. Pandian - [Paras 16-18].

Decision: Revision Application rejected - Concurrent findings of the Courts below affirmed - Rejection of objections upheld.

Criminal Law - Sexual Offences - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Sections 376(2) and 506 - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012 - Section 6 - Appeal against conviction for penetrative sexual assault on a minor prosecutrix - Prosecution case alleged that the appellant committed rape on his minor sister-in-law and intimidated her - Trial Court convicted based on school records showing the victim as 12 years old and her initial statements to the police - During trial the prosecutrix resiled from her previous version - Deposed that she was a major and the relationship was consensual - Stated that her earlier statements were made under pressure from her sister - Mother of the prosecutrix admitted in cross-examination that she falsely recorded the age in school to secure admission and that the victim was around 18 years old at the time - High Court found that the prosecution failed to establish the victim's minority beyond reasonable doubt - Noted that the testimony regarding consent remained unrebutted - Held - In the absence of proof of minority and the existence of a consensual relationship - the conviction for rape and under POCSO Act cannot be sustained - Appeal allowed - [Paras 1-25].

Evidence Law - Proof of Age - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012 - Section 6 - Reliability of School Records - Prosecution relied on school admission register to prove minority - Principal admitted that no birth certificate or supporting documents were produced at the time of admission - Date of birth was recorded solely on the version furnished by parents - Victim’s mother testified that the age recorded in school was incorrect and that the victim was actually a major at the time of admission - Held - School records not supported by an independent certificate and undermined by the testimony of the very parent who provided the data are unreliable - Prosecution failed to prove the victim was a minor - [Paras 11, 16, 18-22].

Evidence Law - Testimony of Prosecutrix - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Section 375 - Consensual Relationship - Prosecutrix deposed before the trial court that she had established sexual relations with the appellant with her consent - Denied prosecution suggestions of force or criminal intimidation - Stated that her initial complaint was motivated by family pressure - Held - No offence of rape is made out when the prosecutrix is found to be a major and she categorically deposes that the physical relationship was consensual - [Paras 17, 23].

Criminal Law - Procedure - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 232 - Non-compliance - Trial court failed to conduct a hearing as contemplated under Section 232 - Held - Non-compliance with Section 232 does not ipso facto vitiate proceedings unless it is shown that such omission resulted in serious and substantial prejudice to the accused - [Para 8].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment dated 12.12.2019 and order on sentence dated 19.12.2019 set aside – Appellant acquitted of all charges and directed to be set at liberty.