Criminal Writ - Maintainability under Article 227 – Challenge to Orders in Criminal Proceedings – Petition Held Maintainable – Objection to maintainability overruled as Article 227 permits interference in exceptional circumstances involving miscarriage of justice, even when alternate remedy under Section 482 CrPC exists – Petition entertained as interim relief had already been granted [Paras 15-19].

Civil vs. Criminal Proceedings – Simultaneous Proceedings Permissible – Criminal Trial Permitted to Continue – Pendency of civil suit for cancellation of will deed and mutation does not bar criminal prosecution where prima facie ingredients of offence under IPC are made out – Held: Mere pendency of civil proceedings not a ground to quash criminal case [Paras 20-24].

Discharge under Section 239 CrPC – Grounds for Discharge Absent – Charges Not Groundless – Petitioners failed to show that the charges were groundless as per standard laid down by Supreme Court – Material placed by prosecution sufficient to proceed to trial – Discharge rightly refused by Trial Court and upheld in Revision [Paras 28-31, 36].

Forgery and Misrepresentation – Prima Facie Offence Made Out – Allegations of Manipulating Family Register and Executing Forged Will – Petitioners claimed as wife and daughter of deceased despite contradictory records and absence of adoption/marriage proof – Held: Enough prima facie material to proceed under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, and 471 IPC [Paras 25, 32-35].

Decision – Petition Dismissed – Orders of Trial Court and Revisional Court upheld – No legal or procedural error found warranting interference – Criminal proceedings to continue [Paras 37-38].

Service Law – Promotion – Clause 3(a) Army Order – FIR Does Not Constitute Prosecution – Promotion Withheld Illegally – Petitioner promoted as JCO via order dated 25.05.2022 – Promotion not implemented citing pending FIR and Clause 3(a) of Army Order – Held: Mere registration of FIR without charge-sheet or cognizance by court does not amount to prosecution – Withholding promotion on this basis is illegal – Directions issued to treat petitioner as JCO with all consequential benefits [Paras 1–14].

Applicability of Sealed Cover Procedure – Supreme Court Precedent in K.V. Jankiraman – Clarified – Promotion can be withheld only after issuance of charge-sheet or memo in criminal/disciplinary proceedings – FIR not sufficient ground to trigger Clause 3(a) of Army Order – Tribunal’s contrary view held perverse and unsustainable [Paras 8–13].

Decision – Tribunal Order Dated 14.12.2023 Set Aside – Petitioner to be Treated as Promoted – Promotion to JCO w.e.f. 25.05.2022 restored with consequential salary and service benefits – Compliance within 8 weeks [Paras 13–16].

Commercial Suit – Maintainability – Section 2(1)(c)(vii) of Commercial Courts Act – Decree Upheld – The appellant challenged the commercial nature of the dispute on ground that the rental amount was below threshold and not commercial – Held: The tenancy pertained to a commercial shop and dispute arose from lease of immovable property used in trade or commerce – Suit maintainable as a commercial dispute [Paras 14–16].

Landlord-Tenant Relationship – Attornment by Tenant – Section 109 of Transfer of Property Act – Relationship Established – Appellant argued absence of attornment with new owner – Held: Attornment not necessary – Transferee steps into shoes of original lessor by operation of law – Registered sale deed sufficient to establish ownership and right to seek eviction – Reliance placed on Supreme Court judgment in Gopi @ Govardhannath v. Ballabh Vyas, (2022) 19 SCC 204 [Paras 18–22].

Applicability of Rent Control Act – Rent Less than ₹3500 – Burden Not Discharged – Appellant Claimed Protection under DRC Act – Held: Mere assertion of low rent insufficient – Burden to prove rent on tenant – Contradictory versions given under oath – No proof from income tax, bank statements, or rent receipts – Court found monthly rent exceeded ₹3500 based on plaintiff's evidence and tenant's admissions [Paras 25–29].

Framing of Issues – Clubbing of Issues – Procedural Irregularity – Held: Clubbing of issues without distinct treatment contrary to Order XIV CPC – While not fatal to judgment, such practice is improper and should be avoided in future [Paras 30–31].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Trial Court Judgment Affirmed – Finding no merit in contentions raised, the appeal was dismissed confirming the decree for possession, arrears, mesne profits, and injunction against tenant [Para 33].

Quashing Petition – Further investigation, Article 20(3) protection, and Section 8 PC Act – Petition dismissed – Court upholds validity of supplementary challan, rejects self-incrimination plea, and holds Section 8 PC Act applicable to private person.

Criminal Procedure – Further investigation vs. reinvestigation – Sections 173(2) & 173(8) CrPC – Quashment declined – Court reiterates distinction between “further investigation” (supplementary report continuing the primary investigation) and “reinvestigation/de novo” (which requires superior court’s specific order) – Prior judicial directions and subsequent SIT probe culminating in supplementary challan held to be valid “further investigation”; mere pendency of trial on first challan not a bar – Trial Court must consider primary and supplementary reports conjointly unless a superior court excludes any – Petition to quash on this ground rejected [Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali, Amrutbhai Shambhubhai Patel discussed].

Constitution – Article 20(3) – Self-incrimination – No violation – Protection attaches only when a person stands as an “accused” at the time of making the statement – Materials furnished by the petitioner before he was formally arrayed as accused (status attained only upon supplementary challan dated 06.03.2025) can be used; hence Article 20(3) plea fails [State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad; Veera Ibrahim v. State of Maharashtra].

Prevention of Corruption – Section 8 PC Act – Applicability to private persons – Offence under Section 8 can be committed by a private person even without a public servant being arraigned – Petitioner cannot claim benefit of provisos: he was neither compelled to give “undue advantage” nor did he report within 7 days; lodging FIR only after the deal soured does not attract the proviso – Prima facie Section 8 made out notwithstanding IPC heads originally invoked [State (CBI) v. Jitender Kumar Singh; Sandeep Deshwal v. State (NCT of Delhi)].

Quashing of FIR/Proceedings – Scope – Presence of triable allegations under any cognizable offence (here, Section 8 PC Act and IPC heads emerging from conjoint reading of reports) defeats plea for quashment – Proper course is for Trial Court to assess all reports and frame appropriate charges; deficiency in initial sections is not decisive at 482/528 stage [Ghanshyam Sharma v. Surendra Kumar Sharma].

Decision – Petition dismissed – First order framing charges based on the first report under Section 173(2) CrPC and all consequential proceedings quashed; police directed to conduct further investigation keeping Section 8 PC Act (and any other disclosed offence) in view and submit a final report; the first report (173(2)), the supplementary report (173(8)) and the fresh final report to be considered conjointly by the Trial Court for framing of charges, if any.

Civil Law - Impleadment in Specific Performance Suit – Order 1 Rule 10 and Order 43 Rule 1 of the CPC -  Appeal against Addition of Third Party – Appeal Allowed – The appellant challenged an order of the Single Judge allowing the impleadment of her brother-in-law (Respondent No. 4) in a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell – Held: A third party not privy to the contract and claiming independent title cannot be impleaded – Such impleadment would enlarge the scope of the suit into a title dispute – Appeal allowed and impleadment set aside [Paras 1–3, 16–26].

Appealability – Order Not Enumerated Under Order XLIII CPC – Maintainability Under Section 10 of Delhi High Court Act – Upheld – The respondent objected to the maintainability of the appeal under Order XLIII CPC and Commercial Courts Act – Held: Even if not appealable under Order XLIII, the impugned order qualifies as a “judgment” under Section 10 of DHC Act as it affects valuable rights and changes the character of the suit – Appeal maintainable [Paras 10–15].

Impleadment Test – Necessary and Proper Party – Order I Rule 10 CPC – Not Satisfied – Court reiterated that only those parties whose presence is necessary to adjudicate the issues in the suit can be impleaded – Respondent No. 4, claiming co-ownership but not being a party to the contract, failed the test – His dispute lies in a separate title suit, not in a specific performance suit [Paras 17–20, 24–25].

Binding Precedents – Supreme Court Judgments in Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal and Anil Kumar Singh v. Shivnath Mishra – Applied – The Court relied on established law that in a suit for specific performance, a stranger to the contract cannot be added merely because of a claimed interest in the property – Doing so alters the nature of the suit and is impermissible [Paras 19–21].

Distinguished Cases – Sumtibai and Rajesh Kumar Arora – Not Applicable – Respondent No. 4 cited judgments where impleadment was permitted – Held: These cases were fact-specific and do not dilute the general bar on impleading third parties in specific performance suits – Those decisions did not form ratio applicable to present case [Paras 22–23].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Impugned Order Set Aside – Respondent No. 4’s impleadment struck off – Liberty granted to pursue independent remedy – Suit to proceed without alteration of scope [Paras 27–28].

Civil Law - Eviction Suit – Jurisdiction of Civil Court – Sections 5, 8, and 21 of the West Bengal Thika Tenancy Act, 2001 – Eviction Suit Dismissed – Plaintiffs sought eviction on grounds of default, nuisance, and reasonable requirement – Trial Court decreed eviction without considering statutory jurisdictional bar – Held: The civil court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction as the issue of Thika tenancy was pending and later conclusively decided by the Thika Controller – Civil Court's decree is a nullity – Suit liable to be dismissed for lack of inherent jurisdiction [Paras 21–26, 45–54, 68–72].

Striking Out of Defence – Section 7 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 – No Automatic Bar – Defence not struck out before final adjudication – Trial Court proceeded to decide all issues on merits – Held: In absence of prior order under Section 7(3), defence remains – Jurisdictional issues had to be decided before proceeding to trial – The failure vitiated the trial court’s decree [Paras 29–32, 42–44].

Landlord-Tenant Relationship – Disputed Relationship – Effect on Section 7 Compliance – Dispute raised on existence of tenancy – Held: A defendant who denies tenancy may not be required to comply with Section 7(1) or (2) as the provision applies to 'tenant', not 'defendant' – Court must decide landlord-tenant relationship before invoking Section 7(3) – View supported by binding Division Bench judgment in Synthetic Plywood Industries case – Ratio unchanged under 1997 Act [Paras 36–41].

Additional Evidence – Order XLI Rule 27 CPC – Thika Controller's Order Considered – Appeal Allowed – During appeal, certified order of Thika Controller adjudicating defendant as Thika Tenant was produced – Held: Court can look into such evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 – The order reinforces bar under 2001 Act and nullifies civil court’s jurisdiction [Paras 62–67].

Applicability of Thika Tenancy Act, 1981 vs. 2001 – Section 27 of 2001 Act – 2001 Act Applies – Plaintiffs claimed rights accrued under 1981 Act – Held: 1981 Act did not confer right of eviction – Such rights flow from tenancy laws like 1997 Act – Section 27 only protects existing liabilities or privileges – Since eviction suit filed in 2013, 2001 Act applies [Paras 57–61].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Civil Court Decree Set Aside – Eviction Suit Dismissed – The trial court acted without jurisdiction – Remand order of First Appellate Court also erroneous and academic – Decree and remand order set aside and eviction suit dismissed outright for want of jurisdiction [Paras 70–73].

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR and Criminal Proceedings – Prima Facie Case Made Out – Petition Dismissed – The petitioner, a former UD Clerk in Kerala Water Authority, sought to quash proceedings in C.C. No. 9/2022 alleging inordinate delay and absence of prima facie material – Allegations involved misappropriation of ₹24,755 by forging cheque counterfoils and falsifying accounts – Court held that the delay was not in registration of crime but due to judicial and procedural circumstances – Further investigation revealed sufficient material – Petition dismissed and trial ordered to be completed within 4 months [Paras 1, 5, 11, 16-17].

Delay – No Ground for Quashment – Right to Speedy Trial Not Violated – Though the petitioner contended that proceedings were pending for over 27 years, the crime was originally registered in 1999 and pursued without unjustified delay – Apex Court precedent in Sirajul v. State of U.P., (2015) 9 SCC 201, discussed but held not applicable – Held: Delay not attributable to prosecution – Petitioner's Article 21 rights not violated [Paras 7, 11-13].

Prima Facie Case – Misappropriation and Forgery – Evidence Sufficient for Trial – Investigation revealed that cheques for ₹9,290 and ₹15,465 were encashed by impersonating the contractor’s signature – Counterfoils bore forged signatures – FSL reports confirmed forgery – Witnesses and records supported prosecution case – Held: A prima facie case is clearly made out against the petitioner – Trial is required [Paras 9-10, 16-17].

Public Servant – Abuse of Position – Section 13(1)(c) and (d), PC Act – Petitioner as custodian of cheques and cash book allegedly prepared false entries and misused uncrossed bearer cheques issued in contractor's name – Entries in cash book corroborated by multiple witnesses – Held: Allegations disclose commission of offences under IPC and PC Act – Petition cannot be quashed at pre-trial stage [Paras 5, 10, 17].

Petition Dismissed – Special Judge Directed to Expedite Trial – Interim stay vacated – Trial Court directed to conclude proceedings within four months – Copy of order to be forwarded for compliance [Paras 17-19].

Civil Law - Hindu Ancestral Property – Challenge to Sale Deed by Daughters – Property Not Ancestral – Appeal Allowed – Plaintiffs (daughters) filed suit challenging the sale of agricultural land by their father (defendant No. 2) to his brother (defendant No. 1), claiming it was ancestral and coparcenary property – Both Trial Court and First Appellate Court decreed the suit in their favour – In second appeal, High Court held the land was not ancestral as it was transferred by the plaintiffs’ grandfather to defendant No. 2 by way of a registered document termed as a "Relinquishment Deed", which in essence was a gift or transfer – The property thus became self-acquired in the hands of defendant No. 2 – Held: Plaintiffs had no birthright or locus to challenge the sale during the lifetime of the father – Judgments of the courts below set aside – Suit dismissed [Paras 2-4, 23, 28-30].

Ancestral Property – Transfer by Gift – Not Ancestral in Donee’s Hands – Property Not Devolved by Inheritance or Partition – A registered Relinquishment Deed executed by the grandfather transferring specific land to his sons without consideration held to be a transfer and not a mere renunciation – The transferred property did not retain its ancestral character – Daughters had no coparcenary rights – Sale by father upheld [Paras 21-23].

Pleading and Evidence – Relevance of Evidence Not Pleaded – Admissibility – Rejection of the Relinquishment Deed by the lower courts for being “beyond pleadings” was held erroneous – Order VI Rule 2 CPC mandates pleading material facts, not the evidence – As the defendant pleaded non-ancestral nature, production of Relinquishment Deed was valid and admissible [Paras 16-19].

Proof of Ancestral Nature – Mere Admission Not Sufficient – Courts below erred in holding property as ancestral based solely on an alleged admission in earlier deeds – Law requires positive evidence like family lineage and revenue records to establish ancestral status – Mere assertion in pleadings or admissions is inadequate [Paras 24-27].

Right to Challenge Sale – No Locus of Daughters During Father’s Lifetime – Since the property was held self-acquired in the hands of defendant No. 2, only he could have challenged the sale if obtained by fraud – Daughters had no right to institute a suit during his lifetime to question the transaction – Suit not maintainable [Para 28].

Scope of Second Appeal – No Substantial Question of Law Required – Held: Under Punjab and Haryana jurisprudence, second appeals lie under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918 – Not under Section 100 CPC – Therefore, framing of substantial question of law is not mandatory [Para 13].

Final Decision – Suit decreed by lower courts reversed – Sale deed held valid – Plaintiffs’ challenge dismissed – Appeal allowed – No order as to costs [Para 30].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Cheque Dishonour – Section 138 – Appeal Against Acquittal Dismissed – The appellant/complainant alleged that the accused issued four cheques towards repayment of a loan of ₹1,80,000/-, all of which were dishonoured due to insufficient funds – Trial court acquitted the accused citing lack of proof regarding execution and issuance of the cheques – High Court upheld the acquittal, noting that the complainant failed to specify dates of issuance and admitted both parties worked in the same bank, which supported the defence that cheques were misused – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1-2, 7-9, 14].

Presumption under Sections 118 and 139 – Rebuttal by Probable Defence – Presumption Not Absolute – Held: The statutory presumption under Sections 118 and 139 is rebuttable – The accused raised a probable defence that cheques were issued as security for overdraft, which the complainant misused – Cross-examination of PW1 cast serious doubt on the transaction – No evidence produced to rebut defence – Presumption held rebutted [Paras 10-11, 13-14].

Burden of Proof – Standard of Preponderance – Not Beyond Reasonable Doubt – Held: In a Section 138 prosecution, the accused can rebut the presumption through preponderance of probabilities – Accused not bound to enter the witness box – Probable defence can be inferred from complainant’s evidence and circumstances – Such burden successfully discharged in this case [Paras 10-11].

Credibility of Evidence – Failure to Prove Date of Execution – Issuance of Cheques Not Established – Held: Complainant’s failure to specify dates of issuance in complaint and affidavit proved fatal – Court found evidence vague and insufficient – Cross-examination reinforced defence version – Trial court’s findings not perverse – No interference warranted [Paras 7-9, 14].

Appeal Dismissed – No Interference in Acquittal – Trial Court’s Evaluation of Evidence Deemed Proper – Complainant failed to discharge initial burden – Acquittal stands affirmed – No costs awarded [Para 14].