Application for Anticipatory Bail - FIR alleging involvement in a case under IPC Sections 107 and 306 - Accused seeking anticipatory bail due to delayed FIR and absence of direct allegations in the suicide note. [Para 1, 5]

FIR Review and Discretion of Court - Analysis of FIR, nature of allegations, and roles attributed to the accused, leading to the decision to grant anticipatory bail. Important factors included delay in FIR and the content of the suicide note. [Para 5]

Precedents on Suicide and Abetment - References to Supreme Court judgments (Kumar @ Shiva Kumar Vs. State of Karnataka and Kashibai and others Vs. State of Karnataka) highlighting challenges in proving abetment of suicide and the importance of understanding circumstances surrounding the deceased. [Para 4, 5]

Statutory Bar Under Atrocities Act - Discussion of statutory limitations on granting anticipatory bail under the Atrocities Act, with reference to Prithviraj Chauhan vs Union of India and related Supreme Court judgments, emphasizing the balance between judicial discretion and statutory restrictions. [Para 6, 7]

Bail Conditions - Specific conditions laid out for the appellants upon being granted anticipatory bail, including cooperation with investigation, no tampering with evidence, and restrictions on travel and change of residence. [Para 8]

The accused, Ashok Kumar, challenged the conviction and sentence for an offence under Section 138 of the NI Act related to cheque dishonour due to insufficient funds - Asserting that the cheque was not drawn from his account but by another individual, Ashu Dhiman - Key issue is whether the cheque was drawn from an account maintained by the accused [Paras 1, 19-20, 22-23, 31].

Trial and Appellate Courts convicted and sentenced the accused, holding that a presumption of legal liability exists when a cheque is dishonoured, and the accused failed to rebut this presumption - Defence that the cheque was security for a vehicle purchase and not from the accused's account, was not accepted [Paras 6-7, 26].

High Court held that essential requirement under Section 138 NI Act is the cheque must be drawn on an account maintained by the drawer (accused) - Evidence showed the cheque was drawn from an account belonging to Ashu Dhiman, not the accused - This key ingredient was overlooked by the lower courts [Paras 16-17, 19-21, 26].

Citing the Supreme Court's precedence in Jugesh Sehgal v. Shamsher Singh Gogi, High Court observed that if the cheque is not drawn from the drawer's account, provisions of Section 138 NI Act are not applicable - The lower courts erred in their judgment by not considering this essential aspect [Paras 20-21, 26].

High Court allowed the revision, setting aside the judgments of the Trial and Appellate Courts - Accused acquitted as the complaint failed to fulfill the essential requirement under Section 138 NI Act [Para 31].

Civil Law – Temporary Injunction – Suit for Permanent Injunction – The Karnataka High Court considered an appeal challenging the grant of a temporary injunction to restrain the Bengaluru Development Authority (BDA) from demolishing structures on a property claimed by the respondent. The primary issue was the maintainability of a civil suit for injunction concerning property acquired by the BDA. [Para 1-4, 8]

Property Acquisition and Possession – BDA's Authority – The Court examined the history of the property's acquisition by the BDA, noting that the entire Sy.No.286/2, including the respondent's claimed property, had been acquired for layout formation. Despite the respondent's claims of ownership and development, the Court scrutinized the legitimacy and timing of these developments concerning the acquisition dates. [Para 3, 5]

Jurisdiction of Civil Courts – Land Acquisition Disputes – The Court deliberated on the jurisdiction of civil courts in matters of land acquisition. It highlighted that challenges to acquisition proceedings are typically outside the purview of civil courts, directing such matters to be addressed under the constitutional remedies available through the High Court or Supreme Court. [Para 8, 23, 26]

Settled Possession – Legal and Illegal Constructions – The Court weighed the arguments regarding the respondent's settled possession and the legality of constructions made post-acquisition by the BDA. It discussed the implications of making investments and constructions on acquired land and the legal status of such actions. [Para 20, 21, 27]

Decision – Injunction Dismissed – The High Court overturned the Trial Court's decision, ruling that the civil suit for a permanent injunction against the BDA was not maintainable. The temporary injunction granted to the respondent was set aside, and the application for the same was dismissed. The Court emphasized that the acquisition of the property by the BDA was undisputed and that subsequent construction by the respondent could not be legally upheld. [Para 28]

Decision – Directives to Authorities – The Court directed the respondent to adhere to the legal process concerning the acquisition and management of the disputed property, indicating that any grievances should be addressed through appropriate legal channels rather than through civil suits seeking injunctions. [Para 27, 28]

Negotiable Instruments Act – Dishonor of Cheque – Section 138 – High Court evaluated the legality of the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, concerning a cheque dishonoured due to 'payment stopped by drawer'. The court scrutinized the evidence regarding the issuance of the cheque, the service of the demand notice, and the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the N.I. Act. [Para 4-7, 9-11, 14-17, 21-25]

Statutory Presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of N.I. Act – held – the presumption is that a cheque is issued for lawful discharge of debt, placing the burden on the drawer to prove otherwise. The Court relied on Apex Court precedents to affirm the statutory presumption in favor of the complainant when the issuance of the cheque and the drawer's signature are established. [Para 7-8, 25]

Defenses against Cheque Dishonour – examined – The court addressed various defenses raised by the accused, including non-compliance with Section 138(b) of the N.I. Act, alleged theft and misuse of cheques, inconsistency in evidence, material alteration of the cheque, and the limitation claim. The Court systematically negated each defense based on the evidence on record. [Para 10, 12-14, 15-17, 18-19, 20-21, 24]

Limitation and Time-Barred Debt – discussed – The Court, referring to Apex Court and Bombay High Court judgments, held that a cheque issued for a time-barred debt falls within Section 25(3) of the Indian Contract Act and creates an enforceable contract, thereby fulfilling the criteria of a legally enforceable debt under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. [Para 21-24]

Decision – Upholding Lower Courts’ Judgment – The High Court affirmed the lower courts' judgments, holding the accused liable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The accused's defenses were found to be insufficient to overturn the statutory presumptions favoring the complainant. [Para 25]

Revision petition dismissed; conviction upheld.

Criminal Law – Bail Cancellation – Fraud on Court and Suppression of Material Facts – petition for cancellation of bail under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. The petitioner argued that the respondent obtained bail by suppressing material facts and previous court orders. The court analyzed the sequence of events and the respondent's conduct, particularly the suppression of the High Court's previous orders while obtaining bail, and assessed this as fraud on the court. [Paras 17-19, 33-34]

Administration of Justice – Abuse of Legal Process – Held – Emphasized the importance of approaching the court with clean hands. The court referred to various judgments underscoring that suppression of facts or misleading the court constitutes an abuse of the judicial process, warranting strict action to uphold the sanctity of the judicial system. The judgment reflects on the serious consequences of such conduct, including the cancellation of bail and imposition of costs. [Paras 24-26, 31-32]

Decision – Cancellation of Bail and Directions – The court cancelled the respondent's bail, citing continuous fraudulent conduct and abuse of legal processes. The court imposed a cost of Rs. 1,00,000 on the respondent, payable to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, and issued directives for better information sharing among legal and police authorities to prevent similar abuses in the future. Additionally, the court directed filing a complaint against the respondent for investigation into the fraud committed. [Paras 35-36]

Decision – Registrar General's Instruction – The court instructed the Registrar General to take necessary steps regarding the concerned Presiding Officer's oversight in not examining the cancellation of the respondent's bail by the High Court, impacting the decision to grant bail. [Para 36(vi)]

Urban Development and Slum Rehabilitation – Rights of Slum Dwellers vs. Right to Clean Drinking Water – The High Court addressed the conflict between the fundamental rights of slum dwellers to adequate housing and the right of citizens to clean drinking water. The slum dwellers of Akbar Nagar, residing on the banks of Kukrail water channel, challenged demolition orders by the Lucknow Development Authority and sought rehabilitation under the U.P. Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1962, and U.P. In-Situ Slum Redevelopment Policy, 2021. [Para 1, 4, 9]

Adjudication of Conflicting Fundamental Rights under Article 21 – held – the court balanced the rights of slum dwellers against the larger public interest of citizens of Lucknow. Recognizing both rights as aspects of the right to life under Article 21, the court held that the right to clean drinking water for the majority cannot be compromised by the unauthorized occupation of government land. [Para 13-14, 17-18]

Rehabilitation Policy for Slum Dwellers – directed – the court accepted the rehabilitation policy offered by the state, mandating that all Below Poverty Line (BPL) residents of Akbar Nagar slums be provided flats under 'Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana' at subsidized rates, with an initial deposit of Rs. 1,000 and the balance payable in easy installments. The benefit was extended to all residents seeking relocation, irrespective of their BPL status. [Para 20-21]

Eviction and Rehabilitation Timeline – ordered – residents of Akbar Nagar slums must vacate by March 31, 2024, post which authorities are permitted to clear the area. The applications for the rehabilitation scheme are to be filed within two weeks, and the state is to complete the rehabilitation process by the set deadline. [Para 22-23]

Decision – Balancing the conflicting rights under Article 21, the court upheld the eviction and ordered rehabilitation of the slum dwellers, emphasizing the fundamental right to clean drinking water for the citizens of Lucknow. The rehabilitation scheme provided a humane approach to eviction, safeguarding the interests of the affected slum dwellers. [Para 24-26]

Criminal Procedure Code – Section 311 and 482 – Summoning of Investigating Officer as Witness – Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed – The Allahabad High Court in the case of Sanjeev Kumar And 3 Others v. State Of U.P., addressed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the trial court's refusal to summon the investigating officer under Section 311 Cr.P.C. as a witness. [Para 1, 2]

Background – Rejection of Application for Summoning Investigating Officer – Incident dated back to 2006, with trial proceedings commencing post 2007. Application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. filed at the final argument stage of the trial to summon the investigating officer, rejected by the trial court as an attempt to delay the trial. [Para 3-7]

Applicant's Argument – Discretionary Powers under Section 311 Cr.P.C. – Reliance on Supreme Court judgments emphasizing the discretionary power of the court to summon or re-examine witnesses at any trial stage to ensure a just decision and prevent prejudice. [Para 8, 9]

Court's Analysis – Jurisprudence on Section 311 Cr.P.C. – Various Supreme Court decisions were cited, establishing the criteria for exercising discretion under Section 311. Emphasis on the judicial exercise of discretion to prevent failure of justice, with considerations of potential hardship to witnesses and trial delays. [Para 11-17]

Conclusion – Application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. not Essential for Just Decision – The Court found no necessity to examine the investigating officer at the final argument stage. The application was perceived as an attempt to delay trial conclusion and lacked merit, hence dismissed. [Para 18-20]

Criminal Procedure – Anticipatory Bail – Interpretation and Applicability of Section 438 Cr.P.C. – Court clarified the scope and application of Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) concerning anticipatory bail. The court elucidated that the provision for anticipatory bail is applicable even after the filing of a charge-sheet or cognizance by the court, emphasizing the importance of the liberty of the individual and the presumption of innocence. [Para 17-28, 34-35]

Maintainability of Anticipatory Bail Post Cognizance – Held – Anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is maintainable even when cognizance of the offence is taken by the court or a charge-sheet is filed. This interpretation upholds the legislative intent of Section 438 Cr.P.C., ensuring protection against undue pre-trial arrest and detention. [Para 19-24, 34]

Difference Between 'Arrest' and 'Custody' – Explained – The court distinguished between 'arrest' and 'custody', asserting that anticipatory bail is applicable to scenarios where an individual, despite being summoned, apprehends arrest or custody upon appearance before the trial court. This distinction does not restrict the applicability of anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. [Para 24-26]

Conditions for Grant of Anticipatory Bail – Applied – The court considered the individual circumstances of the applicants, including their cooperation during the investigation without being arrested, and determined that they were entitled to anticipatory bail. The court imposed specific conditions on the applicants to ensure their availability for trial and to prevent tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. [Para 34-36]

Decision – Granting anticipatory bail to applicants in CC No. 272/2022. Applicants to be released on bail upon arrest, subject to specific conditions related to the ongoing trial and conduct towards witnesses, officials, and entities involved. [Paras 36-37]

Family Law – Family Law – Divorce – Cruelty – High Court granted divorce to the appellant, Major Shashi Chauhan, on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The Court set aside the impugned judgment dated 21.12.2018, which had dismissed the appellant's divorce petition. [Para 71]

Evidence – Allegations of Cruelty – The Court noted that the respondent, Major Ritu Bhasin, did not substantiate her allegations of cruelty and dowry harassment, and instead filed multiple complaints against the appellant post the filing of the divorce petition, which were either dismissed or resulted in acquittal. This was seen as indicative of vindictiveness and mental cruelty towards the appellant. [Para 53, 55, 61]

Behaviour of Parties – Mental Cruelty – The Court observed that the respondent's conduct, including making unsubstantiated allegations, filing of false complaints, and long separation with no effort for reconciliation, amounted to mental cruelty. The Court referenced several cases to underscore the impact of such allegations on the reputation and mental well-being of the appellant. [Para 62, 63, 69]

Matrimonial Life – Failed Reconciliation – The Court concluded that the marriage suffered from irreconcilable differences, protracted litigations, and long separation without any attempt at reconciliation, making the continuation of the marriage an act of cruelty to both parties. [Para 70]

Judgment – Grant of Divorce – The Court granted the divorce to the appellant, Major Shashi Chauhan, on grounds of cruelty by the respondent, thereby dissolving the marriage. [Para 72]