Money Laundering – Predicate Offence – Requirement of Scheduled Offence – Validity of Arrest under Section 19 PMLA – Petitioner challenged the arrest of her husband (MLA, Chitradurga Constituency) by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) pursuant to ECIR/BGZO/19/2025, contending absence of a valid predicate scheduled offence – ED relied on multiple FIRs (2011–2024) alleging illegal online betting and gambling networks linked to the accused – Petitioner argued all FIRs except FIR No.218/2022 (Harohalli P.S.) were quashed or closed, and even in that case, a ‘B’ report was filed – Held: existence of a predicate offence is foundational for ECIR registration under PMLA, but respondent’s investigation revealed large-scale betting and laundering operations connected to accused through entities like FonePaisa, Simtech IT Solutions, and foreign casinos – Sufficient material existed for “reason to believe” under Section 19 PMLA – Custodial interrogation justified – Arrest upheld [Paras 10–26].

PMLA – Reason to Believe – Nature of Satisfaction Required – Court reiterated that “reason to believe” under Section 19 PMLA must be based on material indicating involvement in the process or activity connected with proceeds of crime – Preliminary investigation and statements of witnesses revealed direct control and benefit by accused from online betting apps (King567, Raja567) and foreign casino operations – Such material constituted adequate foundation for arrest – Mere filing of ‘B’ report in predicate FIR does not nullify ECIR unless accepted by court [Paras 14–18, 25].

Online Betting Racket – Linking of Predicate FIR with Larger Laundering Operation – Though FIR No.218/2022 involved only ₹30,000 alleged fraud, ED established nexus between the accused’s network and larger fraudulent gaming operations involving hundreds of crores laundered through multiple entities – Court held that “proceeds of crime” include property derived from any criminal activity relatable to the scheduled offence and not confined to amount mentioned in predicate FIR [Paras 21–23].

Constitutional Challenge – Fundamental Rights – Articles 19 and 21 – Arrest not found arbitrary or violative of fundamental rights – ED acted within statutory powers under Section 19 PMLA – Compliance with D.K. Basu guidelines for arrest and communication to family was noted [Paras 3, 4, 25].

Decision: Petition dismissed – ECIR and arrest under Section 19 of the PMLA, 2002 upheld – Observations confined to writ proceedings – Liberty reserved to accused to seek bail or other reliefs if the ‘B’ report in predicate FIR is accepted by the jurisdictional court [Paras 27–28].

Criminal Law – Unlawful Assembly – Common Object – Conviction under Section 149 IPC Unsustainable in Absence of Shared Intent – Acquittal Ordered – Appellants convicted along with others for murder under Sections 148, 304 Part I/149 and 323/149 IPC – Trial court applied vicarious liability under Section 149 based on presence at scene – Appellate court held that fatal injuries were inflicted solely by two co-accused (now deceased) – No overt act, shared intent, or deadly weapon attributed to present appellants – Held: Mere presence without active participation or common object insufficient to attract liability under Section 149 IPC – Conviction set aside [Paras 3.1–3.7, 5–8].

Constructive Liability – Section 149 IPC – Applicability Requires Proof of Unlawful Assembly, Common Object, and Knowledge of Likely Offence – Reiterated that liability under Section 149 cannot be stretched to convict passive bystanders or those with no criminal intent – Citing Zainul v. State of Bihar, Mizaji v. State of U.P., and Subal Ghorai cases – Held: Prosecution failed to prove appellants were members of unlawful assembly with intent to kill – Acquittal warranted [Paras 3.5–3.8, 4–6].

Evidence – Ocular and Medical Evidence – Fatal Blows Attributed to Co-accused Only – No Role Ascribed to Surviving Appellants – Post-mortem report revealed only two blows leading to death – Both ascribed to two now-deceased accused – No evidence linking appellants Ram Swaroop, Dalip Singh, and Tara Chand to the assault – No weapons recovered from them – Held: Trial court erred in applying collective liability mechanically [Paras 3.1, 5–6].

Principle – Rule of Prudence in Section 149 IPC Cases – Courts Must Guard Against Convicting Innocent Bystanders Based on Proximity Alone – Presence at the scene without participation or shared object does not establish guilt – Doctrine of caution to be applied in cases involving large number of accused – Held: Prosecution failed to produce credible material to show appellants shared the common object – Acquittal justified [Paras 3.8, 6–8].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 148, 304 Part I/149, and 323/149 IPC set aside – Appellants Ram Swaroop, Dalip Singh, and Tara Chand acquitted – Bail bonds cancelled, sureties discharged – Directed to furnish bonds under Section 437-A CrPC to secure presence in case of further appeal [Paras 9–10].

NDPS Act – Possession of Heroin – Sentence Reduced – Appellant found in conscious possession of 35 grams heroin and convicted under Section 21 NDPS Act – Trial Court sentenced him to 08 months' RI and ₹20,000 fine – Appeal filed only on sentence – Held: Though appellant is involved in other NDPS cases, he has already undergone 01 month 19 days in custody, trial lasted nearly five years, and no further unlawful activity reported – Sentence reduced to period already undergone while maintaining conviction [Paras 3, 7–8]

Criminal Procedure – Sentencing – Mitigating Circumstances – Appellant did not challenge conviction on merits – Protracted trial considered – No aggravating conduct shown during trial – Court exercised leniency and modified sentence – Fine amount and default sentence not interfered with [Paras 3–8]

Decision: Conviction under Section 21 NDPS Act upheld – Sentence reduced from 08 months’ imprisonment to period already undergone – Appeal disposed of

Succession – Validity of Will – Proof of Due Execution – Will dated 19.06.2006 bequeathing entire property to son – Plaintiffs (daughters) challenged genuineness – Trial and Appellate Courts found Will proved through attesting witness and Sub-Registrar – Held: Evidence fulfilled requirements of Sections 63 of Succession Act and 68 of Evidence Act – Will validly executed and attested – No illegality in findings [Paras 7–9].

Coparcenary Property – Rights of Daughters – Property claimed to be ancestral – Courts below held land was purchased by deceased through sale deed and not ancestral – Held: Daughters could not claim share under coparcenary law – Property held self-acquired, devolved via Will to son [Paras 8–9].

Pleadings – No Challenge to Will in Pleadings – Plaintiffs failed to plead fraud, coercion, or lack of testamentary capacity in the plaint – First time challenged Will during trial – Held: No foundational pleadings to support challenge – Allegations rightly disregarded by Courts below [Para 9].

Second Appeal – No Substantial Question of Law – Appellate findings based on factual appreciation of evidence and settled law – Held: No perversity shown – No question of law arose – Appeal dismissed [Paras 10–11].

Decision: Regular Second Appeal dismissed – Concurrent findings upheld – Will dated 19.06.2006 held valid – Daughters not entitled to relief [Para 11].

Urban Development – Building Plan Sanction – Transferable Development Rights (TDR) – Retrospective Application of Setback Norms – Modified Plan Submitted in 2014 – BBMP Rejected on Grounds that it Violated Post-2017 Rules Capping Setback Relaxation at 25% – Single Judge Allowed Petition Citing Application Date as Relevant – Division Bench Held: Plan Must Comply with Law at Time of Sanction, Not at Time of Application – Appeal Allowed – Prior Decision in Aishwarya Heights Overruled [Paras 2–5, 21–26, 31–32, 35].

Land Use and Planning – Prospective vs. Retrospective Application of Planning Laws – Amended Section 14B of KTCP Act and 2016 Rules Held Applicable to All Plans Pending at Time of Sanction – No Vested Right to Have Plan Approved Under Earlier Rules – Legitimate Expectation Does Not Override Express Statutory Mandate – Settled Legal Position Reaffirmed [Paras 25–30].

Judicial Precedents – Vested Right Argument Rejected – Reliance on Aishwarya Heights Misplaced – Supreme Court in Howrah Municipal Corp., Usman Gani J. Khatri, and NDMC v. Tanvi Trading Held That Building Plans Must Comply With Law at Time of Approval – Karnataka High Court Overrules Aishwarya Heights to Conform with Binding Supreme Court Precedent [Paras 27–31].

Contempt of Court – Failure to Approve Plan Based on Single Judge’s Order – Contempt Petition Filed Alleging Non-Compliance – Held: As Judgment Below is Set Aside, No Wilful Disobedience Exists – Contempt Petition Closed [Paras 35–36].

Decision: Writ Appeal Allowed – Impugned Order Set Aside – Modified Plan Not Sanctionable Under 2016 Rules – Aishwarya Heights Overruled – CCC No. 1332 of 2024 Closed – Pending Applications Disposed.

Negotiable Instruments Act – Dishonour of Cheque – Statutory Presumption – Section 139 – Execution of cheque admitted by accused – Held: Presumption arises that cheque was issued in discharge of debt or liability – However, such presumption is rebuttable on preponderance of probabilities – Accused not required to prove defence beyond reasonable doubt – M.S. Narayana Menon v. State of Kerala, (2006) 6 SCC 39; Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa, (2019) 5 SCC 418, followed [Paras 11–13].

Evidence – Rebuttal of Presumption – Financial Capacity of Complainant – Complainant failed to disclose date of issuance or execution of cheque either in complaint or affidavit – admitted contradictions in cross-examination regarding promissory note and cheque return – failed to produce partnership deed or authority to represent firm “Poornima Finance” – Absence of proof of financial capacity and contradictions in testimony sufficient to raise probable defence – Presumption under Section 139 held rebutted [Paras 8–10, 16].

Defence Evidence – Probable Case – Accused’s father (DW1) proved that cheque was issued blank towards balance payment for gold ornaments purchased from complainant’s jewellery on 15.04.2005, supported by Ext.D1 estimate and Ext.D2 account slip in complainant’s handwriting – Circumstances corroborate defence and cast doubt on existence of legally enforceable debt – Trial Court’s reliance on DW1’s evidence upheld [Paras 9–10, 18].

Burden of Proof – Standard – Accused only required to establish a probable defence by preponderance of probabilities – May rely on complainant’s own materials to raise doubt – Failure to establish source of funds or exact transaction date fatal to prosecution – ANSS Rajashekar v. Augustus Jeba Ananth, 2019 (1) KLD 492 and APS Forex Services (P) Ltd. v. Shakti International Fashion Linkers, 2020 (1) KLD 313, followed [Paras 14–15].

Non-reply to Statutory Notice – Effect – Though non-reply can be an adverse circumstance, not conclusive of guilt – Court must consider totality of evidence to determine whether presumption stands rebutted – Sanjabij Tari v. Kishore S. Borcar, 2025 (6) KHC 250 (SC), and M.M.T.C. Ltd. v. Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd., 2002 KHC 241, referred [Paras 17–18].

Appellate Review – Acquittal – Findings of trial court based on proper appreciation of evidence and supported by material record – No perversity or illegality shown – High Court declines to interfere with acquittal under Section 138 NI Act [Paras 18–19].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Acquittal of accused confirmed – Held: Complainant failed to establish legally enforceable debt or authority to represent firm; accused successfully raised probable defence supported by documentary evidence – No interference warranted [Para 19].

Criminal Law – Appeal Against Acquittal – Dishonour of Cheque – Maintainability – Applicant filed for leave to appeal under Section 378(4) CrPC against acquittal in complaint under Section 138 of N.I. Act – Held: In view of the Supreme Court decision in M/s. Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, complainant in a cheque dishonour case is a "victim" under Section 2(wa) CrPC – Such victim has an unconditional right to appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC without needing leave of the High Court – Application to be treated as an appeal under Section 372 CrPC and transferred to Sessions Court for disposal on merits [Paras 1–5].

Victim’s Right to Appeal – Section 372 CrPC – Supreme Court clarified that a complainant in a Section 138 N.I. Act case qualifies as a "victim" and thus can file appeal under proviso to Section 372 CrPC – Requirement of special leave under Section 378(4) does not apply – Reiterated by High Court in Satish Kumar v. Jugal Kishore, Ajmer Kundu (deceased) through LRs v. Pardeep Sharma, and Raj Kumar v. Rajender [Paras 2–4].

Criminal Procedure – Jurisdiction – Appeal Transferred – Application treated as appeal under Section 372 CrPC and directed to be placed before Sessions Judge, Ambala – Registry directed to transmit record and paper-book – Applicant directed to appear before Sessions Court on specified date – No opinion expressed on merits [Paras 5–7].

Decision: Application disposed of – Treated as an appeal under Section 372 CrPC – Ordered to be transferred to Sessions Judge, Ambala for adjudication in accordance with law – Applicant directed to appear on 14.11.2025 – Registry to transmit complete record.

Criminal Law – Cognizance – Quashing of Summoning Order – Dispute Related to Temple Management – Complaint alleged encroachment, criminal intimidation, and physical assault by petitioner due to a temple management dispute – Petitioner’s father had been appointed trustee of Kali Mandir by Bihar State Board of Religious Trusts – Prior civil litigation in favour of petitioner – Petitioner claimed complaint was mala fide, lodged out of vengeance after losing civil dispute – Held: Magistrate failed to consider material background facts and prior civil proceedings while taking cognizance – Allegations general and lacking specificity – Order of cognizance dated 16.11.2024 set aside [Paras 1–17].

Abuse of Process – Civil Dispute Given Criminal Colour – Apex Court decisions in Paramjeet Batra and Kailashben Patel applied – Criminal proceedings not to be used to settle scores arising from temple trustee appointments – Complaint revealed civil dispute dressed up as criminal allegations without sufficient criminal ingredients – Revisional Court and Magistrate both erred in not examining background circumstances – Magistrate directed to reconsider matter afresh with notice to all parties and full application of judicial mind [Paras 12–17].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Magistrate’s Cognizance Order on Remand – Revisional Court had earlier remanded matter for reconsideration due to procedural lapses – Magistrate again took cognizance without addressing civil context or mala fides – Quashing application allowed – Magistrate to issue fresh order after hearing all parties and evaluating complete factual background [Paras 6–9, 16–18].

Decision:

Order taking cognizance dated 16.11.2024 set aside – Contesting parties directed to appear before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dalsinghsarai – Magistrate to issue notices, apply judicial mind, and pass a fresh order considering all relevant facts and background circumstances – Quashing application disposed of accordingly.

Civil Law – Additional Evidence – Order 41 Rule 27 CPC – Applications Must Be Decided With Appeal – Appellate Court dismissed application for additional evidence and another under Section 151 CPC during pendency of appeal – Held: As per binding precedent of Supreme Court (State of Rajasthan v. T. Sahani and K. Venkataramiah v. Seetharama Reddy), applications under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC should be considered at the time of final hearing of appeal – Impugned order set aside on this limited ground [Paras 2–6].

Civil Procedure – Application Under Section 151 CPC – Improper Prejudgment – Application filed by defendants/petitioners for summoning death record of respondent/plaintiff decided prior to hearing of main appeal – Held: Application under Section 151 CPC also to be heard together with appeal – Impugned order set aside by consent of both parties, without going into merits [Paras 5–7].

Judicial Discretion – Fair Procedure – Coordinated Bench and Apex Court have consistently held that premature adjudication of applications under Order 41 Rule 27 and Section 151 CPC undermines the appellate process – Both applications restored and to be decided on merits at time of appeal hearing – No adjudication on merits by High Court [Paras 4–7].

Decision: Petition allowed – Impugned order dated 12.10.2022 set aside – First Appellate Court directed to consider application under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 CPC (by respondent/plaintiff) and application under Section 151 CPC (by petitioners/defendants) along with main appeal – No opinion expressed on merits of either application.