Bail – Cancellation – Suppression of Material Facts – The respondent Indira Kumari @ Tanu secured bail by suppressing material evidence against her, specifically the statements of last seen witnesses recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The bail was granted under the false premise that there was no evidence against her. This concealment and misrepresentation amounted to an abuse of judicial process. The court, upon discovering this suppression, recalled the bail order dated 07.03.2024 and directed her arrest. [Paras 1-22]

Principle of Parity – Negative Parity – Bail Application – The co-accused Anuj Pokharna and Rishabh Raj sought bail on the ground of parity with Indira Kumari. The court rejected their bail applications, emphasizing that the principle of parity is based on positive equality and cannot be invoked to perpetuate an illegality. The court highlighted that parity cannot be claimed when the initial bail was obtained by suppressing material facts. [Paras 23-30]

Decision – Bail Cancelled – Bail Applications Rejected – The bail granted to Indira Kumari on 07.03.2024 was recalled and cancelled. The bail applications of Anuj Pokharna and Rishabh Raj were rejected. Directions were issued for the immediate arrest and detention of Indira Kumari. [Paras 22, 30-31]
 

Eviction under Public Premises Act – Unauthorised Occupation – Prima Facie Satisfaction – The Estate Officer must have prima facie satisfaction that the respondent is in unauthorised occupation before issuing an eviction notice under Section 4(1) of the Public Premises Act – Satisfaction must be based on substantive material – Subsequent notices may waive earlier ones, impacting the basis for the eviction notice – Notice dated 9 February 2001 was found waived due to subsequent notices – Prima facie satisfaction formed on waived notice indicates non-application of mind [Paras 1-19].

Eviction Process – Statutory Compliance – Fairness and Reasonableness – Public authorities must act in public interest and follow principles of natural justice and constitutional fairness – Requirement for eviction under Public Premises Act involves dual-stage satisfaction: preliminary before issuing notice, and final after hearing the occupant – The necessity for eviction must align with constitutional principles and demonstrate bona fide need and fairness [Paras 20-29].

Protection under Maharashtra Rent Control Act – Waiver of Notice – Tenant’s Status – Respondent failed to prove tenancy prior to 1980 to claim protection under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act as interpreted in Suhas H. Pophale’s case – Multiple notices indicated tenancy was treated as subsisting, leading to waiver of earlier notices [Paras 30-31].

Decision: The Civil Revision Application is dismissed. The judgment of the City Civil Court, Greater Bombay, setting aside the eviction order of the Estate Officer, is upheld. The Estate Officer’s prima facie satisfaction was found to be based on non-application of mind due to reliance on waived notice. The applicant failed to demonstrate the fairness and reasonableness required for eviction [Paras 32-33].
 

Violation of Natural Justice – Reversion from IG to DIG without a proper hearing – Petitioners reverted as per orders dated 31.03.2023 without being given a subsequent opportunity for a hearing after initial postponement – Initial show cause notice dated 17.09.2021 followed by multiple notices and a scheduled hearing which was postponed due to non-availability of the Chief Minister – Respondents failed to reschedule the hearing and instead issued final reversion orders – Held, impugned orders set aside due to a violation of natural justice principles, directed to pass new orders after a proper hearing by 15.06.2024 – [Paras 1-9].

Criminal Procedure – Anticipatory Bail – Petitioner, Sahil @ Sahil Singh @ Shalu, summoned to face trial as an additional accused in FIR No. 65/2020 under Sections 302, 323, 341, 506, 148, 149 IPC at Police Station Gate Hakima, Amritsar – Allegations include involvement in a group assault leading to death – Petitioner alleged to have given fist blows to one of the injured – Declared innocent during initial police investigation but later summoned by trial court under Section 319 Cr.P.C. after testimony of the complainant – Application for anticipatory bail made on grounds that petitioner’s involvement was minimal and custodial interrogation deemed unnecessary – High Court grants anticipatory bail, citing minimal role and previous acquittal by investigating police – Petitioner to surrender within 15 days for regular bail – If not surrendered, interim relief to be vacated. [Paras 1-8]

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Business Dispute – The petitioner sought quashing of the FIR on the grounds that the dispute was of a civil nature arising out of a long-standing business relationship with the complainant. The petitioner contended that the complainant was attempting to use the criminal justice system to settle a commercial dispute, which involved transactions of crores of rupees over several years. The court noted that the existence of a business relationship without prior complaints undermined the credibility of the criminal allegations. The court emphasized that the FIR did not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence but rather a commercial relationship that had deteriorated. [Paras 1-10]

Abuse of Process – Civil Dispute Given Criminal Colour – The court highlighted that criminal prosecution should not be used to settle business disputes. The FIR, registered after an inordinate delay of over five years, did not contain allegations constituting the essential ingredients of the offences alleged. The court referred to precedents where it was held that mere breach of contract without mens rea does not constitute a criminal offence. [Paras 13-20]

Decision – FIR Quashed – The court exercised its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR, noting that continuing the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law. The court underscored the importance of preventing the criminal justice system from being misused to resolve civil disputes. [Paras 22-28]
 

Criminal Procedure – Anticipatory Bail – Denial of bail due to significant evidence indicating siphoning of funds – Petitioners Ashok Kumar Sahni and Supriya Nakra accused of redirecting Rs.2.02 crores meant for purchasing mobile phone accessories into accounts controlled by themselves and associates – Detailed investigation reveals large scale financial misappropriations across several related accounts – Both petitioners have previous criminal records with similar charges – Applications for anticipatory bail dismissed based on prima facie establishment of offenses and potential influence on ongoing investigation [Paras 2-15].

Role of Accused and Company Operations – Ashok Kumar Sahni, serving as director, was not actively involved in day-to-day operations but had substantial control and influence over financial transactions – Supriya Nakra, despite not being named initially in the FIR, was found deeply involved as the authorized signatory and administrator of company’s accounts, implicating her in the operational fraud – Detailed transaction records from company accounts indicate deliberate misdirection of funds [Paras 4, 6-9, 13].

Decision – High Court concludes involvement of petitioners in systematic siphoning of funds, fraud, and forgery based on transaction trails and their roles within the company – Previous grants of bail to co-accused based on insufficient evidence at the time, now overturned due to emerging details from the ongoing investigation – Anticipatory bail denied, underscoring the severity of allegations and ongoing criminal behavior [Para 14].

Contractual Disputes – Withholding of Payment – Dispute arose over withholding of Rs. 1,40,42,000/- payment due to allegations of data breach by the respondent – Appellant cited contractual provisions permitting withholding payment for default – Held, withholding payment pending investigation justified under terms of agreement [Paras 1-7, 10-11].

Writ Jurisdiction – Exercise in Contractual Matters – High Court emphasized limited scope of writ jurisdiction in contractual disputes – Held, writ jurisdiction not appropriate where arbitration clause exists and parties have alternate remedy – Reference to Apex Court rulings on writ jurisdiction in contractual disputes [Paras 8-9].

Arbitration Clause – Dispute Resolution – Agreement contained arbitration clause for dispute resolution – High Court directed parties to resolve dispute through arbitration, setting aside writ court’s order for immediate payment – Emphasized need for arbitration as per contract terms [Para 11].

Decision: Writ Appeal allowed – Impugned judgment set aside – Parties directed to resolve dispute through arbitration as per agreement terms – No costs [Para 12].

Restitution of Conjugal Rights – Validity of Marriage – Appeal challenging the Family Court's decree for restitution of conjugal rights in favor of the respondent – Appellant contended that no marriage took place and that the respondent's claims were fabricated – Respondent provided evidence of marriage through testimonies and documents – Trial court found the marriage to be valid – High Court upheld the Family Court's decision based on consistent and credible evidence supporting the respondent's claims – Appellant's arguments regarding non-maintainability and lack of valid marriage were rejected [Paras 1-40, 100-110].

Evidence – Burden of Proof – Allegation of Non-Marriage – Appellant's denial of marriage contradicted by respondent's detailed evidence including marriage certificate, witnesses' testimonies, and photographs – High Court emphasized the importance of examining all evidence in matrimonial disputes – Family Court's reliance on consistent testimonies and documentary evidence deemed appropriate – Appellant's failure to provide credible rebuttal noted [Paras 50-90].

Decision: Appeal dismissed. Judgment and decree of the Family Court, Bhagalpur, affirmed. Appellant directed to restore conjugal rights with the respondent as per the decree.

Maintenance – Quantum Determination – True Disclosure of Income and Assets – Petitioner challenged the order directing him to pay maintenance to the respondent – Contention that the petitioner's unemployment and lack of documentary evidence regarding income were not considered – Court emphasized the requirement of true disclosure of income, assets, and liabilities by both parties as per Supreme Court guidelines in Rajnesh v. Neha – Impugned order set aside to the extent of quantum of maintenance – Matter remitted for fresh determination based on affidavits of disclosure – Interim maintenance to continue at Rs. 10,000 per month until final disposal [Paras 1-14].

Legal Principles – Affidavit of Disclosure – Supreme Court guidelines in Rajnesh v. Neha mandate filing of detailed affidavits by both parties in maintenance proceedings – Affidavits to cover financial status from the date of filing the original case to the date of filing affidavits – Misrepresentation or false statements may attract proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. and contempt of court [Paras 8-10].

Procedure – Compliance with Supreme Court Guidelines – Trial courts must ensure adherence to the guidelines for fair determination of maintenance – Importance of responsible pleadings and disclosure in matrimonial disputes stressed – Directions issued for expeditious disposal of remitted matter [Paras 11-14].

Decision: Revision allowed – Impugned order dated 16.01.2019 set aside to the extent of quantum of maintenance – Parties directed to file affidavits of disclosure – Interim maintenance to continue at Rs. 10,000 per month until final disposal [Paras 11-14].