Negotiable Instruments – Dishonour of Cheque – Notice – Service Not Proved – Two post-dated cheques of Rs.4 lakhs and Rs.8 lakhs issued by respondent towards repayment of alleged loan – Cheques dishonoured for insufficient funds – Complaints filed under Section 138 NI Act – Magistrate convicted accused – Appellate court reversed conviction, holding that service of demand notice was not duly proved – High Court upholds appellate court’s view – Acknowledgement card in one case signed by unidentified minor girl not shown to be family member – In another case, notice sent to incomplete address – Held: Presumption under Section 27 of General Clauses Act and Section 114 of Evidence Act not available where service is not proved – Conviction unsustainable in absence of valid notice [Paras 18–21].

Presumption – Burden on Drawer – Rebuttal – Accused did not enter witness box – However, burden on complainant to prove essential ingredients of Section 138 not discharged – Statutory presumption under Section 27 GC Act arises only if notice is sent to correct address and delivery is probable – Court distinguishes C.C. Alavi Haji and Uttam Ram on facts – Held: Rebuttable presumption of notice receipt not established on flawed evidence [Paras 17–20].

Criminal Procedure – Ingredients of Offence – Section 138 NI Act – Legal requirement of notice and failure to pay within 15 days of receipt are mandatory – Failure to prove receipt of notice fatal to prosecution – Offence under Section 138 not made out [Paras 16, 21].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Conviction order passed by Magistrate set aside by Sessions Court affirmed – Acquittal of Respondent in both cases under Section 138 NI Act upheld.

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 148 – Conditional Deposit for Appeal – Conviction under Section 138 NI Act challenged in appeal – Appellate Court directed deposit of 30% compensation amount as condition for hearing – Petitioners alleged they were not granted opportunity to oppose application under Section 148 and cited exceptional circumstances including lack of legal debt – Held: No procedural irregularity shown – Petitioners were heard – No exceptional circumstance proved to justify waiver of statutory deposit – Conditional direction under Section 148 valid – Norm is to require deposit, waiver is exception requiring recorded reasons [Paras 1, 6–12]

Criminal Procedure – Section 91 CrPC – Rejection of Defence Application – Petitioners’ application under Section 91 CrPC for production of Del Credere agency agreement was rejected by Trial Court as not necessary – Held: Trial Court's discretion valid – Petitioners had opportunity to raise all defences at trial – No miscarriage of justice shown [Paras 2, 5]

Judicial Precedents – Section 148 NI Act – Harmonisation of Supreme Court Rulings – Appellate Court rightly relied on Surinder Singh Deswal v. Virender Gandhi – Petitioners failed to establish any exceptional ground under later rulings in Jamboo Bhandari and Muskan Enterprises to warrant waiver of deposit – Held: No conflict in authorities – Later judgments reiterate principle that reasons must be recorded for waiver – Not automatic [Paras 10–12]

Relief – Modification of Impugned Order – Court upheld requirement of deposit but granted extended time of 60 days for compliance – Directed Appellate Court to proceed with appeal on merits if deposit made – No interference otherwise warranted [Paras 15–17]

Decision:

Revisional application dismissed – Order requiring 30% deposit upheld – Time to deposit extended by 60 days – Appeal to proceed on merits if condition met.

SC/ST Act – Cognizance – Caste-based Abuse – Public View – Appellants challenged cognizance order under Sections 3(1)(r)(s)(w)/3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act – Alleged that caste-based remarks were made inside house and not in public view – Trial court relied on FIR, injury report, restatement of informant and witness statements indicating villagers assembled after hearing alarm – Held: When villagers gathered on hearing alarm and were present at the time of utterance, the abuse qualifies as being made within "public view" – Ingredients of offence under SC/ST Act prima facie made out – No interference warranted [Paras 3, 8, 10-14]

Criminal Procedure – Cognizance – Application of Judicial Mind – Appellants contended that trial court did not apply judicial mind while taking cognizance – Held: Trial court examined FIR, case diary paras 5, 6, 7, and 31, and found prima facie case – Re-statement of informant corroborated allegations – Application of judicial mind evident – Cognizance order upheld [Paras 6, 13]

Judicial Review – Scope at Cognizance Stage – Defence arguments based on case law (Hitesh Verma, Swaran Singh, Karuppudayar) rejected as distinguishable – Held: At cognizance stage, court only needs to assess prima facie case based on prosecution material – Not required to evaluate defence evidence or potential for conviction – FIR and case diary provide sufficient basis for prima facie case under SC/ST Act [Paras 5, 9, 12]

Marriage – Caste-Based Discrimination – Scheduled Caste Woman Harassed by In-laws – Informant, a Scheduled Caste woman, married into upper-caste family – Allegedly subjected to caste-based abuse and physical assault by in-laws – Trial court found allegations supported by injury report and witness statements – Held: Prima facie case made out for caste-based harassment, physical assault, criminal intimidation and trespass [Paras 3-4, 6-8]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Order dated 27.03.2023 taking cognizance upheld – No interference warranted – Appeal rejected at admission stage.

Family Law - Senior Citizens Act – Gift Deed – Cancellation – Section 23(1) – Deemed Condition of Maintenance – Gift deed executed by 88-year-old mother-in-law in favour of daughter-in-law – Tribunal refused to cancel the deed as there was no express condition of maintenance in the document – District Magistrate reversed the decision and directed cancellation – Held: Execution of gift by a senior citizen to a close relative implies expectation of care and maintenance – Failure to provide such care attracts the deeming clause under Section 23 – No requirement of express stipulation in the deed – Tribunal and appellate authority justified in declaring the transfer void [Paras 30–36].

Pleadings – Implied Condition of Maintenance – Gift deed need not contain explicit clause – Condition of care can be inferred from facts, relationship, and contemporaneous conduct – Evidence including letters from the transferor highlighting neglect and abuse sufficient to establish breach of implied condition – Tribunal should consider entire material, not just bare pleadings [Paras 24–29, 31–35].

Interpretation of Beneficial Legislation – Purposeful Construction – Strict literal interpretation of Section 23(1) rejected – Court followed purposive approach to uphold statutory objective of protecting elderly citizens from being deprived of property and dignity – Reference to judgments in Urmila Dixit, Nitin Rajendra Gupta, and Mohamed Dayan affirming broader interpretation favouring senior citizens [Paras 23–29].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment of Single Judge upheld – District Magistrate’s order restoring senior citizen’s property affirmed – Tribunal empowered to declare transfer void even without express condition in the deed – Costs not imposed.

Criminal Law – Gangsters Act – Proceedings Based on Acquitted Base Case – Applicant sought quashing of proceedings under Section 3(1) of the Gangsters Act based on a solitary FIR in which he was later acquitted – Held: Once the accused is acquitted in the base case forming the foundation of gang chart, continuation of prosecution under the Gangsters Act becomes unsustainable – Gangster proceedings quashed as per ratio in Farhana v. State of U.P., 2024 INSC 118 and other High Court precedents [Paras 3, 5-6].

Judicial Precedent – Applicability of Supreme Court Ruling – Court relied on binding precedent of Farhana (Supreme Court) to hold that exoneration in the primary case bars continued prosecution under the Gangsters Act – Also followed prior rulings of Allahabad High Court in Salim @ Piyaoo, Jai Prakash, and Sartaj cases [Para 5].

Criminal Procedure – Quashing of Proceedings – Court quashed the charge sheet, cognizance/summoning order, and entire trial proceedings in Gangsters Act case – Clarified that authorities remain free to initiate fresh proceedings based on any other future or independent cases [Paras 6-8].

Decision: Application allowed – Charge-sheet dated 10.03.2023, cognizance order dated 05.04.2023, and entire proceedings in Session Case No. 249 of 2023 under Gangsters Act quashed as against applicant – Liberty reserved for authorities to initiate action in future based on other grounds or cases [Paras 6-8].

Criminal Law – Summoning Order – Quashed – Appeal under Section 14A SC/ST Act – Appellant summoned under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 506 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act in a complaint case arising from a failed land transaction – Delay of over six months in lodging complaint – Allegation of rape found not credible and summoning not done for offence under Section 376 – Held: Present prosecution is based on identical facts as prior case and amounts to abuse of process of law – Complaint filed with the intent to pressure refund of earnest money, which is a civil dispute – Summoning order set aside [Paras 16–23].

Abuse of Process – Duplicate Proceedings – Two FIRs on Similar Facts – Earlier prosecution already pending under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(2)(va) SC/ST Act – Both complaints arise from the same transaction and contain nearly identical averments – Second complaint includes new rape allegation not found credible by trial court – Held: Repeated criminal proceedings on same cause of action are impermissible and attract constructive res judicata – Entire proceedings quashed [Paras 9–13, 20–23].

SC/ST Act – Intention to Offend on Caste Grounds – Essential Element – Mere abuse or insult not sufficient – Allegation must show intention to commit offence because of the victim’s caste status – Held: No prima facie case under SC/ST Act made out – Caste-related language insufficient absent clear intent [Paras 6, 10, 20].

Frivolous Litigation – Court’s Duty – High Court emphasized judicial scrutiny when multiple FIRs are filed or vexatious allegations made to settle personal scores – Cited Supreme Court decisions in Mohd. Wajid, Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani, Bhajan Lal, and Rajiv Thapar to hold that courts must “read between the lines” when allegations appear fabricated [Paras 13–21].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Summoning order dated 23.07.2024 set aside – All criminal proceedings against the appellant in Complaint No. 26 of 2023 quashed.

Criminal Law – Cognizance – Omnibus Allegations – Appellants Nos.2 to 6 (family members of husband) challenged cognizance order passed by the SC/ST Special Court for offences under IPC, Dowry Prohibition Act and SC/ST Act – No specific allegations made against them except general claims of instigation and caste-based remarks – Held: Continuation of proceedings against them would be abuse of legal process – Cognizance quashed [Paras 10-12]

Domestic Violence – Matrimonial Dispute – Allegations of harassment and caste-based abuse by husband (Accused No.1) and in-laws – FIR and 161 CrPC statements revealed no particular incidents or evidence against in-laws – Court found accusations exaggerated and unsubstantiated against Accused Nos.2 to 6 – Held: Allegations against in-laws not sufficient to proceed to trial [Paras 11-12]

Section 3(2)(va), SC/ST Act – Scheduled Offences – Court held that offences alleged against Accused Nos.2 to 6 did not qualify as scheduled offences under the SC/ST Act – Cognizance taken without reasoning by trial judge – Proceedings quashed for these accused [Para 12]

Appeal Outcome – Criminal Appeal Nos.758, 757 and 759 allowed – Cognizance against Accused Nos.3 to 6 quashed – Appeal by Accused No.2 abated due to death – Appeal by Accused No.1 (Peeta Raman) dismissed as prima facie material existed for full trial [Paras 12-13]

Decision: Criminal Appeals allowed in part – Cognizance order dated 10.04.2024 quashed against Accused Nos.3 to 6 – Proceedings against Accused No.2 abated – Appeal of Accused No.1 dismissed – Trial to continue against him.

Civil Law - Specific Relief – Readiness and Willingness – Specific Performance – Sale of Immovable Property – Agreement of Sale – Time not Essence – Plaintiff demonstrated continuous readiness and willingness by making multiple payments, issuing legal notices, and attending Sub-Registrar’s office – Defendants received consideration even after agreed deadline of 02.04.2009 – Execution of two registered sale deeds by Defendant No.1 after deadline showed parties mutually extended time – Held: Time not essence of contract – Plaintiff was always ready and willing – Trial Court rightly decreed specific performance [Paras 39–51, 52–66]

Contract Law – Binding Effect of Agreement – Defendant No.1 did not sign original agreement (Ex.A.1) but later accepted sale consideration and executed two registered sale deeds in plaintiff’s favour – Conduct estopped him from denying knowledge or liability under agreement – Held: Defendant No.1 bound by conduct and cannot approbate and reprobate – Specific performance rightly ordered against him [Paras 67–70]

Civil Procedure – Maintainability – Cancellation of Agreement – Defendants' plea that plaintiff’s suit was not maintainable without seeking declaration to set aside cancellation of agreement made in reply notice (Ex.B.4) – Held: Plea not raised in pleadings or trial – No forfeiture clause in agreement – Unilateral cancellation invalid in absence of contractual provision – Such plea cannot be entertained for first time in appeal – Trial Court’s decree upheld [Paras 71–80]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree dated 26.11.2013 in O.S. No. 46 of 2010 confirmed – Plaintiff given one month to pay remaining balance sale consideration of ₹12,76,000 – Defendants directed to execute registered sale deed within two months thereafter – No costs [Para 81].

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Alleged Inflammatory Social Media Message – Communal Harmony – FIR registered under Sections 299 and 353(3) BNS alleging that petitioner circulated an inflammatory WhatsApp message after arrest of his brother under the Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 – Petitioner contended that the message merely expressed resentment over brother’s arrest and faith in judiciary – No inflammatory content per se – Held: Though the message did not explicitly refer to religion, its underlying tone conveyed that the petitioner’s brother was targeted for belonging to a particular religious community – Such message, by its implication, prima facie capable of promoting feelings of enmity and hatred between communities – May not attract Section 353(3) BNS but falls within scope of Section 353(2) BNS – Investigation cannot be interdicted at threshold [Paras 7–9].

Criminal Procedure – Scope of Judicial Interference under Article 226 – FIR discloses prima facie commission of cognizable offence – Quashing at incipient stage would foreclose legitimate investigation – No grounds made out for exercising extraordinary writ jurisdiction [Paras 8–9].

Decision: Petition dismissed – No interference warranted with investigation in Case Crime No. 421 of 2025 – Matter to proceed in accordance with law.