Civil Law - Procedure – Order XVIII Rule 1 CPC – Right to Begin – Plaintiff Entitled to Lead Evidence – Deviation Not Justified – The appellant challenged the direction of the learned Single Judge requiring him (defendant) to lead evidence first in a partition suit – The High Court held that as per Order XVIII Rule 1 CPC, it is the plaintiff who has the right to begin unless the defendant admits all material facts and raises only legal defences or additional facts – No such admission was made by the appellant – Held: The impugned order directing the defendant to begin was contrary to procedural law and thus set aside [Paras 15-23]. 
 
Burden of Proof – Direction to Defendant to Lead Evidence – Improper Allocation – No Admission by Defendant – The trial court placed initial burden on defendant based on disputed documents allegedly in his exclusive knowledge – The appellate court held that absence of admissions by the defendant made it incorrect to call him first to lead evidence – The responsibility lies with the plaintiffs to prove their case in the first instance [Paras 16-18, 21-22]. 
 
Decision – Appeal Allowed – Impugned Order Set Aside – The direction requiring the appellant to lead evidence first was quashed – The respondents/plaintiffs were directed to lead their evidence in accordance with law [Para 23]. 
 

Criminal Law – Sect. 138 N.I. Act - Bail Cancellation – Non-Appearance Due to Health – Bail Restored – Petitioner’s bail was cancelled and non-bailable warrants issued for non-appearance in a Section 138 NI Act case – Held: Absence was unintentional, caused by medically proven encephalopathy – Trial Court’s action in issuing arrest warrant without notice was harsh and disproportionate – Bail cancellation order quashed [Paras 2–6, 7–8].

Judicial Discretion – Due Process Violated – No Prior Notice Before Warrant – Petitioner not issued notice before issuance of non-bailable warrant – Held: Contrary to settled law and judicial fairness – Courts must avoid mechanical detention and ensure liberty is not curtailed without procedural safeguards [Paras 5, 6].

Legal Principles – Liberty & Bail – Ref. Gudikanti Narasimhulu, Sanjay Chandra – Cited – Court reiterated that deprivation of liberty must be based on necessity, not mere procedural lapse – Held: Petitioner’s conduct showed cooperation, no risk of tampering with evidence – Bail is to secure appearance, not punishment [Paras 5.1, 5.2, 6].

Final Directions – Bail Restored with Conditions – Impugned order of 11.10.2024 set aside – Petitioner directed to appear before trial Court on 09.06.2025 and all subsequent dates – Passport to be surrendered if any – Rs.10,000 costs imposed payable to Punjab and Haryana High Court Employees Welfare Association [Para 8].
 

Tenancy Law - Tenancy Claim – Cultivation by Relative – Tenancy Denied – MRT Order Set Aside - Petitioner challenged the MRT’s order which upheld tenancy rights of Uttamrao Khot – Held: Mere cultivation by a relative or adopted family member does not establish tenancy – No rent receipts or tenancy agreement were produced – Respondent's claim fails under Section 4 of the Tenancy Act [Paras 13–33].
Presumption of Cultivation – Blank Cultivator Column – Not Sufficient to Prove Tenancy - MRT and Tahsildar relied on blank entries in cultivation columns and assumed tenancy – Court held that such blanks do not raise presumption of tenant cultivation, especially when name of landlord appears in later years – Burden to prove tenancy lies on claimant [Paras 19–20, 25].
Documentary Evidence – Sugarcane Receipts and Revenue Payments – Found Insufficient - Respondent relied on sugarcane factory receipts and land revenue payment documents – Court found no conclusive link to tenancy, especially since payments may have been made as a relative – Letter dated 3 August 1976 allegedly proving rent payment was interpolated and lacked authenticity [Paras 24–30].
Family Relationship – Deemed Tenant Status Barred – Section 4(1)(a) Attracted - Respondent was proved to be brother of the original landowner, adopted by her mother – Held: A family member cannot claim deemed tenancy under Section 4 – Claim fails on statutory bar alone [Para 33].
Final Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – MRT and Tahsildar Orders Quashed - High Court held that MRT’s conclusions were perverse, findings unsupported by credible evidence – Restored SDO's decision rejecting tenancy claim – Respondents’ tenancy over Gat No.836 (New Gat No.125) not upheld [Paras 16–33].
 

Hindu Law – Coparcenary Rights – Birthright in Ancestral Property – Partition Decree Upheld – 1st defendant alienated part of the suit property claiming it was self-acquired – Courts found that the property was purchased from ancestral nucleus – 2nd plaintiff (son) had a birthright as coparcener in his father’s share – Sale to 3rd defendant (aunt) could not affect son’s share – Held: Alienation not binding to the extent of son’s undivided share – Partition decree affirmed [Paras 16-21]. 
 
Burden of Proof – Failure to Establish Self-Acquired Status – Adverse Inference Drawn – 1st defendant failed to testify and substantiate claim of purchasing property from self-earnings – Held: In absence of evidence and given family’s agricultural income, courts rightly inferred acquisition through ancestral funds – Adverse presumption applied under Vidhyadhar v. Manikrao, AIR 1999 SC 1441 [Paras 16-17]. 
 
Presumption of Joint Family Property – Admissions and Agricultural Income – Confirmed – Defendant’s admission of joint cultivation and absence of independent income supported plaintiffs’ claim of ancestral source – Presumption applied under established principles where family nucleus and source of funds were admitted [Paras 17-18]. 
 
Effect of Birth on Property – Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act – Applicable – The son’s birth prior to alienation revived the coparcenary and entitled him to a half share in his father’s portion – Held: Father could only alienate his own share and not the son’s – Alienation to 3rd defendant partly invalid [Paras 2021]. 
 
Decision – Second Appeal Dismissed – Concurrent findings upheld – No substantial question of law made out – Each party to bear their own costs [Para 22]. 
 

PMLA Offence – Bail Rejection – Serious Economic Fraud – Bail Denied – Petitioner accused of defrauding over ₹800 crores from flat buyers through a fictitious housing project – Despite attachment of ₹161.5 crores, further investigation ongoing to trace remaining proceeds of crime – Held: Given gravity, conduct of petitioner, and ongoing investigation, bail cannot be granted [Paras 5–6, 15, 24–25].

Statutory Bail – Section 167(2) CrPC – Not Applicable – Complaint Filed Timely – Petitioner argued for statutory bail due to delayed filing of final report – Held: Complaint under PMLA filed on 05.11.2024 and taken cognizance on 04.12.2024, within permissible time – Hence, plea for statutory bail rejected [Paras 4.2, 8, 11].

Section 45 PMLA – Stringent Bail Conditions – Not Satisfied – Petitioner Failed Two-Part Test – Court found no reasonable grounds to believe petitioner is not guilty or unlikely to commit offence again – Held: Petitioner failed conditions under Section 45(1)(ii), bail barred [Paras 17–18, 25].

Non-Cooperation and Tampering – Forged Medical Certificate and Illegal Mobile Use – Misuse During Custody – Petitioner submitted forged medical documents and possessed mobile phone in judicial custody – Alleged further laundering through daughter-in-law while in jail – Held: Conduct undermines claim of bona fides and justifies continued custody [Paras 5.2, 5.5, 14, 21].

Further Investigation Post-Complaint – Permissible Under PMLA – Complaint Not Bar to Continued Probe – Held: Under Section 44(1)(ii) PMLA, complaint can be supplemented by further investigation – Justifies refusal of bail due to ongoing tracing of unaccounted proceeds of crime [Paras 23–24].

Final Decision – Bail Denied – Criminal Petition Dismissed – Taking into account the magnitude of the offence, petitioner’s conduct, and non-cooperation, Court held bail unjustified – Petition dismissed [Para 26].
 

Criminal Law - Public Way – Unlawful Construction – Section 133 CrPC – Order for Removal Upheld - Petitioners challenged orders directing demolition of a wall built on public land used as a pathway – Held: Wall obstructed traditional public way; even partial obstruction warrants removal under Section 133 CrPC – Construction found unjustified and detrimental to public use [Paras 6–11, 17].

Presumption of Future Obstruction – Not Sole Basis – Existing Encroachment Confirmed - Petitioners argued that action was based on future apprehension – Court held evidence on record confirmed actual obstruction and misuse of public land, not just presumption [Paras 3, 11].

Right to Pathway – Community Use Prevails Over Individual Claims - Based on field reports and witness testimony, Court held that path was used by villagers and obstructed by the wall – Reiterated duty to preserve Gram Sabha land for communal purposes [Paras 6–10, 14].

Gram Sabha Land – Encroachment Not to Be Regularized – Directions from Supreme Court Cited - Court followed precedent in Jagpal Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 2011 SC 1123 – Held: Public land cannot be regularized if encroached, even if construction exists – Public interest and village usage must be preserved [Paras 14–15].

Maintainability of Orders – Proper Procedure Followed – No Illegality Found - Both the SDM and Revisional Court orders held valid – Findings based on evidence, field inquiry, and due procedure under Section 133 and related CrPC provisions – Writ petitions dismissed [Paras 12–13, 17–18].
 

Criminal Law – Quashing - Disproportionate Assets – Mere Relationship with Principal Accused – No Abetment Made Out – Proceedings Quashed - Petitioner, wife of the principal accused, was arrayed as abettor under Section 109 IPC based on ownership of some assets – Court held that mere spousal relationship or name-lending without evidence of active role or mens rea is not sufficient for abetment – No prima facie case made out [Paras 20–26, 31–32].

Speedy Trial – Delay of Over Two Decades – Article 21 Violation – Proceedings Quashed - Criminal case initiated in 2004 remained pending with no charge framed or trial initiated for over 20 years – Court held that continued prosecution violated petitioner’s right to speedy trial under Article 21 – Quashing necessary to prevent abuse of process [Paras 20, 22–24, 28, 30].

Vigilance Practice – Mechanical Implication of Spouses – Strongly Criticized - Court observed that spouses, often housewives, are routinely added as co-accused in DA cases without inquiry into their role or mens rea – Reiterated that such practice is arbitrary and contrary to criminal justice principles [Paras 25–27, 31].

Judicial Precedent – Smt. E. Swarnalata Case Followed – Quashing Warranted - Citing coordinate Bench decision in Smt. E. Swarnalata v. State of Odisha (Vigilance), 2024 (I) ILR-CUT-1465, Court reiterated that ownership of assets alone by a spouse does not establish abetment – Ratio applied squarely to petitioner’s case [Paras 25–26].

Final Decision – CRLMC Allowed – Proceedings Quashed Against Petitioner - Criminal proceeding in Vigilance PS Case No. 20/2004, T.R. No. 83/2007 quashed with respect to petitioner – Court directed expeditious trial against remaining accused [Paras 32–33].
 

Civil Law - Recovery Suit – Unauthorized Encashment of Cheque – Liability of Issuer – Upheld – L&T officials handed over cheque to third party (Seshaiah) who was not authorized by the plaintiff to receive payments – The cheque was encashed through fraudulent account created in plaintiff’s firm name – Held: No agency or partnership between plaintiff and said third party was established – L&T’s liability to plaintiff subsisted as payment was not validly discharged – Trial court decree affirmed [Paras 3-16].

Agency – No Implied or Express Authorization – Burden on Defendant – Defendant’s claim that cheque recipient acted as agent of plaintiff unsupported by evidence – No written authorization or proof of course of dealing presented – Plaintiff consistently operated through his own bank account – Held: Cheque handed to an unauthorized third party cannot discharge debt to plaintiff [Paras 12-15].

Banking Evidence – Proof of Fraudulent Account Creation – Weight Given to Testimony of Bank Manager – Evidence showed that cheque was encashed in newly opened account by third party on the same day and closed within the month – Held: Clear act of deception and misuse – Validated plaintiff’s claim and criminal prosecution against third party [Para 15].

Due Diligence – L&T Officials Failed to Verify Authorization – Faulty Payment Process – The appellants failed to exercise caution and verify whether Seshaiah was authorized by the plaintiff – Held: Negligence in financial transactions does not absolve liability – Payment to unauthorized party not a valid discharge [Paras 16-17].

Appeal – Abatement Against Deceased Respondent – No Substitution of Legal Representatives – Appeal abated as against third defendant due to failure to implead legal heirs – Relief confined to appellant’s liability to plaintiff – No modification possible regarding exonerated co-defendant [Para 18].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Trial Court Decree Affirmed – Appellants liable to pay Rs. 8,54,726 with interest – No interference warranted – No order as to costs [Para 19].

Criminal Law - Quashing - Trademark Infringement – Criminal Complaint Post-Termination of Agreement – Allegation of Counterfeit Product Supply – Cognizable Offences Made Out –

Petitioners challenged issuance of process in a criminal complaint alleging use of complainant’s trademark ‘Hydris’ post termination of distributorship in 2013 – Alleged supply of counterfeit hydrogen sensors to public sector entities – Court held that prima facie offences under Sections 420, 406, 471, and 415 IPC were made out – Use of counterfeit mark and deceitful supply of products constituted cheating as per illustration (b) to Section 415 IPC [Paras 1-5, 24-26].

Civil vs Criminal Dispute – Pendency of Civil Suit No Bar to Criminal Proceedings – Petitioner contended that dispute was civil in nature as civil suit had already been filed – Court held that pendency of civil proceedings is not a ground to quash criminal prosecution if allegations prima facie disclose commission of cognizable offence – Allegations of fraudulent use of mark and economic gain by deception justified continuation of criminal process [Paras 9-10, 2527].

Process Issuance – Application of Mind by Magistrate – Section 202 Inquiry Conducted – Validity Upheld – It was contended that Magistrate mechanically issued process under Section 204 CrPC – Court found that an inquiry under Section 202 was duly conducted through Noapara Police Station – Magistrate applied judicial mind on report before issuing process – No interference warranted [Paras 7, 30].

Director Liability – Specific Allegations Present – Vicarious Liability Not Attracted – Petitioners argued that no specific role was attributed to directors (Petitioners 2 and 3) – Court noted that complaint specifically alleged their role in the manufacture and supply of counterfeit products – No case of mere vicarious liability made out – Hence, no ground to quash proceedings against individual directors [Paras 11, 20].

Quashing Jurisdiction – Section 482 CrPC – No Abuse of Process – Documents Filed by Defence Cannot Be Considered at Pre-trial Stage – Petitioners relied on various documents to claim innocence – Court reiterated that such documents, not forming part of complaint or police report, cannot be relied upon to quash proceedings at pre-trial stage – Allegations in complaint disclose offences and must be tested during trial [Paras 28-29].

Decision – Petition Dismissed – Court Refused to Quash Proceedings – Found no contradiction between civil and criminal pleadings – Directed trial court to expedite proceedings in complaint case no. 743 of 2021 [Paras 31-33].