Criminal Law - Dishonour of Cheque - Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 - Section 138 - Statutory Demand Notice - Requirement of specifying amount - Appellant/complainant filed an appeal against the acquittal of the accused by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II Perambra in a case involving dishonour of a cheque for Rs 95000 - The trial court acquitted the accused finding that the demand notice mandated under proviso (b) to Section 138 was invalid as it failed to specify the amount to be paid - Appellant contended that since there was only one transaction between the parties the accused was aware of the amount and the omission was not fatal - High Court observed that proviso (b) to Section 138 specifically mandates the payee to make a demand for the payment of the said amount of money - Notice must specifically state the amount to facilitate payment by the drawer to avoid penal consequences - Omission of the specific amount means there is no demand for payment of the actual amount covered by the cheque in the eye of law - Held - Statutory demand notice must specifically state the amount to be paid and absence of such detail renders the notice incomplete and illegal - acquittal confirmed - [Paras 1-12].

Criminal Law - Deemed Offence - Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 - Section 138 - Essential Ingredients - Court reiterated that the offence under Section 138 is a deemed offence which is complete only upon the fulfillment of five distinct stages including the issuance of a valid demand notice within thirty days of receiving dishonour information - The phraseology makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money indicates that the notice must be specific as to the quantum - Without a specific demand the recipient cannot pay the exact amount to avoid the penal consequences of the statute - Held - Failure to mention the amount in the demand notice results in the non-completion of the ingredients of the offence - [Paras 11-12].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Order of acquittal passed by the trial court is confirmed.

Family Law – Contempt – Child Custody – Visitation – Wilful Disobedience of Family Court Orders – Petitioner alleged non-compliance with multiple orders dated 02.12.2022 to 25.07.2023 passed by Family Court, North-West, Rohini in GP No. 109/2022 directing visitation rights in favour of the father qua minor daughter – During pendency of contempt petition, Family Court vide order dated 21.03.2025 transferred interim custody to the father, noting that the mother had repeatedly shifted between countries, failed to provide stability, had no record of the child's schooling, had previously lived in UK as a refugee, and had consistently violated court orders – High Court directed that all Family Court orders, including the custody order dated 21.03.2025, shall be immediately enforceable and enforced under supervision of the Family Court [Paras 1–5, 13–14].

Interim Visitation Arrangement – Child Counsellor's Report – Orders dated 15.04.2026 and 06.05.2026 passed by the High Court with consent of parties directed interim visitation on alternate days as an arrangement to avoid abrupt implementation of the custody order – Subsequently modified to visitation once in every three days with exemption on examination days – Child Counsellor's report dated 25.05.2026 noted initial resistance from child towards father but observed gradual improvement and willingness to interact during later sessions – Said interim arrangement held to have served its purpose and discontinued [Paras 6–11].

Review Petition – Scope of Contempt Orders – Review petitioner objected that directions in orders dated 15.04.2026 and 06.05.2026 went beyond the scope of the orders of which contempt was alleged – Held: Review petition disposed of in terms of discontinuation of the interim visitation arrangement — necessary implication being that all Family Court orders become immediately enforceable [Paras 10–12].

Contempt – Enforcement – Family Court's Duty – Family Court directed to ensure immediate compliance and enforcement of its subsisting orders without any delay – Mere pendency of applications shall not afford justification for continued wilful disobedience – In case of non-compliance by either party, Family Court entitled to make appropriate reference for action under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 [Paras 14–16].

Decision: Contempt petition and Review Petition No. 220/2026 disposed of – Interim visitation arrangement under orders dated 15.04.2026 and 06.05.2026 discontinued – All subsisting Family Court orders including custody order dated 21.03.2025 declared immediately enforceable and directed to be enforced under supervision of Family Court – All rights and remedies of parties reserved [Paras 12–17].

Criminal Law - Summoning of additional accused - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 319 - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 - Section 348 - Petitioners were named in FIR but found innocent during investigation and kept in Column No 2 of the challan - Trial Court allowed application for summoning them as additional accused following deposition of PW1 complainant who attributed specific overt acts and weapons to each petitioner - Petitioners contended that summoning was improper as two petitioners were Army and Airforce personnel on duty at distant locations - High Court observed that power under Section 319 CrPC is to be exercised when strong and cogent evidence exists which is more than a prima facie case but short of absolute satisfaction of conviction - Inquiry report from SP Kaithal indicated petitioners mobile phone locations were at the scene of crime suggesting alibi certificates were false - Held - Veracity of alibi plea and innocence cannot be tested at the threshold of summoning and must be adjudicated during trial - Complainant testimony in court categorically supporting FIR version constitutes sufficient evidence for summoning - Petition dismissed - [Paras 1-12].

Evidence Law - Plea of Alibi - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 3 - Burden of Proof - Petitioners produced certificates from Ministry of Defence and Airforce to prove presence at duty stations far from the place of occurrence - Complainant produced RTI inquiry report showing petitioners cell locations at the spot - Held - Alibi is a plea in the nature of evidence and the burden to establish it rests on the accused - Such plea cannot be treated as conclusive at the threshold of Section 319 proceedings and its truthfulness can only be verified upon appreciation of full evidence led by both parties - [Paras 10-11].

Criminal Law - Definition of Evidence for Summoning - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 319 - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 3 - Scope - Petitioners argued that testimony of complainant was mere reiteration of previous police statements - Held - Evidence under Section 319 means evidence as made before the Court in relation to statements and as produced in relation to documents - Court is not restricted to material collected during investigation and must decide based on evidence tendered during trial - Testimony of PW1 which specifically attributes overt acts and weapons to petitioners is more than prima facie evidence justifying summoning - [Paras 9-12].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Orders of the Judicial Magistrate First Class and Additional Sessions Judge Kaithal summoning the petitioners as additional accused to face trial are affirmed.

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Real Estate Dispute – Civil Dispute Clothed as Criminal Offence – Petitioners accused under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 469, 471 and 120-B IPC in connection with a commercial real estate project styled "IT Square" at Plot No. 21, Knowledge Park-III, Greater Noida – Allegations pertaining to non-delivery of possession, non-execution of sale/sub-lease deeds, assured return defaults, and alleged fabrication of allotment documents relating to a disputed "fourth unit" – Held: Allegations, even if accepted at face value, essentially disclose a civil and commercial dispute arising from contractual and real estate transactions – Essential ingredients of the offences alleged are not prima facie established against the petitioners – FIR and all consequential proceedings quashed [Paras 80–109].

Cheating – Section 420 IPC – Fraudulent Intent at Inception – Sine Qua Non – Mere breach of contractual obligations or subsequent non-performance does not constitute cheating unless dishonest intention is demonstrated at the very inception of the transaction – Original three units were allotted in 2008, possession offered in 2012, sub-lease deeds executed in 2022, and parties engaged in prolonged commercial negotiations over several years – Such continuing commercial dealings negate allegation of fraudulent intention from inception – Offence under Section 420 IPC not prima facie made out [Paras 77, 81–84].

Criminal Breach of Trust – Section 406 IPC – Entrustment – Essential Ingredient – Money paid by complainant was consideration under commercial builder-buyer transactions and does not amount to entrustment in the legal sense contemplated under Section 405 IPC – Mere non-delivery or delayed delivery of units cannot constitute criminal breach of trust in absence of specific entrustment and dishonest misappropriation – Offence under Section 406 IPC not attracted [Paras 78, 85–86].

Forgery – Sections 467, 468, 471 IPC – Disputed Documents – Whether validly executed, whether acted upon, and whether forgery was committed are matters requiring evidence and adjudication – Alleged allotment letter dated 16.04.2022 does not bear signatures of any authorised representative of petitioner No. 1 company – Mere existence of disputed documents does not automatically establish offences of forgery at threshold [Paras 87–88].

Management and Control – Role of Accused – Shifting Corporate Structure – Petitioner No. 1 company was under management and control of SREI Infrastructure Finance Limited/Bharat Nirman Fund from 2015 till March 2024 – Solitarian Group entered management only in August 2023 and acquired 100% shareholding in April 2024 – Petitioner Harjeet Singh Sahani had resigned from directorship on 30.06.2025, prior to lodging of FIR on 03.10.2025 – In absence of specific allegations of active participation and criminal intent attributable to each accused, sweeping criminal liability cannot be imposed on account of subsequent association with company [Paras 89–92].

RERA – Statutory Remedy – Specialised Forum – Complaints pertaining to delay in possession, contractual defaults, compensation and builder-buyer grievances fall squarely within the regulatory framework of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 – Under Sections 31 and 71 of RERA, the complainant possesses efficacious statutory remedies – Legislature having created a specialised mechanism, disputes of this nature ought not to be addressed through criminal proceedings absent independent disclosure of criminality [Paras 93–96].

Arbitration Clause – Criminal Proceedings – Existence of arbitration clause does not by itself bar criminal proceedings – However, where dispute substantially concerns enforcement of contractual rights, validity of allotment documents, adjustment of monetary liabilities and interpretation of agreements, existence of arbitration clause is a relevant circumstance while examining whether allegations genuinely disclose criminality – Clause 7 under Heading X of the allotment agreement dated 16.04.2022 contemplates reference of disputes to arbitration [Paras 71–72].

Delay in FIR – Transactions from 2008 – FIR lodged only on 03.10.2025 – Possession offered on 20.02.2012 and continuous communications exchanged over years – Inordinate and unexplained delay demonstrates that criminal proceedings were initiated as a pressure tactic in relation to a long-standing commercial dispute [Para 34].

Decision: All connected writ petitions allowed – Impugned FIR (Case Crime No. 227/2025) and all consequential proceedings quashed qua the petitioners – Observations not to be construed as expression on merits for any other proceedings [Paras 108–110].

Service Law - Service Conditions - Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009 - Section 11 - Pre-primary school Teachers and Ayahs appointed by Parent Teachers Associations in Government schools - Division Bench in 2012 (WA No. 205 of 2011) directed State to evolve a suitable policy for pre-school education and pay interim wages of Rs. 5000 and Rs. 3500 - State delayed implementation for over a decade - Government issued order in 2022 (Ext.P10) indefinitely postponing formulation of service conditions citing pendency of National Education Policy 2020 - Single Judge quashed Ext.P10 and fixed honorarium at Rs. 27,500 for Teachers and Rs. 22,500 for Ayahs effective from 01.08.2012 - State contended fixation was an executive function beyond judicial domain - Held - Single Judge was correct in setting aside Ext.P10 as the implementation of a 2012 judicial direction cannot be stalled by citing a 2020 policy - however - fixation of specific honorarium or pay scales is an exclusive executive function - Writ Court is not an expert body to determine emoluments involving financial implications and inflation indices - retrospective fixation from 2012 without material evidence is unsustainable - directions to pay specific honorarium amounts and arrears set aside - State directed to finalize service conditions within four months - [Paras 1-46].

Civil Law - Pay Fixation - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Judicial Review - Granting pay scales and determination of parity in duties is an executive function best left to expert bodies or Pay Commissions - Court should exercise judicial restraint and not encroach into executive domain unless the decision is unreasonable or arbitrary - financial implications of granting particular scales must be balanced by the executive - Held - Single Judge erred in fixing specific honorarium amounts as it was beyond the scope of prayers in the writ petitions and lacked expert evaluation - [Paras 21-31].

Constitutional Law - Directive Principles - Constitution of India - Article 43 - Living Wage - Responsibility of a welfare State to ensure a decent standard of life and full enjoyment of social opportunities for its workers - pre-primary staff belong to economically marginalized sectors - interim wages fixed in 2012 are grossly insufficient at present due to inflation and hike in living expenses - Held - State must take a fresh decision on the honorarium payable on an ad hoc basis from 2014 onwards till the finalization of service conditions - such decision must consider the observations on inflation and decent living standards - [Paras 40-44, 224-228].

Decision: Appeals partly allowed - Quashing of Government Order Ext.P10 upheld - Directions to finalize service conditions within four months affirmed - Fixation of honorarium at Rs. 27,500 and Rs. 22,500 with retrospective effect from 2012 set aside - State directed to take a fresh decision on ad hoc honorarium from 2014 onwards within two months.

Contract Law – Interpretation of MOU – Reciprocal Obligations – Forfeiture of Advance – Appellant (AKM) entered into an MOU dated 03.12.2007 with Respondent (Vesta) for sale of commercial space in MBD Neopolis Mall, Ludhiana, for a total consideration of Rs. 340.28 crores – Vesta paid Rs. 25 crores as earnest money at Stage-I – Stage-II payment of Rs. 112.04 crores was structured as payable only upon AKM leasing the Retail and Entertainment areas to specified Anchor Tenants (Home Centre, Debenhams, Odyssey, Gigabite, Fame-Shringar), handing over possession to them, and delivering symbolic possession to Vesta – AKM failed to execute binding leases with Anchor Tenants and forfeited the advance of Rs. 25 crores on 21.08.2008 – Held: Stage-II payment was intrinsically linked to AKM's performance of its prior obligations; in the absence thereof, Vesta was not in breach and AKM was not entitled to forfeit the advance – Decree for refund of Rs. 25 crores with interest upheld [Paras 2-6, 11-12, 17-20].

Contract Interpretation – Plain Meaning Rule – Subsequent Conduct Irrelevant – AKM sought to rely on email communications exchanged between the parties from May 2008 to February 2009 to contend that the MOU terms were ambiguous and required external aids for interpretation – Held: Where the terms of a contract are clear and unambiguous, the court must interpret them on the basis of the plain language employed, without recourse to subsequent correspondence – True construction of a contract depends upon the import of the words used and not upon what the parties choose to say afterwards – Reliance placed on Anglo American Metallurgical Coal Pty. Ltd. v. MMTC Ltd., (2021) 3 SCC 308 by AKM distinguished on the ground that reference to surrounding circumstances and subsequent conduct is permissible only where the contractual words are doubtful or ambiguous in reference to existing facts [Paras 8-9, 13-17].

Reciprocal Promises – Sequence of Performance – Sections 51, 52 and 54, Indian Contract Act, 1872 – Where reciprocal promises are structured to be performed in a defined sequence, a party cannot insist upon performance of the other's obligation without first performing its own corresponding obligation – AKM was required to bring the project to a stage where the Anchor Tenants' lease areas stood handed over and symbolic possession could be delivered to Vesta, before Stage-II payment could be demanded – AKM failed to produce any binding lease deeds with Anchor Tenants either before the Single Judge or before the Division Bench – Held: AKM having defaulted in performing its prior obligation, could neither compel Stage-II payment nor lawfully forfeit the advance [Paras 15, 18-19].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Impugned Judgment and Decree dated 03.12.2019 upheld – AKM directed to refund Rs. 25 crores with interest at 9% per annum from 01.02.2008, and at 15% per annum commercially from 31.01.2020 till payment/realisation – Pending applications disposed of [Para 20-21].

Criminal Law – Rape – False Promise of Marriage – Consensual Relationship – Appellants accused of establishing physical relations with prosecutrix on false promise of marriage – Prosecutrix, a 24-year-old major, met appellant No. 1 on Instagram, voluntarily visited his house, stayed for 56 days, and continued in the relationship for over a year without protest or insistence on marriage – FIR lodged after approximately two years and eight months of alleged incident – Held: Material on record discloses a consensual relationship rather than rape induced by false promise of marriage – Essential ingredients not made out – Proceedings quashed [Paras 20–24, 32–33].

False Promise of Marriage – Legal Principles – Essential Ingredients – For criminal liability on account of false promise of marriage, prosecution must establish: (a) accused made a promise to marry; (b) promise was false and not intended to be fulfilled from inception; (c) promise was made with intention to deceive and induce consent to sexual relationship; (d) dishonest intention to deceive existed from the very beginning; (e) victim's consent was obtained solely on basis of such false promise; and (f) promise had immediate relevance to victim's decision to engage in intercourse – Mere breach of promise to marry, absent initial dishonest intent, cannot convert consensual physical relations into rape [Paras 19, 23].

Consent – Section 90 IPC – Misconception of Fact – Consent is vitiated only when promise to marry was false from inception and had immediate nexus to victim's decision to engage in sexual act – Where physical relationship continued for prolonged period without demurral, protest, or insistence on marriage, inference of consensual relationship arises – Long duration of relationship without protest neutralises criminal culpability and dilutes the plea of misconception of fact [Paras 11–14, 24–28].

Retrospective Application – Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita – Section 69 BNS – Alleged offences committed between 2022 and 2023 – Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita came into force on 01.07.2024 – Penal provisions cannot operate retrospectively – Offence under Section 69 BNS not made out against appellants [Para 22].

SC/ST Act – Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v) – Ingredients – FIR and victim's statements do not disclose any specific caste-based slur or act of humiliation directed at the victim's SC/ST identity in public – Mere reference to caste difference as reason for refusal to marry does not satisfy the legal requirements of offences under the SC/ST Act – Section 14A(1) of the SC/ST Act not attracted [Para 31].

Assault and Threats – Sections 352 and 351(2) BNS – Allegations of assault, abuse and threats found to be vague and general – No specific details disclosed in FIR or statements under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC – No prima facie case made out [Para 30].

Decision: Criminal appeal allowed – Impugned order dated 05.07.2025 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Moradabad, and entire proceedings of Special Sessions Trial No. 1283 of 2025 arising out of Case Crime No. 29 of 2025 quashed [Paras 33–34].

Writ Law - Recovery of Excess Pension - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Petitioner widow of a deceased Class III employee challenged the unilateral recovery of Rs. 3,60,279 by State Bank of India from her family pension - Bank attributed the excess payment to a wrong enhancement date entry in their system and subsequent 7th CPC recalculations - Recovery was initiated at Rs. 3,200 and later Rs. 4,399 per month without prior notice or disclosure of basis to the petitioner - Petitioner contended that the overpayment was not due to any fraud or misrepresentation on her part but resulted from the bank's own processing error - Bank relied on a generic undertaking signed by the petitioner in 2004 at the commencement of pension disbursal - Court observed that the error was purely institutional and the petitioner as a family pensioner had no means to detect internal calculation mistakes - Overpayment persisted for seven years before recovery commenced - Held - Recovery from a family pensioner for excess payments made due to employer or bank error without fault of the recipient is legally unsustainable as it inflicts disproportionate hardship and offends principles of equity - Impugned recovery set aside with directions for refund - [Paras 1-47].

Service Law - Protection against Recovery - Constitution of India - Article 141 - Applicability of protective principles to family pensioners - Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih and Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala identified categories where recovery is impermissible including from retired employees and after five years of overpayment - Respondent bank argued that public money paid by mistake is recoverable - Court found the case fell squarely within the protective zone of settled jurisprudence - Held - The rationale protecting retired employees from recovery applies with equal if not greater force to a widow surviving on limited family pension - Recovery from Class III employees or their families where excess was paid over a long period is prohibited - [Paras 28-32, 42-43].

Banking Law - Pension Disbursal - RBI Circular dated 17-03-2016 - Master Circular dated 01-07-2017 - Generic Undertaking - Bank sought to justify recovery based on a standard-form undertaking and administrative circulars - Court distinguished the present case from High Court of Punjab and Haryana v. Jagdev Singh where a specific undertaking was given during pay revision - Held - A routine generic undertaking obtained at the start of pension disbursal cannot displace equitable restraints or confer an unfettered right to recover sums from vulnerable pensioners especially when the bank failed to provide prior notice as required by its own framework - [Paras 33-41].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Impugned recovery set aside – Respondent No. 2 (SBI) directed to refund recovered amounts with simple interest at 6% per annum within eight weeks – No further recovery to be effected on the basis of impugned entries.

Civil Law - Fraud and Deception in Deeds - Indian Contract Act 1872 - Sections 16 and 17 - Cancellation of Gift Deeds - Plaintiff entered into a sale agreement for 12 Bighas of land - Defendants 1 and 2 were entrusted to prepare sale deeds but instead prepared gift deeds in their favour - Plaintiff was an elderly man who executed the documents in good faith without perusing them - Trial court and first appellate court concurrently found that the deeds were obtained through fraud and collusion - High Court observed that the recitals in the deeds regarding sound mind and understanding did not negate evidence that the plaintiff was not allowed to read the contents - Held - The deeds were fraudulent and sham transactions - Concurrent findings of lower courts upheld - Appeal dismissed - [Paras 1-16].

Evidence Law - Burden of Proof - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Sections 101 and 102 - Shifting of Onus - Plaintiff pleaded and proved fraud by adducing evidence that his signatures were tactfully obtained - Appellants contended that the burden was wrongly shifted to them - High Court held that the initial burden lies on the party asserting fraud - Once the plaintiff discharged the initial burden and made out a prima facie case - the onus shifted to the defendants to prove that the transaction was voluntary and not induced by undue influence - Held - Defendants failed to discharge their shifted liability - [Paras 10-10.6].

Civil Law - Suit for Declaration - Specific Relief Act 1963 - Section 34 - Maintainability - Proviso to Section 34 - Appellants argued the suit was not maintainable as the plaintiff did not seek consequential relief of recovery of possession - High Court examined evidence showing the plaintiff remained in possession of the suit land - Held - A suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction is maintainable without seeking recovery of possession if the plaintiff is already in possession - The bar under the proviso to Section 34 does not apply when no further consequential relief is required by the plaintiff - [Paras 12-12.4].

Civil Law - Second Appeal - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 100 - Concurrent Findings - High Court will generally not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse or based on no evidence - Appellants raised new pleas regarding Section 55 of the Transfer of Property Act - Held - New pleas cannot be raised in second appeal for the first time - Substantial questions of law not involved when findings are based on a proper appreciation of facts and evidence - [Paras 11.2-14].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Concurrent findings of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court affirmed – Parties directed to bear their own costs.