Quashing of Charges – Discharge of Private Vendor – Sections 120-B, 420, 471 IPC and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act – Discharge Allowed – Applicants sought quashing of orders rejecting discharge and framing charges alleging criminal conspiracy and wrongful gain in award of HMIS project under NRHM – Court held that applicants, being private vendors, completed the project within budget and were duly empanelled – No material indicating conspiracy, forgery or dishonest intention – Basic ingredients of alleged offences not made out – Criminal prosecution held to be abuse of process – Impugned orders quashed and applicants discharged [Paras 17.1-17.27, 18-21].

Criminal Conspiracy – Section 120-B IPC – No Evidence of Meeting of Minds – Allegations of favouritism in selection process not supported by material to show agreement or joint intention between applicants and public officials – Mere participation or efforts to secure work order insufficient to constitute conspiracy – Charge under Section 120-B quashed [Paras 17.24-17.25].

Cheating – Section 420 IPC – Lack of Dishonest Inducement – Court found no evidence that applicants misrepresented facts or dishonestly induced government to part with money – Applicants supplied hardware/software as per work order and received partial payment – No prima facie case under Section 420 IPC – Charges not sustainable [Para 17.26].

Forgery and Use of False Document – Section 471 IPC – No False Document Proven – Charge under Section 471 IPC based on use of so-called fake tender documents – Court held that no document created falsely or used dishonestly as genuine was shown – Absent any ‘false document’, offence under Section 471 not made out [Para 17.27].

Prevention of Corruption Act – Section 13(1)(d) – Inapplicable to Private Vendor – Applicants were not public servants and there was no evidence of giving or receiving illegal gratification – Court held that amended Section 13(1)(d) requires clear proof of illicit enrichment or dishonest misappropriation by public servant – No such element made out against applicants – Charge unsustainable [Paras 17.17-17.22].

Retrospective Benefit of Amendment – Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 – Retrospective Application Deferred – Court acknowledged legal submissions about the omission of Section 13(1)(d) and lack of saving clause – Referred to conflicting views in judicial forums – Held: No decision required on retrospective applicability in view of failure to make out ingredients of offence under unamended provision itself [Para 17.21].

Abuse of Process – Discharge Warranted – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Court held that the prosecution lacked foundational material to proceed against the applicants – Held: Continued trial would amount to harassment and misuse of judicial process – Orders dated 02.03.2024 and 29.04.2024 set aside – Applicants discharged from all charges [Paras 19-21].

Cheque Dishonour – 'Account Closed' – Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act – Conviction Restored - The Trial Court acquitted the accused on the ground that dishonour for ‘account closed’ does not attract Section 138 NI Act and no presumption arose due to denial of signature – Held: The Hon’ble High Court held that dishonour of cheque on ground of 'account closed' is covered under Section 138 as per Supreme Court’s decision in Laxmi Dyechem v. State of Gujarat (2012) 13 SCC 375 – The Court also held that the accused had not specifically denied signature, and bare suggestion of misuse does not rebut presumption under the Act – Conviction restored, accused directed to pay Rs.3,20,000/- to the complainant or undergo one month simple imprisonment [Paras 10-13].

Presumption of Debt – Rebuttal of Presumption – Failure to Produce Evidence – Conviction Justified - The accused failed to adduce any evidence to rebut the statutory presumption – Cross-examination was limited to an unsubstantiated suggestion of misuse – No substantive evidence produced to show loan was not taken – Held: In absence of rebuttal evidence, statutory presumption under Section 139 NI Act prevails in favour of complainant [Paras 12-13].

Sentence – Substitution with Compensation – Efflux of Time – Considering the lapse of time since offence, Court directed payment of cheque amount within stipulated time, failing which simple imprisonment to follow – Emphasis on compensatory approach in cheque dishonour cases reaffirmed [Paras 14-15].

Criminal Law - Bank Fraud Case – Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Predominant Civil Nature – Proceedings Quashed on Settlement – The petitioner, a company director, was accused under Section 420 IPC in connection with alleged fraudulent diversion of loan amounts leading to NPA classification – The petitioner had settled all dues with the bank through OTS, and the bank raised no objections to the quash petition – Held: Applying the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and subsequent cases, the Court found the transaction was predominantly commercial, with the dispute fully settled – Considering the bleak possibility of conviction and the oppressive nature of prolonged prosecution, the proceedings were quashed subject to payment of costs [Paras 4-5].

Section 482 CrPC – Quashing of Non-Compoundable Offence – Permissible in Commercial Disputes with Settlement – The Court reaffirmed that despite Section 420 IPC being non-compoundable, the High Court possesses inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings in cases of private, commercial nature where civil liability is settled, and continuance of prosecution would amount to abuse of process – Case satisfied the twin tests of settlement and remote possibility of conviction [Paras 4.10-4.11].

Relevance of Purpose of Loan and Diversion – Diversion Not Attracting Criminality Post Settlement – Though allegations involved diversion of loan funds from sanctioned purposes, Court held that subsequent full repayment and absence of public impact diluted criminal culpability – Found that absence of mala fide intent at inception made the criminal prosecution unnecessary post-settlement [Paras 4.7-4.10].

Quashing with Costs – Balancing Public Interest and Private Settlement – Proceedings quashed on condition of payment of ₹8 lakhs as costs – ₹4 lakhs directed to CBI towards prosecution expenses and ₹4 lakhs to Tamil Nadu Mediation and Conciliation Centre for public utility, striking a balance between justice to the accused and recompense to investigative resources [Para 4.11].

Decision – Proceedings Quashed – Charge Sheet Set Aside – Court allowed the quash petition, set aside charge sheet in CC No.2671 of 2022, directed compliance of cost payment within eight weeks, failing which the petition would stand dismissed [Para 5].

Criminal Law - Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Civil Dispute Dressed as Criminal Offence – Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 469, 120B IPC – Quashing Allowed – The petitioners challenged the criminal proceedings initiated under multiple penal provisions arising out of allegations of cheating and forgery in respect of a loan transaction secured by pledge of shares – The Court noted the existence of prior civil suits filed by the complainant on the same cause of action, including litigation before Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court, and observed that the dispute had purely civil ramifications without any prima facie evidence of criminal intent – Held: Continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to gross abuse of process of law, as the transaction was governed by contractual terms and did not exhibit any fraudulent inducement or criminal breach of trust – Criminal proceedings quashed [Paras 1-37].

Criminal Intent – Requirement of Mens Rea – Distinction Between Breach of Contract and Cheating – Sections 415, 420 IPC – Intent Missing – The Court reiterated the legal principle that for constituting cheating, fraudulent or dishonest intention must exist from the inception of the transaction – In the instant case, no evidence existed to show the petitioners had any dishonest intention while entering into the loan agreements – Held: Mere breach of contract or business losses arising from market conditions cannot be elevated to criminal liability – Absence of mens rea precludes criminal prosecution [Paras 27-32].

Forgery Allegations – Absence of False Document Creation – Sections 467, 468, 469 IPC – No Prima Facie Case – The Court applied the settled principle that forgery involves creation of a false document with intent to deceive – Held: Since the petitioners were not makers of any false documents but acted within the agreed contractual framework, allegations of forgery were devoid of merit – Proceedings quashed [Paras 30-31].

Jurisdiction of Criminal Courts – Misuse of Criminal Process to Enforce Civil Claims – Applicability of Bhajanlal Guidelines – The Court found the case squarely covered under the guidelines laid down in State of Haryana vs. Bhajanlal, especially that criminal law should not be used to settle civil scores – Held: The FIR and criminal proceedings constituted an abuse of process of court – Revision allowed [Paras 19-37].

Decision – Criminal Revision Allowed – Proceedings Quashed – The Court allowed the revision petition and quashed the proceedings in G.R. Case No. 887 of 2014 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Howrah, arising out of Howrah P.S. Case No. 124 of 2014 – Further directed return of case diary and disposal of pending applications [Para 37].

Criminal Law – Revision Against Charge - Criminal Conspiracy and Corruption in Educational Appointments – Sections 7, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) P.C. Act, and Sections 120B, 477A, 471, 417, 420, 201 IPC – Charges Upheld – The petitioner, President of Dakshin Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha, challenged the trial court’s order rejecting discharge and framing charges under P.C. Act and IPC – Allegations involved conspiracy with other accused in accepting bribes for appointing two individuals as teachers by falsifying score sheets, with resultant exclusion of meritorious candidates – Held: Prima facie evidence showed petitioner was involved in the alleged conspiracy, participated in falsifying records and appointments; sufficient material existed to proceed to trial [Paras 1-16].

Public Servant Status – Section 2(c)(xii) P.C. Act – Office Bearers Receiving Government Grants Held Public Servants – The petitioner argued he was not a public servant as President of an autonomous educational body – Held: Since Dakshin Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha received substantial central government grants, office bearers are deemed public servants under Section 2(c)(xii), P.C. Act, making prosecution under the P.C. Act valid [Paras 6-12].

Sanction for Prosecution – Requirement of Sanction Considered – Petitioner contended absence of sanction under Section 19 of the P.C. Act for him invalidated proceedings – Held: Where accused falls within the public servant definition by virtue of receipt of government funds, prosecution is sustainable without separate sanction if other procedural requirements are satisfied; no merit in contention [Paras 4-5, 12].

Charge Framing – Sufficiency of Prima Facie Evidence – Sections 7, 13(2), 13(1)(d), IPC Provisions – Trial Court’s Decision Affirmed – The trial court correctly appreciated materials indicating manipulation of selection processes for pecuniary gain and dismissed discharge plea; findings that grounds exist for presuming guilt upheld by High Court – Revision Petition Dismissed [Paras 14-16].

Decision:  High Court dismissed the revision petition, affirming the trial court’s order of framing charges, concluding that prima facie material exists for proceeding to trial against the petitioner under the P.C. Act and IPC offences related to conspiracy and corruption [Para 16].

Taxation Law - CGST – Detention & Penalty under Section 129(3) – Rule 138 Violation via Loading-Point Mismatch – Petition Dismissed – Goods in transit intercepted on 09.03.2025; E-Invoice and E-Way Bill were generated but actual loading point (Rupnarayanpur, West Medinipur, West Bengal) differed from the declared dispatch point (Village-Sakui, Kharagpur) – GPS logs (six-hour halt on 08.03.2025) and driver’s statement corroborated mismatch – Held: Violation of Rule 138 established; adjudicating authority had adequate adverse material; writ held to be an afterthought and devoid of merit – Petition dismissed in limine [Paras 2, 5, 8, 10].

E-Way Bill Compliance – Sufficiency of GPS/Driver Evidence – Discrepancy in Place of Dispatch – Outcome: Violation Upheld – The Court accepted GPS location data and driver’s statement as confirming the true loading point, justifying detention and penalty proceedings under Section 129 read with Rule 138 – Mere possession of e-way bill/e-invoice is insufficient when core particulars (place of dispatch) are incorrect [Paras 2, 6, 8].

Input Tax Credit (Section 16) – Suspicious/Cancelled Suppliers – Relevance at Detention Stage – Investigation Warranted – Records indicated heavy ITC availed (about ₹1.01 Cr in FY 2023-24 and ₹1.03 Cr in FY 2024-25) from suppliers largely suspended/cancelled or unrelated to the stated line of business – Though not finally adjudicated, such material supported detention and the authority’s adverse view at the roadside proceedings [Paras 3–5].

Release on Payment – No Absolute Waiver – Still, Writ Found Meritless – Payment of penalty to secure release, even without protest, does not per se waive the right to challenge – Nevertheless, given the cogent adverse material (GPS/driver corroboration and compliance breach), the challenge was deemed an afterthought and lacking in merit [Paras 8–9].

Final Order – Writ of Certiorari/Mandamus – Reliefs Denied – With Rule 138 violation proved and adequate material before the adjudicating authority, the Court refused to interfere with the MOV-09 penalty and declined refund with interest – Writ petition dismissed in limine [Para 10].

Civil Law - Redemption of Mortgage – Limitation Period under Article 61 Limitation Act, 1963 – Suit for redemption not barred – The suit seeking redemption of usufructuary mortgage executed in 1969 was dismissed by the lower courts as time-barred—Held, limitation for redemption of mortgage accrues from the date when the right to redeem arises—Assignment of mortgage in 1986 created acknowledgment of mortgage rights—The right to redeem remains alive under Section 60 of the Transfer of Property Act—Decree of lower courts rejecting redemption suit set aside [Paras 9-23].

Gift Deed – Validity under Section 123 Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Gift upheld – Courts below held gift deed void for lack of proper attestation by two witnesses—Held, Registrar (PW2) acted as attesting witness with sufficient animus, satisfying the statutory requirement—Execution not denied by executant; proviso to Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act applies—Registered gift deed operates as valid transfer of ownership—Decree declaring gift deed invalid is reversed [Paras 24-28].

Counter-Claim – Maintainability under Order VIII Rule 6A CPC – Counter-claim dismissed – Counter-claim was not linked to the suit property or cause of action—Held, counter-claim must arise from cause of action related to the suit and be within limitation—Counter-claim regarding gifted property after long inaction held untenable—Lower courts’ acceptance of counter-claim incorrect and reversed [Paras 29-33].

Injunction Suit – Decree of Injunction Denied – Suit for injunction by respondent dismissed – Plaintiffs having valid redemption and partition rights and existence of valid gift deed disentitles defendants from absolute injunction relief—Decree granting injunction in OS 216/2004 set aside [Paras 34-35].

Final Decision – Judgment of Trial Court and Appellate Court set aside – Redemption suit decreed – Gift deed upheld – Counter-claim dismissed – Injunction suit dismissed – Plaintiffs entitled to partition and costs throughout [Para 35].

Civil Law – Mental Infirmity – Appointment of Guardian Ad Litem – Order 32 Rule 15 CPC – Independent Guardian Appointed - Plaintiffs sought medical examination and appointment of administrator/guardian for PC (D3) citing alleged Alzheimer/Dementia and undue property transfers – Defendant SD (D5) sought appointment as guardian citing caregiving role – Court held that given the conflicting claims regarding property transfers, it would be inappropriate to appoint any interested party as guardian – Ordered appointment of an independent Court Officer as guardian ad litem for PC (D3) – Held: Inquiry under Order XXXII Rule 15 satisfied; independent guardian warranted to ensure fairness [Paras 44-64].

Medical Examination – Collection of Evidence – Court Declined Medical Evaluation – The Court rejected Plaintiffs’ prayer for fresh medical examination of PC (D3), holding that present examination cannot reliably determine the mental state at the time of past transactions and such direction would amount to collection of evidence for a party – Held: Plaintiffs to establish claims via regular evidence, not through compelled medical testing [Paras 53-55].

Fitness of Proposed Guardian – Conflict of Interest – Adverse Interest Barred Appointment – The Court held that SD (D5), having been involved in disputed property transfers and alleged to have acted adversely to PC (D3) and other family members, was not a fit person to act as guardian – Adverse claims and conflicting interests render family members unsuitable for neutral representation – Independent Court officer appointed instead [Paras 58-64].

Scope of Inquiry – Limited to Suit Representation – General Guardianship Left Open – The Court clarified that appointment of guardian ad litem is limited to representation in the suit – Issues of general guardianship under Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 or Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 not adjudicated and left open for separate proceedings [Para 65].

Decision – Partial Allowance – Independent Guardian Ad Litem Appointed – Plaintiffs’ prayers for medical examination rejected, appointment of SD (D5) declined – Court appointed Court Officer (Master and Assistant Prothonotary) as guardian ad litem to represent PC (D3) in ongoing suit – Cost of guardian to be borne by Plaintiffs and Defendant Nos. 4 and 5 jointly [Paras 66(i)-(ii)].

Tenancy Law - Eviction – Bona Fide Personal Necessity – Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the Rent Act – Revision Dismissed – The petitioners, legal heirs of the original tenant, challenged concurrent findings allowing eviction from the first floor of a residential premises at Chandigarh on the ground of personal necessity of the landlady for her daughter – Held: The landlady, aged 86, credibly established her bona fide need to settle with her divorced daughter in her own premises in the evening of her life – Courts below rightly found the need to be genuine and not a pretext to relet the premises – No perversity found in findings – Revision dismissed [Paras 2, 9, 11(i)].

Landlord’s Discretion – Tenant Cannot Dictate Manner of Use – Landlord is Best Judge – It was argued that the landlady’s daughter could reside on the vacant second floor or continue to live in Delhi – Held: Tenant has no authority to dictate how or where landlord or her family should reside – Desire for an independent living space on first floor cannot be questioned – Minor details such as floor preference not open to tenant’s objection [Paras 11(i), 11(iv)].

Residential Use – Tuition Classes Not a Commercial Activity – Misuse Allegation Rejected – Petitioner argued that the daughter’s intent to take tuitions post-retirement would amount to misuse of residential premises – Held: Occasional tutoring by a retired teacher does not amount to commercial activity – In any case, this was not the primary ground of eviction – Allegation of misuse found to be unfounded [Para 11(ii)].

Earlier Non-occupation of Vacated Premises – Medical Reason Justified – Tenant contended that ground floor was vacated earlier on personal necessity grounds but was not occupied – Held: Explanation of landlady suffering paralytic stroke and husband's subsequent demise found to be sufficient – Need was not illusory or fabricated – Non-occupation due to health and age-related issues does not nullify present necessity [Para 11(iii)].

Pleading and Proof – Non-possession of Alternate Accommodation – Compliance Sufficient – Petitioners argued that mandatory ingredients of Section 13(3)(a)(i) were missing – Held: Though averments regarding non-possession were not explicitly stated for the daughter, they were made for the landlady whose necessity was in focus – Even otherwise, proof by way of evidence is sufficient compliance – Tenant estopped from raising such plea at revision stage when no such objection was taken in written statement – Reliance placed on Harbhajan Singh vs. Lakhbir Singh, 2019 (2) RCR (Rent) 316 and Navyug Goods Carrier vs. Manpreet Singh, 2018 (2) RCR (Rent) 496 [Paras 9(iii), 11(vi)–11(viii)].

Additional Evidence – Rejected – Attempt to Delay – Tenant sought to introduce additional evidence to prove misuse of premises and subsequent re-letting of ground floor – Held: Appellate Authority rightly rejected the application, noting that all relevant points were already addressed – Found to be an attempt to prolong litigation [Para 11(v)].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Concurrent Findings Not to Be Interfered – Settled Law – Held: No perversity or illegality found in the concurrent findings of Rent Controller and Appellate Authority – High Court under revisional jurisdiction cannot re-appreciate evidence unless findings are patently perverse or illegal

– Revision dismissed [Para 11(x)].