Disciplinary Proceedings – Continuation Despite Acquittal in Criminal Trial – Scope Clarified – Petitioner, a Junior Language Teacher, challenged disciplinary proceedings on the ground of acquittal in criminal trial involving POCSO charges—Court held that departmental proceedings are governed by preponderance of probabilities and not by strict criminal law standards—Held: Acquittal due to hostile witnesses does not preclude disciplinary action, and such proceedings are valid and distinct from criminal trials [Paras 5-11].

Misconduct by Teacher – Fiduciary Duty Breach Established – Serious Allegations of Sexual Abuse – Despite acquittal in criminal court, domestic inquiry found the petitioner guilty of grossly unbecoming behaviour, corroborated by school teachers and victim’s initial statements—Held: Teacher, being in a fiduciary position, failed in his duty; conduct amounts to grave misconduct justifying disciplinary proceedings [Paras 4, 10-12].

Premature Challenge to Disciplinary Proceedings – Interference Not Warranted – Court noted that petitioner approached court at show cause notice stage prior to imposition of penalty—Held: Premature interference in disciplinary process unjustified, writ petition dismissed without prejudice to petitioner’s right to contest final order [Para 13].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Departmental Proceedings Upheld – High Court declined to quash disciplinary action against petitioner, upholding manager’s authority to proceed with proposed punishment of compulsory retirement despite criminal acquittal—Writ Petition dismissed with observations supporting independence of disciplinary proceedings from criminal prosecution [Paras 13-14].

Criminal Law - Sexual Assault Allegations – Conviction Set Aside – Fabrication Due to Matrimonial Disputes – Allegations Held Unreliable – The appellant was convicted by the Trial Court under Section 354 IPC and Sections 9(1)(n) and 10 of the POCSO Act for alleged sexual assault of his minor daughter – The High Court examined WhatsApp chats (Ex.D1), social media posts (Ex.D2), and contradictory statements of the complainant and victim – Noted matrimonial disputes and allegations of extortion and property disputes between appellant and wife (PW-1) – Held that prosecution evidence suffered from contradictions, material omissions, and improper appreciation of defence evidence – The allegations found to be mala fide and motivated by personal disputes – Conviction set aside, appellant acquitted [Paras 9-16].

Delay in Filing Complaint – Presumption under POCSO Act Rebutted – Court observed that delay in lodging complaint, continued interaction with accused, and absence of immediate disclosure of alleged offence significantly weakened prosecution case – Presumption under Sections 29 and 30 POCSO Act rebutted through circumstantial and documentary evidence, including social media records [Paras 10-14].

Credibility of Victim – Social Media Activity Undermining Credibility – Court held that Ex.D2 (victim’s social media posts admitting habitual lying) cast serious doubt on veracity of allegations – Delay, contradictory conduct, and previous family interactions after alleged incidents weighed against prosecution – Case found to be driven by revenge and extortion motives rather than genuine grievance [Paras 12-15].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Conviction Reversed – The High Court allowed the criminal appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence awarded by the Trial Court under IPC and POCSO Act – Observed gross misuse of POCSO provisions in the context of matrimonial disputes – Ordered immediate acquittal of appellant. Acquittal [Paras 16].

Commercial Law - Trademark and Copyright Dispute – Rejection of Plaint – Order 7 Rule 11 CPC – Suit Barred – The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants alleging infringement of trademark and copyright, and passing off, in respect of the mark ‘PADAN’ – The Court held that the plaintiff, Coromandel Indag Products India Ltd., had no locus standi to institute the suit since all alleged use and proprietary rights were with Coromandel Agrico Pvt. Ltd. (CAPL), a distinct corporate entity under insolvency – Held: The plaintiff was not a licensee or owner of the mark or artistic work and could not claim the benefit of CAPL’s rights – The plaint failed to disclose a cause of action and was rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC [Paras 11–13, 18, 34, 37–38].

Corporate Personality – Group Company Cannot Espouse Cause – No Legal Standing – The Court reaffirmed that a company cannot represent group entities or subsidiaries in legal proceedings – Each corporate entity is distinct and must assert its own claims – Merely being the parent of CAPL did not entitle the plaintiff to sue on its behalf, especially when CAPL was under insolvency and only its Resolution Professional could sue – Held: The plaintiff’s suit was legally unsustainable on this ground alone [Paras 11–13].

Non-Disclosure of Documents – Deliberate Suppression – Cause of Action Found Illusory – The plaintiff failed to file key documents relied upon in the plaint, including the Distribution and Trademark Agreements, which clearly showed that the rights were vested in CAPL – Held: The plaintiff suppressed material documents to fabricate a false cause of action – Rejection of plaint warranted [Paras 19–25, 37].

Copyright Claim – Assignment Expired – No Right in Plaintiff – The plaintiff claimed copyright ownership in packaging artwork via assignment to CAPL – The Court held that the assignment was in favour of CAPL, and in absence of a defined term, deemed to have expired after five years under Section 19(5) of the Copyright Act – Held: Plaintiff had no subsisting right or claim under copyright law [Paras 26–27].

Passing Off – Use by Licensee Inures to Licensor – No Goodwill Established – The plaintiff failed to show any use of the mark PADAN on its own behalf – All evidence related to use by CAPL – The Court held that as CAPL was a licensee of the defendant, any goodwill accrued to the defendant – The plaintiff’s passing off claim was rejected [Paras 28–34].

Fabricated Evidence – Agreement Claiming Ownership Unsupported – The plaintiff’s reliance on an agreement claiming it was a registered proprietor of PADAN was found false – The Court noted that the defendant was the registered owner, and no proof of registration in plaintiff’s name existed – Held: The document appeared fabricated and could not support the suit [Paras 35–36].

Final Decision – Suit Held to be Vexatious – Plaint Rejected – The Court found that the plaint was based on false assumptions, misleading representations, and failed to disclose any real cause of action – The suit was declared vexatious and the plaint was rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC [Paras 37–38].

Civil Writ - Challenging the suspension of authorization of Fair Price Shop – Violation of Control Order – Suspension Without Inquiry – Suspension Set Aside – Petitioner’s authorization to run Fair Price Shop No.0119013 was suspended by order dated 13.09.2024 – Respondents failed to complete the inquiry within 90 days as mandated by Clause (vii) of the Control Order, 2018 – High Court held the suspension unsustainable in light of binding precedent and Control Order provisions – Suspension order quashed and supply of commodities directed to resume [Paras 2, 5–6].

Natural Justice – Mandatory Enquiry Before Suspension – Clause (vi) Control Order – Burden on Authority – Held: No Enquiry Conducted – Respondents suspended the shop without considering petitioner’s explanation or proving charges through a fair enquiry – Clause (vi) of the Control Order imposes a duty to conduct enquiry where charges are denied – Held: Failure to adhere to this requirement renders the action arbitrary and violative of natural justice [Paras 2–5].

Time-bound Enquiry – Clause (vii) of 2018 Control Order – Suspension Cannot Continue Beyond 90 Days Without Completion of Enquiry – Court relied on Joint Collector, Kurnool v. A. Neelima to reiterate that suspension cannot continue indefinitely – As 90-day period from 13.09.2024 expired on 12.12.2024 without completion of enquiry, suspension was liable to be set aside [Paras 5–6].

Precedent Followed – Suspension Without Compliance Quashed – Consistent View Taken – Court followed binding precedent in C. Durga Srinivas Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh where procedural safeguards under the Control Order were strictly enforced – Held: Authority’s failure to conduct a timely and fair enquiry vitiates the suspension action [Paras 3, 5–6].

Final Relief – Suspension Set Aside – Supply to Resume – No Costs Awarded – Impugned suspension order dated 13.09.2024 quashed – Respondents directed to resume supply of essential commodities to the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop on due payment – Miscellaneous petitions closed – No order as to costs [Para 6].

Criminal Law – Quashing of ECIR – Section 3 and 4 of the PMLA – Petition Dismissed – The petitioner, a well-known actor, filed a petition seeking quashing of ECIR dated 08/08/2021 and second supplementary complaint dated 17/08/2022 under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, alleging that she was not named in the predicate offence FIR, had been made a witness therein, and was duped by co-accused Sukesh Chandrashekhar into unknowingly receiving gifts and money constituting proceeds of crime – The Court considered key contentions regarding the petitioner’s alleged lack of knowledge, her role as a witness in the predicate case, parity with other similarly placed individuals, and allegations of selective prosecution – After analysing the scope of Section 3 (including its Explanation), Section 24 and judicial precedents including Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Pavana Dibbur, the Court held that foundational facts under PMLA were sufficiently made out, and that the issue of knowledge and mens rea involved disputed facts requiring trial – It was held that ECIR cannot be quashed at a pre-charge stage where charges are yet to be framed – Petition was dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to rebut the statutory presumption during trial [Paras 1, 23-29, 44-46, 87-92, 98-104, 120-123].

Money Laundering – Quashing of ECIR – Section 3 of PMLA – Petition Dismissed – Petitioner, a public figure, sought quashing of ECIR and complaint under PMLA on the basis that she was a victim and not accused in the predicate offence – The Court held that even if petitioner was a witness in the predicate case, prosecution under PMLA is maintainable upon establishment of foundational facts – Held: Disputed facts regarding knowledge and possession of proceeds of crime require trial – Quashing rejected [Paras 23-29, 87-92, 122-123].

PMLA and Predicate Offence – Independence of Proceedings – The Court held that predicate offence and PMLA proceedings are separate and a person can be prosecuted under PMLA even if not named in the predicate FIR – Reliance placed on decisions of Supreme Court clarifying independent application of both offences – Held: Merely being a witness in predicate offence does not shield petitioner from PMLA proceedings [Paras 44-46, 59-60, 67, 71].

Mens Rea – Knowledge under Section 3 of PMLA – Triable Issue – The petitioner contended lack of knowledge of the criminal antecedents of co-accused Sukesh Chandrashekhar and argued absence of intent – The Court held that knowledge or lack thereof is a matter for trial – Statements of witnesses and petitioner’s own conduct, including deletion of phone data and concealment of gifts, raised sufficient suspicion to warrant trial – Held: Cannot be decided at pre-charge stage [Paras 47-58, 106-114].

Continuing Offence – Enjoyment of Proceeds of Crime – Section 3 of PMLA Explained – The Court upheld that money laundering is a continuing offence and includes ongoing enjoyment or concealment of tainted property – Held: Continued possession of luxury items and financial gains received from co-accused after alleged awareness of his criminality brings the case within the purview of PMLA [Paras 39, 116-118].

Selective Prosecution – Allegation of Pick and Choose Policy – Not a Ground for Quashing – Petitioner alleged that other similarly placed individuals were not proceeded against under PMLA – Court held that claims of unequal treatment or parity cannot justify quashing at pre-trial stage and must be raised at appropriate stage – Held: Enforcement discretion of ED not open to judicial review on this ground at this stage [Paras 80-85].

Quashing Jurisdiction – Section 482 CrPC – Invocation Restricted to Rare Cases – The Court reiterated that the inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC must be exercised sparingly and only in the rarest of rare cases – Held: Petitioner’s plea involved disputed facts and assertions not capable of adjudication at pre-charge stage – Rebuttal of presumption under Section 24 PMLA can be done at trial [Paras 87-92, 98-101, 120-121].

Final Decision – ECIR and Supplementary Complaint Not Quashed – The petition was dismissed, with the Court holding that arguments of the petitioner based on absence of intent, parity, and being misled require evidence and cross-examination – Held: Petition lacks merit; case to proceed to trial [Paras 122-123].

Service Law – Dismissal from Service – Domestic Enquiry – Writ Petition Dismissed – The petitioner challenged the dismissal order and subsequent Labour Court award rejecting his claim – Alleged embezzlement of ₹500 proved in enquiry – Court held it is not within its scope under Article 226 to reassess sufficiency of evidence – Only “no evidence” can invite interference – Labour Court’s conclusion upheld [Paras 1-8].

Disciplinary Proceedings – Limited Scope of Judicial Review – Court Refused to Reassess Merits – Following Supreme Court rulings, the Court reiterated that sufficiency or adequacy of evidence is not grounds for interference – Interference under Article 226 only permissible where findings are perverse or based on no evidence – None found in present case [Paras 6-7].

Punishment – Proportionality – Embezzlement Proven – Dismissal Held Justified – Petitioner argued that returning the embezzled sum negated need for harsh punishment – Court relied on Supreme Court precedent to hold that refund does not nullify misconduct – Dismissal not shockingly disproportionate to the proven charge [Paras 9-12].

Final Decision – No Interference Warranted – Labour Court Award Affirmed – Writ petition dismissed – No perversity or legal infirmity found in Labour Court’s evaluation or award [Paras 13-14].

Cheque Dishonour – 138 of the NI Act - Presumption under Negotiable Instruments Act – Rebuttal of Presumption – Acquittal Upheld – The complainant alleged loan transaction and issuance of cheque in discharge of debt – Accused produced evidence (Ex.D4) obtained under RTI showing operation of unregistered finance business by complainant, which was denied by complainant – Trial Court disbelieved complainant’s version and acquitted accused – Held: In appeal against acquittal, unless findings are perverse, interference unwarranted – In this case, complainant’s suppression of material facts and failure to produce promissory note weakened prosecution – Acquittal upheld as trial Court’s reasoning found just and based on evidence [Paras 4, 8-10].

Presumption under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act – Rebutted by Preponderance of Probability – The presumption of debt under Section 139 stands rebutted where the accused demonstrates, through credible defence, that cheque was issued as security and not in discharge of legally enforceable debt – Total denial of finance business by complainant, despite contrary evidence, erodes the credibility of prosecution – No perverse approach by trial Court in accepting defence version [Paras 8-9].

Promissory Note Non-Production – Adverse Inference – Complainant claimed execution of promissory note for loan with interest but failed to produce the same during trial – Held: Non-production of primary documentary evidence critical to the loan claim further weakens prosecution case – Trial Court rightly considered this lapse in assessing complainant’s credibility [Paras 9].

Appeal Against Acquittal – Interference Principles Reiterated – The High Court reiterated well-settled principle that appellate Court should not interfere with acquittal unless findings are unreasonable, illegal, or perverse – Findings based on appreciation of evidence, cross-examination, and defence material – No grounds for reversal of acquittal [Paras 8-10].

Decision of the Judgment – Appeal dismissed, acquittal confirmed – Trial Court’s order acquitting accused in cheque bounce case upheld – Appeal devoid of merit [Para 10].

Anticipatory Bail – Sections 305, 331(3), 331(4), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) - Civil Dispute with Criminal Colour – Prima Facie Civil Nature – Bail Granted - The applicant sought pre-arrest bail in connection with an FIR alleging theft and criminal intimidation – Held: The dispute pertained to possession of a shop already sub judice in civil courts with pending suits and earlier judicial findings confirming the applicant’s possession under a consent deed – Court found that the FIR reflected a civil dispute being given criminal colour – Bail granted subject to conditions [Paras 2–4, 7–9].

Possession of Property – Civil Court Findings – No Prima Facie Criminal Offence – Bail Allowed - Applicant relied on findings in RCS No. 27/2022 where the Civil Court had observed that the shop was in his possession under a registered agreement and consent deed – Held: The allegations of theft cannot prima facie sustain when possession of the accused is recognised by court orders – Ingredients of criminal offences under BNS not attracted at this stage – Custodial interrogation not warranted [Paras 4, 7–9].

Criminal Antecedents – Must be Judged in Context – Clean Acquittal and Bail Orders Considered – Not a Bar to Bail - The prosecution cited four prior FIRs – Held: The Court considered the applicant’s acquittal in one case and bail orders in another, affirming that antecedents must be assessed case-wise and are not a bar to anticipatory bail where a prima facie case is made out [Para 8].

Recovery – Partial Recovery Made – Bail Not Denied for Remaining Property - Of the ₹27 lakh worth items alleged stolen, ₹15 lakh had already been recovered – Held: Partial recovery supported the applicant’s claim that theft allegations were exaggerated in a civil dispute context – No need for custodial interrogation solely for recovery purposes [Para 9].

Decision – Bail Granted with Conditions – Anticipatory Bail Application Allowed - Applicant directed to be released on furnishing bond, with directions to cooperate with investigation, attend police station weekly, and not tamper with evidence or influence witnesses – Bail granted in view of prima facie civil nature of the dispute and pending litigation [Paras 9–10].

Civil Law – Section 55 of the T.P. Act - Recovery of Sale Consideration – Sale Agreement vs. Sale Deeds – Appeal Dismissed – Plaintiff filed suit claiming balance consideration of ₹1.16 crores alleging that only ₹16 lakhs was paid under a sale agreement – Held: Plaintiff cannot rely on earlier agreement to contradict terms of registered sale deeds; as per Section 92 of Evidence Act, oral or documentary evidence varying contents of registered documents is inadmissible – Sale consideration under sale deeds found to be fully paid – No unpaid amount recoverable – Suit and appeal rightly dismissed [Paras 2, 6, 11, 16, 18].

Encumbrances – Interpretation of Contract – Sale Was Free of Liabilities – Plaintiff argued that liabilities were to be cleared by purchaser in addition to agreed price – Held: Sale was intended to be free of encumbrances and liabilities were to be cleared from sale price – Conduct of parties and security given by plaintiff corroborated this understanding – Vendee had no independent liability to clear dues beyond consideration [Paras 13-15].

Evidence – Proof of Payment – Bank Transactions and Official Documents Sufficient – Defendants produced proof of payments including bank receipts, tax clearances, and PF dues – Plaintiff admitted major heads of liability – Trial court rightly concluded that total consideration was discharged and no dues remained – Challenge to receipts rejected due to lack of cross-examination or contrary proof [Para 16].

Limitation and Conduct – Delay in Legal Action – Plaintiff executed cancellation deeds in 1993 but never sought to set aside the sale deeds – Suit filed 8 years later – Held: Delay and lack of appropriate relief further weaken plaintiff’s claim – Findings of trial court affirmed [Para 17].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Suit for recovery of unpaid sale consideration based on pre-sale agreement was legally unsustainable – No dues shown under registered deeds – Appeal found to be without merit and dismissed without costs [Para 18].