Section 528 BNSS - Right to Travel Abroad – Article 21 of Constitution – Permission to Study Overseas Granted – The petitioner, a 21-year-old student, sought permission to go abroad for higher studies in Germany but was denied by the trial court on apprehension of absconding – Held: Right to travel abroad is an integral facet of personal liberty under Article 21 – Courts can secure presence of accused by imposing stringent conditions such as heavy surety and undertakings – Trial Court erred in denying permission solely on apprehension – Order set aside – Petition allowed subject to conditions [Paras 8-17].

Bail Conditions and Judicial Discretion – Accused on Bail – Future Prospects – The petitioner was already on bail in connection with offences under IPC and SC/ST Act – Court held that denial of study opportunities would be detrimental to his reformation and career prospects – Liberty to impose strict conditions to ensure trial participation – Petition accepted [Paras 3-4, 13-17].

Decision: Impugned order dated 13.08.2024 set aside – Petitioner permitted to go abroad for studies subject to stringent conditions, including heavy surety and undertaking to not object to trial proceedings in absence – Petition allowed [Paras 16-18].

Civil Law - Partition Suit – Claim by Granddaughter – Property Inherited under Section 8 HSA – Not Ancestral – Rejection of Plaint – Plaintiff sought 1/4th share in property purchased by grandfather, claiming it to be ancestral – Court held: After Hindu Succession Act, 1956, property inherited by Class I heirs on intestate death of male Hindu is absolute property of heirs, not ancestral coparcenary property – Plaintiff, whose father was alive at time of grandfather’s death, is not Class I heir – No right in property [Paras 12-19].

Cause of Action – Non-disclosure – Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Plaint Rejected – Since plaintiff has no legal right in suit property, plaint discloses no cause of action – Without existence of right, question of partition or injunction does not arise – Suit barred at threshold [Paras 11, 19-23].

Interpretation – Ancestral Property vs. Self-Acquired Property – HSA Effect – Court relied on CWT v. Chander Sen (1986) 3 SCC 567 and Yudhishter v. Ashok Kumar (1987) 1 SCC 204 – Property devolving under Section 8 HSA is individual property of heir, not HUF property – Coparcenary rights not created by such succession – Plaintiff’s reliance on Mitakshara pre-HSA principles misplaced [Paras 12, 16-18].

Final Decision – Application under Order VII Rule 11(a) Allowed – Plaint Rejected – No order as to costs [Para 24].

Specific Relief Act  - Agreement to Sell – Claim of Earnest Money by Stranger – Concurrent Findings Against Plaintiff – Dismissal Upheld – Appellant claimed to have paid ₹46,85,625/- as earnest money and to have inserted respondent no.1’s name in agreement dated 14.10.2011 in good faith – Both Trial and First Appellate Courts held that agreement (Ex.P1) showed respondent no.1 as buyer and no evidence supported appellant’s plea – Bank records proved earnest money was paid by respondent no.1 from funds withdrawn from his and his wife’s accounts – Held: No cogent evidence by appellant; concurrent findings sustained [Paras 2–9].

Scope of Second Appeal – Section 100 CPC – No Substantial Question of Law – Appeal Dismissed – Findings of fact by both courts below that appellant was never part of transaction and consideration flowed from respondent no.1 – High Court found no substantial question of law arising – Appeal dismissed as devoid of merit [Paras 9–10].

Final Decision – Writ for Declaration/Recovery – Relief Denied – In absence of proof of involvement or payment by appellant, suit rightly dismissed; second appeal also dismissed – Pending applications disposed of [Para 10].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Cheque Dishonour – Material Alteration – Sections 87, 138, 118(a), 139, NI Act – Cheque issued for ₹7 lakhs returned unpaid for “insufficient funds” – Accused admitted issuing cheque but alleged alteration in account number and limited liability of ₹1.92 lakhs – Evidence (CW1 testimony) confirmed alteration from CD-5956 to CD-6033 without drawer’s authentication – Held: Alteration in name/account of payee constitutes material alteration under Section 87; cheque rendered void; no liability arises on its dishonour. Acquittal [Paras 18-27].

Presumption under NI Act – Rebuttal – Sections 118(a), 139, NI Act – Presumption of consideration and liability arises on issuance of cheque – Presumption is rebuttable; once evidence of alteration and lesser liability is shown, presumption stands displaced – Complainant failed to prove subsisting legally enforceable debt of ₹7 lakhs – Cheque unenforceable [Paras 28-29].

Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction – Sections 397 & 401 CrPC – High Court ordinarily does not reappreciate evidence in revision – However, where concurrent findings of courts below ignore material alteration rendering cheque void, interference is justified – Conviction and sentence set aside; complaint dismissed; accused acquitted [Paras 13-17, 30-32].

Decision – Criminal Revision Allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 138 NI Act set aside – Complaint dismissed – Accused acquitted – Petitioner to furnish bail bonds under Section 437-A CrPC (Section 481 BNSS, 2023) for ₹25,000/- with one surety, effective for six months [Paras 32-33].

Service Law – Disciplinary Proceedings – Non-supply of Inquiry Report – Violation of Natural Justice – Rule 14, CCS (CCA) Rules – Petitioner removed from service on charges of misappropriation – Inquiry report not supplied before punishment – Later supplied on direction of appellate authority, yet petitioner failed to make representation – Held: While non-supply of inquiry report initially violates natural justice, prejudice must be shown – No prejudice established; petitioner had admitted guilt – Appellate authority’s findings upheld – Writ petition dismissed [Paras 18-24].

Service Law – Effect of Criminal Acquittal on Departmental Proceedings – Section 409 IPC – Acquittal in criminal trial was on technical grounds (non-examination of witnesses, illegal procurement of specimen signatures) – In disciplinary proceedings, material witnesses deposed against petitioner and he admitted guilt – Held: Acquittal in criminal case does not automatically vitiate disciplinary findings; no parity between evidence in two proceedings – Contention rejected [Paras 25-28].

Judicial Review – Scope under Article 226 – Court examines legality and propriety of decision-making process, not re-appreciation of facts – Appellate authority considered petitioner’s objections; findings not perverse or illegal – No interference warranted – Petition dismissed [Paras 17-19, 28].

Decision – Writ petition dismissed – Impugned order of removal from service upheld – No costs awarded – Pending applications also dismissed [Para 28].

Criminal Law - Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Civil Dispute Cloaked as Criminal Offence – Sections 406, 420 IPC – Quashment Allowed – Petitioners (OYO and its Directors) challenged proceedings initiated by the complainant alleging cheating, breach of trust and conspiracy regarding hotel management agreements – The dispute pertained to contractual breaches, revenue sharing, and claims already referred to arbitration and IBC proceedings – Held: No entrustment of property or dishonest inducement at inception – Essential ingredients of Sections 406 and 420 IPC absent – Criminal law cannot be invoked to settle civil scores – Continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process – Proceedings quashed [Paras 7-11, 13-19].

Abuse of Process – Invocation of Criminal Law in Contractual Disputes – Section 482 CrPC – Petitioners contended that multiple similar complaints had already been quashed by coordinate benches; complainant cleverly drafted complaint to give colour of criminality – Court held that criminal process cannot be used as a cudgel for recovery of money or arm-twisting in commercial disputes – Reliance placed on Paramjeet Batra, Sarabjit Kaur, Naresh Kumar, Manish, Rikhab Birani, and S.N. Vijayalakshmi – Complaint held to be mala fide and vexatious [Paras 12-16].

Civil and Criminal Proceedings – Simultaneous Remedies – While in law civil and criminal proceedings may coexist, such coexistence requires a demonstrable element of criminality – In the present case, substratum of dispute was purely civil – Invocation of criminal law deprecated – Reliance on Punit Beriwala distinguished as facts revealed fraudulent intent at inception in that case, unlike present matter [Paras 17-18]

Decision – Criminal Petition Allowed – Proceedings in C.C.No.10486/2023 before IV ACMM, Bengaluru quashed – Clarified that observations confined to exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC and shall not influence other proceedings [Para 20].

Suspension of Sentence – Section 389 CrPC – Convict for Possession of Counterfeit Currency – Relief Denied – Petitioner convicted under Sections 489-B and 489-C IPC for recovery of ₹31,27,500/- counterfeit currency notes – Application under Section 389(1) CrPC seeking bail pending appeal rejected – Revision filed challenging rejection – Held: Mere allegation of procedural lapses, non-examination of forensic expert, and lack of independent corroboration cannot justify suspension of sentence – Evidence including seizure, recovery, and forensic report prima facie established guilt – Presumption of innocence no longer available post-conviction – Suspension of sentence not warranted [Paras 16-21].

Procedural Lapses – Alleged Defects in Seizure and Resending of Exhibits – Court held that such issues fall within appellate jurisdiction and cannot be examined in detail at revision stage – Alleged irregularities regarding sealing, forwarding, and forensic examination not grounds for bail under Section 389 CrPC – To be adjudicated in appeal on merits [Paras 17-20].

Right to Appeal – Custody Since 2023 – Article 21 – Prolonged detention argued as ground for bail – Court reiterated principle in Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai that appeals should be disposed of expeditiously to avoid futility – Directed Appellate Court to conclude appeal within one month – Rejection of suspension of sentence affirmed [Paras 21-24].

Decision – Criminal Revision Dismissed – Impugned order of Additional Sessions Judge, Titilagarh, refusing suspension of sentence affirmed – Appeal to be disposed of on merits expeditiously without being influenced by present observations [Para 24].

Criminal Law - Human Trafficking – Sections 366, 366B, 370, 370A(2) IPC – Conviction Upheld – Victim alleged that she was brought from Bangladesh by Sumi, handed over to Subir Jana, and later to Surya Pradhan in Bhubaneswar where she was forced into prostitution – Victim identified both appellants in Test Identification Parade and in court – Medical report corroborated repeated sexual assault – Held: Victim’s testimony consistent, reliable, and trustworthy – Conviction sustained [Paras 14, 17, 19, 27-28].

Victim’s Sole Testimony – Corroboration Not Mandatory – Courts observed that the testimony of a prosecutrix in sexual offences can be the sole basis of conviction if it inspires confidence – Minor discrepancies in statements under Section 164 CrPC do not undermine substantive evidence – Reliance placed on Gurmeet Singh (1996), Rajinder @ Raju (2009), Manga Singh (2019), Vinod Kumar Garg (2020) – Held: Victim’s account trustworthy; corroboration not required [Paras 20, 22, 24-26].

Test Identification Parade – Validity – Defence argued that presence of police vitiated TIP and identification doubtful – Held: TIP conducted by Magistrate following due procedure; 30 under-trials of similar height, build and complexion included – No evidence that police influenced victim – Report reliable; identification corroborates victim’s testimony – Delay in holding TIP not fatal [Paras 15, 26-27].

Contradictions and Omissions – Not Material – Defence highlighted inconsistencies between FIR, Section 164 statement, and trial testimony – Court held that contradictions not material and did not affect core allegations – Statement before Magistrate corroborated gist of victim’s testimony – Cross-examination failed to discredit victim – Held: Minor contradictions natural due to lapse of time, do not weaken prosecution case [Paras 14, 17-18, 22].

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 366, 366B, 370, 370A(2), and 120B IPC affirmed – Both appellants to continue serving sentence [Paras 27-28].

Agreement to Sell – Suit for Mandatory Injunction Instead of Specific Performance – Maintainability – Appeal Dismissed – Appellant relied on agreement to sell dated 24.12.2008 (Ex.P1) and claimed to have paid ₹24,00,000/- – Both Courts below found suit misconceived since relief ought to have been one for specific performance, not mandatory injunction – Further, appellant himself was attesting witness to sale deed dated 22.04.2009 in favour of respondents 3 & 4, which was never challenged – Agreement to sell not proved; no evidence beyond appellant’s self-serving statement – Held: Suit rightly dismissed as not maintainable [Paras 2–8].

Fraud and Coercion Allegations – Evidentiary Deficiency – No Relief – Appellant alleged coercion, threats, forced signatures, and FIRs – However, Courts found absence of corroborative evidence and noted contradictions including attestation of rival sale deed by appellant – Hence, plea of fraud rejected [Paras 2–8].

Second Appeal – Section 100 CPC – No Substantial Question of Law – Outcome: Appeal Dismissed – High Court held that concurrent findings based on evidence raised no substantial question of law – Second appeal dismissed as meritless [Paras 8–9].

Final Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Pending applications also disposed of – No relief granted to appellant [Para 9].