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].

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].

Family Law - Senior Citizens Act – Scope of Maintenance under Section 9 – Lump Sum Compensation of ₹5,00,000/- Ordered by Tribunal – Quashed – Tribunal granted ex parte order directing children to pay ₹5,00,000/- compensation to senior citizen parents and restore possession – Held: Act provides only for recurring maintenance up to ₹10,000/- per month under Section 9(2) and not lump sum compensation – Tribunal acted beyond jurisdiction – Order quashed [Paras 11-13].

Ex Parte Proceedings – Validity of Service – Assistant Commissioner passed order without proof of proper service of notice on petitioners – Violation of natural justice – Ex parte proceedings vitiated – Order unsustainable [Paras 11-12].

Interpretation of Beneficial Legislation – Senior Citizens Act – Beneficial Object – Court reiterated that Act must be interpreted in light of its social purpose to secure dignity, sustenance, and protection for elders – Referred to Urmila Dixit, S. Vanitha, Vijaya Manohar Arbat, Badshah, Rajnesh v. Neha, Ashwani Kumar – However, such beneficial interpretation cannot permit Tribunal to exceed statutory cap of ₹10,000/- prescribed under Section 9(2) [Paras 8, 13-14].

Maintenance Quantum – Spiralling Inflation – Court observed that cost of living since 2007 has risen exponentially – ₹10,000/- cap outdated and inadequate – Recommended Union Government to amend Section 9 and revise ceiling in tune with cost inflation index – Pending legislative reform, enhanced interim maintenance fixed at ₹30,000/- per month to each senior citizen from date of order [Paras 15-19].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Impugned order dated 16.04.2021 quashed – Matter remitted to Assistant Commissioner for fresh consideration after hearing parties – Petitioners directed to pay maintenance of ₹10,000/- per month each from 16.04.2021 till date, and ₹30,000/- per month each prospectively until decision – If ₹5,00,000/- already paid, same to be adjusted towards arrears – Copy of judgment directed to be sent to Union Finance Ministry for consideration of recommendation [Para 21].

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].

Criminal Law - Counterfeit Currency – Section 489C IPC – Conviction Sustained – Appellants apprehended in 2008 raid at Chandni Chowk with 20 counterfeit ₹500 notes (12 from Aashim, 8 from Mehtab Jahan) – Defence of false implication rejected – Police evidence, though uncorroborated by public witnesses, accepted after careful scrutiny; consistent and credible – Expert report from Currency Note Press, Nashik, confirmed notes were forged – Held: Knowledge and intent to use as genuine could be inferred from denial of recovery and lack of explanation under Section 313 Cr.P.C. – Conviction upheld [Paras 8-13].

Evidence – Police Witnesses – No Public Witness – Court reiterated law in Kalpnath Rai v. State (1997) 8 SCC 732 – Evidence of police officials not to be discarded merely for want of public witness; requires stricter scrutiny – In this case, testimonies of PW-4, PW-10, PW-11 credible and consistent – Recovery proved beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 8-9].

Mens Rea – Presumption from Circumstances – Possession of counterfeit notes without explanation sufficient to infer requisite knowledge – Burden on accused under Section 106 Evidence Act to explain innocent possession – Failure to do so justified inference of intention to use as genuine [Paras 12-13].

Sentence – Reduction Considering Delay & Age – Incident of 2008, conviction in 2012, appeal decided in 2025 – Appellants aged 39 and 68 years – Considering lapse of 17 years, mitigating factors, and period undergone, sentence reduced to 6 months’ simple imprisonment with fine of ₹10,000 each (in default, 15 days SI) – Section 428 Cr.P.C. benefit granted [Paras 15].

Decision – Appeal partly allowed – Conviction maintained – Sentence modified to 6 months’ SI with fine of ₹10,000 each – Bail/sureties adjusted [Paras 14-16].

Quashing Of Criminal Proceedings - Section 528 BNSS - Disproportionate Assets – Prevention of Corruption Act – Exoneration in Departmental Inquiry – Quashment Refused – Applicant, Assistant Manager, Greater NOIDA, accused of expenditure 137.80% above known income – Claimed departmental exoneration and quashing of censure – Held: Departmental findings based on preponderance of probability cannot override criminal prosecution which requires proof beyond reasonable doubt – Charge sheet disclosed offence and sanction for prosecution was granted – Criminal proceedings to continue – Application dismissed [Paras 26-31, 39-43].

Standard of Proof – Departmental Inquiry vs. Criminal Trial – Distinction reiterated – Departmental proceedings relate to service discipline and apply preponderance test – Criminal proceedings deal with offence against society requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt – Exoneration in service inquiry not conclusive for quashing criminal case [Paras 27-31].

Supreme Court Precedents – P.S. Rajya, Radheshyam Kejriwal, Ashoo Surendranath Tewari – Distinguished – Those cases turned on peculiar facts such as denial of sanction, penalty under FERA, or absence of evidence – Present case involved valid sanction and prima facie evidence – Recent ruling in Puneet Sabharwal (2024) reaffirmed departmental exoneration no ground for quashment [Paras 32-38].

Decision – Application under Section 528 BNSS dismissed – Charge sheet and proceedings under Sections 13(1)(b), 13(2) PC Act to continue – No interference warranted [Paras 42-43].

Writs—FCI recovery based on CAG report—Natural justice—Quashing of demands—Petitioners assailed recovery/withholding founded solely on CAG observations without supply of report, notice or hearing—Held: CAG reports are recommendatory and non-adjudicatory; adverse action cannot be founded solely thereon absent independent determination and due process—Impugned communications quashed; respondents restrained from recoveries/impediments in tenders [Paras 30–33, 36–47, 71–75].

Public Contracts—Tender Clauses 10(D) & 10(F)—Loading/certification by FCI staff—Estoppel—Stocks loaded by FCI at its cost and delivered on 100% weighment slips signed in token of acceptance of quantity and quality—Once certified/released by FCI, later allegation of misclassification (FAQ in place of URS) is untenable; FCI estopped from approbating and reprobating years later [Paras 33–34, 62].

CAG—Jurisdiction/Scope—No power to opine on commodity quality—Quality of agricultural produce (URS vs FAQ) is a technical question for FCI/competent agencies; CAG’s audit role is financial/compliance, not investigative/adjudicatory—Unilateral quality conclusions by CAG without technical corroboration and without associating affected party are ultra vires and carry no binding effect [Paras 35–39, 41–47].

Administrative Law—Audi alteram partem—Failure to furnish CAG report/notice—Violation of natural justice—Adverse findings used against petitioners without supplying report or affording hearing vitiate consequential recovery/blacklisting actions; such ex parte condemnation is unconstitutional under Articles 14 & 21 [Paras 49–52, 70–74].

Contract—Jurisdiction Clause 15—Unilateral recovery impermissible—All disputes to be adjudicated by competent courts at Jammu; FCI cannot self-adjudicate liability or bypass agreed forum—Any recovery must follow proper judicial process; unilateral administrative demands are void [Paras 31, 54–59].

Limitation—Belated claims—Recovery after five years barred—Claims arising from 2015–2016 transactions initiated in 2021 are ex facie time-barred under Articles 55/113 Limitation Act; also hit by delay and laches—Administrative powers must be exercised within reasonable time [Paras 63–69].

Constitutional Law—Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21—Arbitrariness and right to livelihood—Unilateral, stale, and unadjudicated recoveries infringe equality and due process; actions impacting business/tenders engage protected livelihood interests and require fair procedure [Paras 46, 59, 71–74].

Decision—Both writ petitions allowed—Impugned communications dated 07.09.2021 (WP(C) 261/2023) and 05.07.2022 (WP(C) 1651/2022) quashed—Respondents restrained from withholding petitioners’ amounts in any other tender, from creating impediments in future tenders/e-auctions on basis of the impugned actions, and from initiating any recovery against petitioners [Paras 75–76].

Murder – Circumstantial Evidence – Section 302 IPC – Conviction Set Aside – The prosecution case rested on the “last seen theory” and hearsay evidence alleging that the appellant, aunt of the deceased child, strangulated him and threw him in a pond – The Trial Court convicted relying on last seen theory and alleged motive arising from family disputes – Held: No eye-witness, no reliable proof that custody of child was handed to accused, and key witness Sangita not examined – Motive not established – Prosecution failed to establish chain of circumstances beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction unsustainable, appellant acquitted [Paras 47-52, 55-60, 66-69].

Last Seen Theory – Requirement of Clear Proof – Section 106 Evidence Act – Not Attracted – Trial Court wrongly shifted burden to accused to explain disappearance of child – Held: Unless prosecution proves that victim was last seen in exclusive custody of accused, burden under Section 106 Evidence Act does not arise – In absence of reliable evidence of handing over custody, adverse inference cannot be drawn – Suspicion cannot replace proof [Paras 49-55, 63-66].

Motive – Circumstantial Evidence – Absence Weakens Prosecution – Alleged disputes regarding residence of grandmother (PW 15) and gender bias theory not substantiated – No evidence that accused intended to harm victim instead of grandmother – Absence of established motive breaks chain of circumstances – Prosecution’s case reduced to suspicion [Paras 57-61].

Hearsay Evidence – Reliability – Majority of prosecution witnesses (PWs 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, 16, 17) gave hearsay evidence based on what they were told – Held: Hearsay cannot form basis of conviction – Prosecution failed to examine key informer Sangita – Serious lacuna in investigation [Paras 12-17, 67-68].

Medical Evidence – Cause of Death – Post-mortem report confirmed strangulation and not drowning – Inconsistencies in doctor’s deposition regarding presence of water and mud – Prosecution failed to link medical opinion with reliable evidence connecting accused – Medical opinion alone insufficient without corroboration [Paras 9, 39-40].

Decision – Conviction set aside – Appellant acquitted – Directed to be released subject to bond under Section 437A CrPC – Appeal allowed [Paras 69-71].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Dishonour of Cheque – Section 138 NI Act – Conviction and Sentence – Compounded by Settlement – Petitioner convicted under Section 138 NI Act for dishonour of cheque of Rs.17 lakhs and sentenced to six months’ imprisonment with Rs.2 lakhs compensation – Appellate Court enhanced compensation to Rs.5 lakhs – During pendency of revisions, parties entered into compromise deed dated 26.05.2025, later formalised before Mediation and Conciliation Centre – Settlement terms included full satisfaction of complainant’s claim, no objection to quashing of conviction, and refund of Rs.5 lakhs deposited with Registrar General – Held: In view of the settlement, conviction and sentence rendered inoperative; offence compounded – CRR-2090-2022 and CRR-2061-2022 allowed [Paras 2-7, 13-15].

Criminal Procedure – Power of High Court – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Compounding of Non-compoundable Offences – Principle – Court reiterated that under Section 482 Cr.P.C., High Court has wide inherent powers to quash proceedings to secure ends of justice notwithstanding bar under Section 320 Cr.P.C. – Cited Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466; Ramgopal v. State of Madhya Pradesh 2021 SCC OnLine SC 834 – Compromise upheld as the “finest hour of justice” when parties resolve dispute amicably – Application of these principles to cheque dishonour case justified compounding of offence [Paras 28-33].

Compromise – Effect on Connected Revisions – CRR-2663-2022 filed by complainant seeking further enhancement of compensation – In view of compromise and quashing of conviction, complainant sought withdrawal – Petition dismissed as withdrawn [Para 16].

Refund of Deposited Amount – Rs.5 lakhs deposited before Registrar General pursuant to earlier court order – Since petitioner paid Rs.5 lakhs directly to complainant as per settlement, amount with Registrar General directed to be refunded to petitioner – Application disposed accordingly [Para 18].