Criminal Procedure – Cognizance – Summoning Order Must Reflect Application of Mind – Petitioner was arrayed as A2 solely because co-accused (A1) transferred alleged misappropriated FDR funds to his account – Magistrate’s order taking cognizance failed to provide any reasons or demonstrate application of mind – Held: Cognizance and summons order set aside and remanded for fresh consideration with reasoned order [Paras 18-20]

Maintainability – Revision Against Summoning Order – Not Interlocutory – High Court held that order taking cognizance and issuing process substantially affects accused’s rights and is not a purely interlocutory order under Section 397(2) Cr.P.C – Relied on Amar Nath, Madhu Limaye, and Rajendra Kumar Pande – Revision maintainable as such orders are quasi-final [Paras 9-17]

Criminal Allegations – Civil Dispute Given Criminal Colour – Petitioner claimed to have loaned money to co-accused A1, and received part repayment – Allegations arose from family dispute over Fixed Deposit Receipts (FDRs) where de facto complainant was a nominee – Held: Mere fund transfer to petitioner’s account, without specific role or mens rea, insufficient to proceed without judicial satisfaction on material [Paras 3, 6.1, 18-19]

Judicial Standards – Duty of Magistrate – Cognizance is not an empty formality – Summoning order must reflect consideration of evidence and reasoning – Relied on Sunil Bharti Mittal v. CBI, AIR 2015 SC 923 – Held: Mechanical issuance of summons vitiates the process [Paras 6.2, 19]

Decision: Criminal Revision allowed – Cognizance order dated 28.06.2025 set aside – Matter remanded to CJM, Hyderabad for fresh consideration with direction to pass a reasoned order uninfluenced by High Court observations – Miscellaneous applications closed [Para 20]

Criminal Law - Section 138 and Section 141 of the N.I. Act - Dishonour of Cheque – Vicarious Liability – Company Under Liquidation – Acquittal Upheld – Respondent was a director of the company which went into liquidation on 29.07.2013 – Cheque in question dated 28.10.2013 issued post-liquidation – Held: Complainant failed to establish that respondent was in charge of or responsible for the business at the time offence was committed – Mere designation insufficient without proof of role – Vicarious liability not attracted [Paras 13-18].

Evidence – Lack of Proof of Demand Notice – Mandatory Requirement Not Met – Complainant failed to prove service of demand notice under Section 138(b) NI Act – No demand notice exhibited or served on respondent – Held: Statutory condition precedent not satisfied – Criminal liability cannot be fastened in absence of compliance with essential legal requirement [Para 21].

Presumption of Innocence – Acquittal Strengthens Presumption – Appeal Fails to Dislodge – Trial court acquitted accused after detailed assessment – Appellate court emphasized enhanced threshold to overturn acquittal – Held: No compelling grounds shown to reverse acquittal – Presumption of innocence reinforced post-acquittal as per Mallappa case – Appeal dismissed [Para 22].

Director’s Liability – Specific Role Must Be Alleged and Proved – Liquidator Took Charge – Complainant alleged director was in charge of day-to-day affairs but provided no specific role post-liquidation – Held: Legal fiction under Section 141 NI Act not invoked without pleading and proof of active responsibility – Presence as director before liquidation insufficient [Paras 16-20].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – No Grounds to Interfere with Acquittal – Acquittal of respondent/accused no.4 upheld – Appellate court found no misapplication of law or error in appreciation of facts by trial court – CRA (SB) 91 of 2024 dismissed [Paras 23-24].

Family Law - Section 19 and Section 22 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act - Maintenance to Widowed Daughter-in-law – Entitlement under Section 19 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act – Appeal Dismissed – Respondent No.1 (widow) along with her two minor children filed a claim for maintenance against her father-in-law and brother-in-law – Family Court found that the widow had no independent means of livelihood and was ousted from matrimonial home – Held: Widow unable to maintain herself and had no access to husband's estate or maintenance from her natal family – Statutory conditions under Section 19 satisfied – Maintenance rightly granted by Family Court [Paras 2, 13–16, 23–26, 35–36].

Dependants and Inherited Estate – Liability under Section 22 of the Act – Maintenance from Estate in Possession of Heirs – Appellants argued that they were not liable – Held: As heirs of deceased, appellants were in possession of agricultural land of the deceased without partition and were maintaining joint estate – Hence, as dependants, respondents were entitled to maintenance from appellants under Section 22 – Family Court correctly appreciated documentary evidence and testimony of witnesses [Paras 24, 28, 30–32, 35–36].

Income and Status – Assessment of Means of Maintenance – Appellants Contended Old Age and Low Income – Held: Appellants possessed agricultural land jointly inherited, had constructed house, and admitted they were not maintaining the widow or her children – Plea of disability or insufficient income not tenable in light of evidence – LIC proceeds and landed assets considered sufficient to impose maintenance liability [Paras 18–21, 35].

Quantum of Maintenance – Reasoned Determination by Trial Court – Family Court awarded ₹3000/month to widow and ₹1000/month to each child – Held: In absence of any fixed formula, court rightly considered cost of living, area of land under cultivation, and social status – Award is reasonable, fair and in line with settled law [Para 29].

Appellate Interference – Scope of Review – No Perverse Findings – Held: Appellate Court will not interfere merely because another view is possible – Only if lower court's order is perverse or legally unsustainable – No such infirmity found in impugned judgment – Appeal dismissed with no interference warranted [Paras 37–39].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Judgment of Family Court upheld – Maintenance granted under Sections 19 and 22 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act was based on proper appreciation of law and facts – No ground made out for interference – Pending interlocutory applications also disposed [Para 39–40].

Criminal Law – Quashing - Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120B of the IPC - Forgery Allegations – Absence of Material Linking Accused to Document Creation – Quashing Allowed – Petitioner accused of forging landlord’s signature on settlement letter to regain possession of shop post-eviction – Held: No prima facie material showing petitioner authored or procured forged letter – No evidence of link between petitioner and preparation of document – Offence under Sections 467/468/471 IPC not made out – Proceeding quashed qua petitioner [Paras 20-21, 24-25].

Parallel Civil Proceedings – Adjudication of Disputed Document – Criminal Case Prejudicial – Civil Suit Pending Regarding Tenancy and Letter Authenticity – Held: When genuineness of document is under civil court's consideration, criminal prosecution on same issue improper – FIR continuation would prejudice civil adjudication – Criminal case quashed following ratio in Rajeshbhai Patel and Chandanpal Singh [Paras 21-22].

Forgery – Use of Photocopy Not Enough – Primary Evidence Not Seized – No Expert Verification – Held: Prosecution relied on secondary evidence without seizing original or conducting signature comparison – Criminal forgery charges require stringent proof – Standards in criminal trial higher than civil – Penal provision cannot be invoked without statutory compliance [Paras 21, 24].

Civil Dispute Masquerading as Criminal Offence – Allegation of Malafide – Held: Petitioner paid dues as per alleged settlement and filed civil suit before criminal case lodged – Complaint filed one and a half years after failed attempt to vacate injunction – Indicates mala fide initiation to pressure petitioner – Abuse of process [Paras 6, 10, 22].

Multiple Complaints – Bar on Second FIR Not Attracted – Distinct Cause of Action – Earlier complaint related to trespass, current one to forgery – Held: Prior complaint under Section 156(3) CrPC not treated as FIR – Instant FIR based on different factual foundation – Not barred [Para 14].

Decision – Criminal Proceedings Quashed – No Prima Facie Evidence Against Petitioner – Criminal proceeding in GR Case No. 830 of 2020 quashed qua petitioner Kamala Devi Goyal – CRR 2730 of 2022 allowed – Connected applications also disposed [Paras 25-26].

Civil Law – IBC - Moratorium under IBC – Bar on Institution of Proceedings – Section 14 of IBC – Suit Filed During Moratorium Held Non Est – The respondent instituted a suit for declaration, possession and rent recovery against the applicant company during the moratorium period imposed under Section 14 by the NCLT – Held: The suit was filed on 21.01.2022 during the subsistence of moratorium which commenced on 30.08.2021 and continued till 19.05.2023 – Suit barred under Section 14(1)(a) of the IBC and hence liable to be rejected – Order rejecting application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC set aside [Paras 4, 12-14, 26-27].

Overriding Effect of IBC – Section 238 – Special Law Prevails – Section 238 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code gives it overriding effect over other laws – Held: IBC being special law prevails over general provisions of CPC – Civil court cannot proceed with suits in contravention of IBC moratorium – Plaint rightly rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC read with Section 151 CPC [Paras 14, 26-27].

Jurisdiction of Civil Courts – Section 63 of IBC – NCLT Has Exclusive Jurisdiction – Suit regarding recovery of leased premises by lessor during CIRP of lessee – Held: Claims regarding operational debt and possession during CIRP fall within the domain of NCLT – Civil court lacks jurisdiction under Section 63 of IBC – Suit held to be barred by law [Paras 16, 18-20].

Operational Debt – Rent Claim as Operational Debt – Duty to File Claim Before RP – Respondent failed to raise claim before Resolution Professional during CIRP – Held: Rent due qualifies as operational debt – Once resolution plan is approved, such claims stand extinguished – Suit not maintainable post-approval – Resolution plan approved on 19.05.2023 – Suit filed during CIRP not curable [Paras 15, 18, 27].

Decision – Rejection of Plaint Allowed – Civil Suit Filed During Moratorium Period Not Maintainable – Civil Revision Application allowed – Trial court's rejection of Order VII Rule 11 application quashed – Plaint rejected as barred by law under Order VII Rule 11 and Section 151 CPC [Paras 26-27].

Anticipatory Bail – Alleged Caste-Based Assault – Sections 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of the SC & ST Act - Prima Facie Offence Under SC/ST Act Not Attracted – Appeal Allowed – Appellant accused of attacking de facto complainant and using caste-based slur – Held: Allegations serious, but no prior criminal record – Prima facie ingredients of SC/ST Act offences not clearly made out – Anticipatory bail granted with strict conditions [Paras 1-6].

Recovery Pending – Deemed Custody Protection – Not a Bar to Bail – Prosecution objected to bail citing incomplete recovery – Held: Appellant to be deemed in custody for recovery purposes – Bail not denied solely on this basis [Paras 6-7].

Conditional Bail – Safeguards Imposed – Court imposed standard bail conditions including bond, cooperation with investigation, non-tampering of evidence, and restraint from further offences – Explicit caution of cancellation on breach of conditions [Paras 7-8].

No Criminal Antecedents – Favourable Consideration – Appellant’s clean record considered as mitigating factor – Court inclined to extend benefit of anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC [Para 6].

Decision – Anticipatory Bail Granted – Trial Court Order Set Aside – Special Court’s rejection order dated 25/03/2025 quashed – Criminal appeal disposed of with directions and safeguards [Para 7].

Criminal Writ - Illegal Arrest – Grounds of Arrest Not Effectively Communicated – Violation of Article 22(1) – Petitioner alleged that accused was arrested without proper intimation of arrest grounds to relatives and in violation of constitutional rights – Held: Arrest must comply with Article 22(1), and grounds must be meaningfully conveyed – However, in present case, remedy lies via habeas corpus, not under Articles 226/227 – Writ not maintainable [Paras 1, 14, 21].

Habeas Corpus vs. Mandamus/Certiorari – Judicial Remand Order Bars Writ Relief – Detention pursuant to Magistrate’s remand order cannot be challenged through writs of mandamus or certiorari – Proper procedure is habeas corpus, to be filed before Division Bench – Single Bench cannot issue such relief under writ jurisdiction in the facts presented [Paras 14, 20-21].

Custodial Torture Allegations – Show Cause Against Investigating Officer – Petitioner’s plea for action against IO on grounds of custodial assault rejected – Court emphasized available remedies through appropriate forums rather than constitutional writ for such claims [Para 1, 21].

Constitutional Safeguards – Grounds of Arrest Must Be Specific, Not Formal – Reiterated that ‘grounds’ are distinct from generic ‘reasons for arrest’ – Cited landmark rulings affirming need for specific, comprehensible, and written communication – However, current case lacks sufficient cause for interference under writ jurisdiction [Paras 15-17, 21].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed as Not Maintainable – Petitioner directed to approach appropriate forum for habeas corpus – Writ Court declined relief under Articles 226/227 in light of existing judicial remand and absence of manifest illegality [Para 21].

Civil Law - Court Fees – Partition Suit – Article 17(vi) vs. Section 7(iv)(b) of the Court Fees Act – Fixed Court Fee Payable – Defendant no.2 sought rejection of plaint arguing plaintiff was not in possession and must pay ad valorem court fee – Plaintiff, as Class II heir, pleaded constructive possession and cited tenancy in one of the properties – Held: Plaintiff deemed in constructive possession in law – No averment of ouster – Fixed court fee under Article 17(vi) applicable – Application rejected [Paras 1, 5-7, 13, 21-27, 31-37].

Constructive Possession – Co-ownership in Partition Suit – Presumption in Law – Plaintiff being Class II heir claimed 50% share in estate of deceased brother – Some properties were tenanted and under interim court custody – Held: Law presumes joint possession among co-owners unless ouster is pleaded – Plaintiff successfully averred constructive possession – Ad valorem court fee not attracted [Paras 20-26, 31-34].

Delay in Objection – Application after Three Years – Not Fatal but Considered – Application filed three years after defendants' appearance – Held: While delay alone is not conclusive, timing reflects lack of merit – Application under Order VII Rule 11(c) held to be misconceived [Paras 10, 23].

Distinction from Cited Precedents – Ramesh Kumar Bhagchandka and Om Prakash Arora – Not Applicable – Plaintiff in present case is legal heir with pleaded constructive possession – In contrast, cited precedents involved either admission of ouster or absence of co-ownership – Held: Precedents not applicable to facts of present case [Paras 16, 35].

Decision – Application Dismissed – Fixed Court Fee Found Proper – Plaintiff not required to pay ad valorem court fee – No averment of ouster – Constructive possession deemed in law – Application under Order VII Rule 11(c) dismissed [Paras 33-37].

Arbitration Law - Arbitration Agreement – Prima Facie Existence – Appointment of Arbitrator – Arbitration Clause Survives Termination of Contract – Respondents objected to invocation of arbitration on the ground that the MoU and Agreement of Sale stood terminated by efflux of time – Held: The arbitration agreement is a separate contract and survives the termination of the principal contract – The effect of the Indemnity Bond and the claim of termination are issues to be decided by the arbitral tribunal and not at the Section 11 stage – Appointment of arbitrator ordered [Paras 14-16].

Insufficient Stamping – Objection Not Maintainable at Referral Stage – Respondents objected to enforceability of arbitration clause citing insufficient stamping – Held: Following the 7-Judge Bench decision in In Re: Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements and Stamp Act, the referral court under Section 11 cannot decide stamping objections – Such objections are to be dealt with by the arbitral tribunal – Objection rejected [Paras 13].

Interpretation of Arbitration Clause – Use of Word ‘May’ – Whether Mandatory or Directory – The arbitration clause in the Agreement of Sale used the word ‘may’ – Held: Where the intention to arbitrate is clear from reading the MoU and the Agreement of Sale together, use of ‘may’ does not dilute the enforceability of the arbitration clause – MoU contains a clear binding arbitration clause – Both agreements are interconnected and form part of the same transaction – Arbitration clause held valid and binding [Paras 17-18].

Scope of Court’s Power Under Section 11 – Referral Court’s Role Limited – Courts at Section 11 stage cannot decide on the merits of termination, novation, or arbitrability of disputes – The court’s role is limited to examining whether a prima facie arbitration agreement exists – Issues such as termination of contract, effect of the indemnity bond, and whether disputes are arbitrable fall within the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal [Paras 15-16].

Decision – Arbitration Application Allowed – Justice V.V.S. Rao (Retd.) appointed as sole arbitrator – Parties are at liberty to raise all issues including termination, stamping, and arbitrability before the arbitral tribunal – Miscellaneous applications stand closed [Para 20].