Bail Application – Fraudulent Investment Scheme – Sections 406, 409, 420, 120-B IPC & Sections 3, 4 MPID Act – Bail Rejected – Applicant accused of luring more than 127 investors into depositing over ₹7 crores under a scheme promising 5–10% monthly returns, diverting funds to personal accounts – Court held that Designated MPID Court has jurisdiction to try IPC offences along with MPID offences – Transactions amount to “deposits” under MPID Act – Prima facie case of criminal breach of trust and conspiracy established – Antecedents of similar offences and gravity of fraud weighed against bail – Bail Application dismissed [Paras 22-55].

Jurisdiction of MPID Court – Designated Court remains Sessions Court – Possesses full powers under Cr.P.C. – Designation enlarges, not curtails jurisdiction – IPC offences connected with MPID offences can be tried together to avoid multiplicity – Argument of losing appellate forum under Articles 14 & 21 rejected [Paras 22-34].

Criminal Conspiracy – Section 120-B IPC – Applicability affirmed – Prosecution case shows applicant and co-accused conspired to cheat investors – Company’s non-natural status irrelevant where natural persons executed fraudulent scheme [Para 35].

Deposit under MPID Act – Section 3 – Investment with assured fixed returns amounts to “deposit” – Prosecution material shows inducement and extraordinary promises – Argument of non-deposit rejected at bail stage [Paras 37-40].

Criminal Breach of Trust – Section 409 IPC – Entrustment and misappropriation established – Investors’ funds dishonestly diverted to applicant’s personal account – Prima facie case under Section 409 IPC made out; defence of civil dispute rejected [Paras 41-46].

Parity in Bail – Prior bail order in Crime No.123/2021 distinguished – Present fraud involved larger number of investors and higher amount (over ₹7 crores) – Antecedents of repeat offence – Principle of parity not applicable [Para 47].

Personal Liberty vs. Public Interest – While bail is a rule, economic offences form an exception – Magnitude of fraud, antecedents, and likelihood of repetition outweigh Article 21 considerations – Larger public interest in protecting depositors prevails – Bail rejected [Paras 48-54].

Decision: Bail Application dismissed. No case made out for grant of bail in view of gravity, scale of fraud, antecedents, and public interest [Para 55].

Civil Law  – Declaration of Matrimonial Status – Sections 7 & 8, Family Courts Act – Jurisdiction – Appeal Allowed in Part – Plaintiff claimed declaration as second wife of late Mukesh Sharma – Trial court dismissed suit holding matrimonial status declaration lies exclusively within jurisdiction of Family Court – High Court upheld finding of lack of jurisdiction but held trial court erred in dismissing instead of returning plaint – Order 7 Rule 10 CPC mandates return of plaint for presentation before competent Family Court – Impugned judgment modified accordingly [Paras 13-22].

Family Court Jurisdiction – Section 7 Explanation (b), Family Courts Act – Exclusive domain over validity of marriage and matrimonial status – Civil Court jurisdiction barred under Section 8 – Supreme Court in Balram Yadav v. Fulmaniya Yadav, (2016) 13 SCC 308 applied – Declaration of matrimonial status can only be sought before Family Court [Paras 14-15, 18].

Return of Plaint – Order 7 Rule 10 CPC – Mandatory where Court lacks jurisdiction – Trial court committed illegality by dismissing suit outright – Supreme Court in EXL Careers v. Frankfinn Aviation Services, (2020) 12 SCC 667 reiterated principle – High Court directed return of plaint to enable presentation before competent court [Paras 16-19, 21-22].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Impugned judgment and decree dated 17/09/2022 set aside to extent of dismissal of suit – Finding of lack of jurisdiction upheld – Trial Court directed to return plaint under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC for presentation before Family Court – No order as to costs [Paras 21-23].

Regular Bail  – Honey-Trap and Extortion Allegations – Sections 127, 308, 352, 351, 318, 115 & 61 BNS – Bail Granted – Petitioner, a police constable, arraigned as accused No.6, alleged to have accompanied prime accused and threatened complainant in extortion plot – No recovery from petitioner; no direct demand of money attributed – Investigation completed, charge-sheet filed – Court held further detention unnecessary; bail granted with conditions [Paras 3-12].

Allegations – Complaint alleged petitioner present with accused No.1 demanding ₹10 lakh – Charge-sheet, however, only states petitioner warned complainant of trouble if demand not met – No evidence of petitioner’s receipt of money – His role limited and disputed; guilt to be established only at trial [Paras 9-11].

Custodial Necessity – Petitioner in custody since 15/06/2025 – Interrogation complete – Continued detention serves no purpose – Risks of tampering with evidence can be mitigated by bail conditions [Paras 7-12].

Bail Principles – Presumption of Innocence and Personal Liberty – Bail is rule; denial an exception – In absence of recovery or direct overt act, refusal of bail unjustified – Stringent conditions sufficient safeguard [Paras 11-12].

Decision: Petition allowed – Petitioner/accused No.6 enlarged on bail in Crime No.127/2025 subject to: personal bond of ₹1,00,000 with two sureties, furnishing and updating residential address, non-inducement of witnesses, and regular appearance before trial court – Breach of conditions to entail cancellation of bail [Paras 12, Order].

Criminal Law  – Conviction Based Solely on Ballistic Report – Identification Not Established – Conviction Set Aside – The appellant was convicted under Sections 393, 394, 397, 398, 34 of IPC and Arms Act based on an incident where a minor was injured during a robbery attempt – The trial court relied primarily on ballistic evidence linking the bullet to a pistol recovered in another case – Eyewitnesses, including the injured minor and her family, failed to clearly identify the appellant due to the assailants wearing helmets – TIP was refused by the appellant due to alleged exposure to police photographs – There were discrepancies in recovery dates of the pistol, and no CDR/location evidence or recovery of the motorcycle was brought on record – Held: In the absence of positive identification and corroborative evidence, conviction cannot rest solely on ballistic evidence [Paras 1-14].

Investigation Lapses – No Effort to Trace Vehicle or Independent Witness – Weak Link Between Crime and Accused – The IO failed to trace the auto-rickshaw driver or motorcycle involved in the incident – No effort was made to corroborate appellant’s presence at the scene through call detail records or electronic means – Key links in the chain of evidence missing, weakening the prosecution case [Paras 10-12].

Prior Criminal Record – Not a Substitute for Proof of Present Offence – The State relied on past criminal involvement of the appellant to support the conviction – Held: Past cases, in which the appellant was mostly acquitted or on bail, cannot be the basis for conviction in the present case, which must stand on its own evidence [Paras 13-14].

Appeal Allowed – Conviction Set Aside – Appellant Acquitted – In the totality of the circumstances and lack of clinching evidence, the conviction was set aside – The appellant was acquitted of all charges and ordered to be released if not wanted in any other case [Paras 14-15].

Permanent Injunction – Tenant Holding Over – Section 116, Indian Evidence Act – Relief Denied - Plaintiff, a tenant under the Municipal Committee, sought permanent injunction claiming title after lease expiry – Trial Court dismissed the suit; First Appellate Court reversed – Held: Tenant estopped from denying landlord’s title under Section 116 during or after tenancy unless lawfully surrendered – Injunction cannot protect unlawful possession [Paras 8, 12].

Title Dispute – Unconstitutionality of Statute – No Vesting in Tenant – The Haryana Municipal Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1974 was declared unconstitutional in Rajinder Prashad case – Held: This did not vest title in tenants or co-sharers – Vesting dispute may lie between Panchayat and Committee, but tenant has no locus to claim possession on that basis [Paras 9, 13].

Biswedar Claim – No Documentary Proof – Equitable Relief Refused - Plaintiff claimed co-sharer (biswedar) status in shamlat land – No documentary evidence produced – Both Trial Court and First Appellate Court found no basis for such claim – Held: Equitable relief of injunction cannot be granted without legal entitlement or proof of ownership [Para 10].

Lease Evidence – Revenue Records and Auction Entries – Estoppel Applied - Documents including auction record (Ex. D8) and Rapat Roznamcha (Ex. D10) proved plaintiff took land on lease – Held: Having accepted lease, plaintiff estopped from challenging landlord's title – Possession after lease expiry deemed unauthorized [Paras 11-12].

Final Disposition – Appeal Allowed – Appellate Court Judgment Set Aside - High Court found First Appellate Court erred in ignoring legal principles on estoppel and tenancy – Held: Judgment dated 10.02.1994 set aside; Trial Court’s decree restored; Plaintiff not entitled to injunction – Suit dismissed [Paras 13-14].

Criminal Law – Attempt to Rape converted to Outraging Modesty – Sections 354/323 IPC – Conviction Set Aside – Trial Court convicted appellant for outraging modesty despite charge under Sections 376/511 IPC – High Court found victim’s evidence inconsistent with FIR, medical records, and Section 164 statement – Hostile witnesses and alternative version of incident (dispute over spitting at gate) created reasonable doubt – Benefit of doubt extended; conviction set aside; appeal allowed. Acquittal. [Paras 10-15, 21].

Victim’s Evidence – Weight and Corroboration – Law recognises that sole testimony of prosecutrix can sustain conviction if trustworthy – In present case, contradictions between FIR, deposition, Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement, and medical report undermined reliability – Court held victim’s testimony lacked cogency and required corroboration, which was absent [Paras 13-15].

Interested/Hostile Witnesses – Evaluation – PWs 3 and 4 (relatives in same premises) did not support prosecution version – PW 4 gave different account of quarrel between accused and victim’s husband – Witness not declared hostile – Lack of corroboration from neighbours and family members further weakened prosecution [Paras 14, 16-17].

Medical Evidence – Injury Report – Doctor noted only tenderness on chest and limbs, no signs of scuffle, sexual assault, or vomiting as alleged – Injury report used against accused though not put to him under Section 313 Cr.P.C. – Inadmissible for conviction as per Sujit Biswas principle – Medical evidence failed to corroborate prosecution story [Paras 13, 19-20].

Section 313 Cr.P.C. – Principles of Natural Justice – All incriminating materials must be put to accused – Failure to confront with injury report violated audi alteram partem – Such evidence excluded from consideration [Paras 19-20].

Standard of Proof – Two Possible Views – As per Kali Ram and Raj Kumar Singh, where two views are possible, one favouring accused must prevail – Prosecution evidence not free from doubt; alternative version supported by some witnesses – Accused entitled to acquittal [Paras 18, 21].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and conviction dated 17/09/2014 set aside – Appellant acquitted of charges under Sections 354 and 323 IPC – Bail bond discharged in terms of Section 437A Cr.P.C. (corresponding Section 481 BNSS, 2023) [Paras 21-24].

Cheque Dishonour – Sections 138, 139 NI Act – Presumption of Legally Enforceable Debt – Conviction Upheld – Petitioner admitted issuance and signatures on cheque; defence of blank cheques misused found improbable; no legal action taken against complainant for alleged misuse – Held: Presumption under Sections 118(a) & 139 NI Act unrebutted – Conviction justified [Paras 7-9].

Blank Cheque – Presumption – Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar Applied – A voluntarily signed blank cheque, handed over towards some payment, attracts presumption under Section 139 NI Act – Petitioner failed to prove absence of debt/liability – Mere denial insufficient [Para 9].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Scope under Section 397 Cr.P.C. – Limited Interference – High Court may interfere only in case of palpable error, illegality, or perversity – No such infirmity found; concurrent findings affirmed [Paras 10-11].

Decision – Revision Petition dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Section 138 NI Act maintained – Petitioner directed to comply with trial court’s order [Paras 11-13].

Anticipatory Bail – Long-Term Consensual Relationship – Prima Facie No Rape Made Out – Bail Granted – The petitioner sought anticipatory bail in connection with FIR under Section 376 IPC – The prosecutrix, a well-educated consultant residing abroad, alleged rape based on false promise of marriage after a prolonged relationship lasting over four years – She alleged that she discovered the petitioner’s marital status in January 2023 during a trip to Europe – FIR was registered in April 2025 after she returned to India – Held: Prima facie, it appeared to be a consensual extramarital relationship and it is implausible that the prosecutrix remained unaware of the petitioner’s marital status over such extended period – Bail granted subject to conditions [Paras 1-9].

Delay in Lodging FIR – Not Satisfactorily Explained – Prosecutrix Resided Abroad – The prosecutrix claimed she discovered the deceit in January 2023 but filed FIR only in April 2025 after returning to India – Court observed that nothing prevented her from filing a complaint from abroad – Her professional background did not support a claim of helplessness or fear – Delay casts doubt on the allegations [Paras 7].

Liberty of the Accused – No Justifiable Grounds to Deny Bail – Chargesheet Filed – The State did not raise serious objection to the bail – Considering the background and profile of the prosecutrix and lack of evidence suggesting coercion or force, no grounds found to deprive the petitioner of personal liberty – Bail allowed with standard conditions [Paras 5, 9].

Registration of Sale Deed – Role of Registering Officer – Refusal Held Illegal – The Sub-Registrar and District Registrar, Samba, refused registration of a sale deed on the ground that petitioner’s title was unclear, relying on the Advocate General’s opinion – Held: Registering Officer has no adjudicatory role to assess title – Registration cannot be refused if procedural requirements are met and there is no legal bar – Orders of refusal quashed [Paras 12-14, 17-19].

Ownership Rights – Government Order 254-C of 1965 – No Restriction on Transferability – The petitioner acquired land under Government Order No. 254-C of 1965 – Held: Such ownership is full and unrestricted – No condition prohibits sale or transfer – Reliance on Advocate General’s pending opinion without legal notification is unjustified [Paras 15-16, 18].

Rule-Making Power – Section 69 of Registration Act – Scope Limited – Any rule or instruction not covered under Section 69(1)(a) to (j) is ultra vires – Registration Rules cannot override the Act – Cited SC judgment in K. Gopi vs. Sub-Registrar declaring Rule 55A ultra vires to emphasize limited powers of Registering Officers [Paras 11, 13].

Registration Act – Procedural Compliance Sufficient – No Requirement to Prove Title – Under Sections 34, 52, and 58 of the Registration Act, 1908, registration depends on execution, identity, and procedural formalities – Held: Title disputes beyond the scope of registration proceedings – Petitioner cannot be denied registration solely due to absence of clarification from Government [Paras 6-10, 12].

Decision of Coordinate Bench – Binding Authority – Jarnail Singh Case Followed – Coordinate Bench ruling in Jarnail Singh vs. UT of J&K affirmed that ownership under Order 254-C is absolute – Held: Sub-Registrar cannot disregard this legal precedent in absence of contradictory statutory provision [Para 16].

Final Relief – Writ Allowed – Registration Directed – Impugned orders of Sub-Registrar and District Registrar set aside – Petitioner permitted to re-present the sale deed – Sub-Registrar directed to register if no other legal impediment exists [Paras 19-20].