False Promise to Marry – Quashing – Long-term Consensual Relationship – No Evidence of Deceitful Intention at Inception – Section 69 BNS Not Attracted – Criminal Intimidation Under Section 351(2) BNS Not Made Out – Criminal Law Not a Tool for Private Relationship Fallouts – Proceedings Quashed [Paras 8–17].

False Promise to Marry – Section 69 BNS – Ingredients – Intention at Inception Essential – Court held that for an offence under Section 69 BNS, prosecution must establish that sexual intercourse was induced by deceit or a promise to marry made without intention to fulfil the same – Mere breach of promise without mala fide intent at inception is not an offence – Reliance placed on Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana (2013) 7 SCC 675 [Paras 6–8, 12].

Prolonged Consensual Relationship – Criminal Liability Diluted – Relationship between parties spanned from 2020 to 2025; such long-term intimacy negates inference of deception – Cited Mahesh Damu Khare v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 INSC 897, holding that prolonged physical relationship renders plea of misconception of fact implausible [Paras 9, 12].

Consensual Relationship Turning Sour – Not Criminal Conduct – Court reiterated that every failed or soured relationship cannot be given criminal colour – Cited Amol Bhagwan Nehul v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 INSC 782, emphasising that misuse of criminal machinery must be curbed [Para 10].

Abuse of Criminal Process – Complaints After Relationship Breakdown – Court relied on Biswajyoti Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal, 2025 INSC 458, reiterating that retrospective branding of consensual relationships as deceitful constitutes abuse of process [Para 11].

Criminal Intimidation – Section 351(2) BNS – Not Attracted When Relationship Was Consensual – Allegation of threats rejected as parties were in a voluntary intimate relationship for several years – Cited Prashant v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2024 INSC 879 – No ingredients of criminal intimidation established [Para 13].

Court’s Observations on Contemporary Personal Relationships – Court observed that premarital intimacy between consenting adults is common; emotional discord cannot be converted into criminal litigation; criminal law is not a tool for moral policing or resolving personal fallouts [Paras 14–16].

Decision – Continuation of Proceedings Would Be Abuse of Process – No material to show deceitful intent at inception; allegations indicate only a breakdown of consensual relationship – Proceedings in PRC No.75/2025 quashed [Para 17].

Sales Tax – Set-off – Interpretation of Rule 41D(3)(a) of Bombay Sales Tax Rules – Apportionment on Furnace Oil – Assessee claimed full set-off on purchase of furnace oil used in manufacture of goods, some of which were transferred to branches outside State – Tribunal applied pro-rata reduction of 6% under Rule 41D(3)(a) for such branch transfers – Revenue supported apportionment while assessee contended furnace oil should be equated with plant/machinery and exempt from apportionment – Held: Furnace oil is a consumable and not part of plant/machinery – Tribunal’s interpretation upheld – Set-off must be reduced by 6% of purchase price for branch transfers under Rule 41D(3)(a) [Paras 21, 22, 24, 27, 39, 40, 45].

Tax Law – Interpretation – Fiscal Statutes – Strict Construction – Assessee contended that strict construction must exclude furnace oil from reduction provision in Rule 41D(3)(a) – Court held that contextual interpretation of statute allows inclusion of furnace oil under the term “goods which are dispatched” as used in the Rule – Term must be read in conjunction with Sub-Rule 2(iii) – Full set-off not allowable [Paras 41, 51, 52].

Precedent – Larger Bench Decision of Tribunal – Tribunal’s Larger Bench ruling in M/s. Pudumjee Pulp affirmed – Held to have correctly classified furnace oil as consumable with nexus to goods dispatched – View settled by consistent Tribunal decisions – No grounds for High Court to interfere in reference jurisdiction absent perversity [Paras 35, 39, 50].

Assessment – Factual Finding – Apportionment of Set-off – Assessment officer had already done pro-rata apportionment between local sales and branch transfers – Assessee failed to demonstrate impossibility of such apportionment – High Court refused to reopen factual findings in reference jurisdiction [Paras 43–45].

Decision: Reference answered in favour of Revenue – Set-off under Rule 41D must be reduced by 6% for furnace oil used in goods transferred to branches outside the State.

Electricity – Crop Damage – Strict Liability – Respondent’s wheat crop destroyed by fire due to electrical short-circuit from a Three Phase LT Line passing over his field – Writ Court directed compensation of ₹50,400 with 6% interest – Defence of natural calamity (wind storm) raised by State rejected – No proof of windstorm placed on record – High Court upheld finding that Electricity Department failed in its duty to maintain the electric line safely – Held: Transmission of high-voltage electricity is inherently hazardous – Even without negligence, supplier is strictly liable under law of torts for damage caused by uncontrolled discharge of electric energy – Referenced Supreme Court’s judgment in M.P. Electricity Board v. Shail Kumar and J&K High Court’s ruling in Gittan Ram v. State – Appeal dismissed [Paras 7–16].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Writ Court’s award of ₹50,400 compensation with interest upheld – Doctrine of strict liability applied – State liable irrespective of proven negligence.

Writ Petition – Suppression of Material Facts – Abuse of Process – Clean Hands Doctrine – Petitioners challenged 33KV transmission line being laid through residential area citing safety concerns and violations of Indian Electricity Rules – However, petitioners failed to disclose ongoing civil suit on identical subject matter with interim relief already granted by Trial Court – Held: Non-disclosure of parallel litigation amounts to abuse of process and fraudulent misrepresentation; writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked with unclean hands [Paras 14–26, 30].

Electricity Infrastructure – Safety Standards – Petitioners raised concerns regarding insufficient clearance (less than 3.7 meters) from residential buildings in alleged violation of Indian Electricity Rules – Spot inspection confirmed proximity of lines to houses – However, since matter was already under adjudication in civil court, High Court declined to adjudicate merits under Article 226 [Paras 3–11, 22].

Civil Suit Pending – Parallel Proceedings – Interim relief in civil suit already granted to maintain status quo – Petitioners failed to await outcome and instead filed writ – Held: Filing of writ petition despite pendency of civil proceedings on same cause of action is improper and amounts to forum shopping [Paras 16–20, 24–25].

Costs Imposed – Concealment of Facts – Petition dismissed in limine with cost of ₹20,000 to be deposited in Advocates’ Welfare Fund – Exemplary costs imposed to deter litigants from misleading the Court [Paras 34–35].

Decision: Petition dismissed in limine – Petitioners held to have suppressed material facts – Costs of ₹20,000 imposed for abuse of process – Petition to be listed after two weeks for verification of cost deposit compliance.

Approver – Revocation of Pardon – Section 308 CrPC – Trial Court revoked pardon without Public Prosecutor’s certificate – Held: Though ordinarily certificate under Section 308 is prerequisite, Court may revoke pardon where approver and prosecution misled Court and where pardon was improperly granted despite overwhelming documentary evidence – Revocation justified; evidence rightly expunged – Summoning under Section 319 CrPC of co-loanee / joint account-holder upheld – All three revisions dismissed [Paras 21, 26–36].

Criminal Procedure – Tender of Pardon – Sections 306–308 CrPC – Legal Framework – Once pardon is granted, approver stands discharged and becomes prosecution witness – Withdrawal of pardon ordinarily requires Public Prosecutor’s certificate certifying violation of conditions of pardon – Evidence of approver thereafter must be ignored in toto – Principles reaffirmed from State of Maharashtra v. Abu Salem Abdul Kayyum Ansari, A.J. Peiris, Hiralal Girdharilal Kothari, and Jagjit Singh [Paras 16–18].

Revocation of Approver Status – Whether Court Can Act Suo Motu – In present case, trial court revoked pardon at stage of final arguments without certificate under Section 308 CrPC – Held: Although certificate is ordinarily mandatory, where both prosecution and approver mislead court and pardon itself was improperly obtained, court may invoke inherent power to revoke pardon – Court found CBI’s claim that approver was not principal beneficiary to be misleading; documentary evidence overwhelmingly proved his involvement – Revocation justified [Paras 21, 29–35].

Approver’s Misconduct – Circumstances Justifying Revocation – Documentary record showed approver (A-3) as principal beneficiary of fraudulent housing loans, illegal gratification to bank officials, and attempted misuse of fraudulent Safe Keeping Receipt (SKR) of ₹100.86 crores – Evidence showed payment of car purchase amounts as bribe; loans credited to his and wife’s joint account; attempts to siphon public money – Trial Court correctly held approver misled Court and was undeserving of pardon – No prejudice caused by revocation [Paras 23–34].

CBI’s Conduct – Misleading the Court – CBI’s application supporting pardon claimed lack of evidence against A-3 despite seizure of incriminating documents – Court held CBI “misled the Trial Court” and improperly facilitated accused’s approver status – Such conduct justified court’s corrective action independent of Section 308 procedure [Paras 28–32].

Summoning Additional Accused – Section 319 CrPC – Summoning of Smt. Kaveri Dutta – Evidence showed she was joint account-holder, co-loanee, signatory to withdrawals, beneficiary of housing loans, aware of transactions – Prosecution witnesses (PW3, PW4, PW12) disclosed her role – Prima facie case established – Trial Court rightly summoned her under Section 319 CrPC – No interference warranted [Para 36].

Documentary Evidence – Prosecution’s Case Not Dependent on Approver – Trial Court rightly held that prosecution case rested substantially on seized bank records, SKR documents, cheques, loan papers, and correspondence – Approver’s testimony had little bearing on merits – Revocation and expunging of deposition caused no impairment to prosecution case – Findings upheld [Paras 26–27, 30].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Interference – Revisional Court will not interfere unless order suffers from illegality, material irregularity or perversity – Impugned order well within jurisdiction; based on correct appreciation of record – No ground for interference in any of the three revision petitions [Paras 35–37].

Decision – All three criminal revision petitions (CRR 516/2020, CRR 2504/2021, CRR 1252/2022) dismissed – Interim orders vacated – Trial Court to proceed in accordance with law [Paras 37–40].

Criminal Law – Quashing of Summoning Order – Cheating – Criminal Breach of Trust – Petitioners, who are close relatives of Complainant, alleged to have misused powers of attorney given in UAE to fraudulently transfer assets and siphon company funds – Petitioners challenged summoning order on grounds of lack of evidence and territorial jurisdiction – Held: Allegations that signed blank cheques were given in India and were misused in UAE indicates part of the offence occurred in India – No prior sanction under Section 188 CrPC required – Jurisdiction established – Prima facie misuse of PoA and misappropriation of assets shown from documents and testimony – Transfer of company shares and receipt of ₹47 lakhs in petitioner’s account support charges – Summoning order upheld [Paras 34-57].

Territorial Jurisdiction – Section 188 CrPC – Alleged fraudulent acts committed partly in UAE and partly in India – Blank cheques signed and PoA executed in India – Misused abroad – Held: When part of the offence occurs in India, prior sanction under Section 188 CrPC is not necessary – Jurisdiction of Indian courts validly invoked [Paras 34-39].

Power of Attorney – Abuse and Misuse – Petitioners misused PoAs executed by Complainant during his forced absence from UAE due to deportation – Sale of companies and diversion of funds not authorized – Held: Such misuse of PoA for personal gain discloses offences under Sections 406/420 IPC [Paras 43-56].

Complaint Evidence – Prima Facie Case – Testimony of CW1 (Complainant) corroborated by documents including share transfer contracts, PoA, and depositions of CW2 and CW3 – Transfer of ₹47 lakhs to petitioner’s wife Jaspreet Kaur indicative of criminal breach of trust – Held: Complaint and evidence disclose sufficient grounds for summoning [Paras 42-56].

Decision: Petition under Section 482 CrPC dismissed – No merit found in challenge to summoning order – Criminal proceedings to continue [Para 59

Criminal Law – Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Acquittal – Appellant filed complaint against accused for dishonour of cheque for Rs. 20 lakhs – Cheque returned with endorsement "Drawer’s Signature Differs" – Legal notice claimed to be sent, but original acknowledgment card not produced – Trial Court refused to mark photocopy and acquitted accused holding statutory notice not proved – High Court held non-service was not disputed by accused in cross-examination and disagreed with Trial Court's reasoning on notice –However, loan transaction of Rs. 40 lakhs alleged to be given without any written document – Complainant admitted in cross-examination that cheque was filled by her husband and that husband used to collect blank cheques from chit subscribers including accused – No mention in complaint or notice about authority to fill cheque – These admissions supported defence version that cheque was issued blank during chit dealings – Held: Accused’s version found probable – No perversity in acquittal – Appeal against acquittal dismissed [Paras 9–11].

Decision: Criminal appeal dismissed – Acquittal by Trial Court upheld – Findings held reasonable and not perverse.

Constitutional Law – Right to Travel Abroad – Article 21 – Denial of No Objection Certificate to government employee on ground of pending disciplinary proceedings – Held: Right to travel abroad is a facet of personal liberty protected under Article 21 – Executive instruction dated 28.01.2014 cannot override fundamental rights – Rejection of NOC amounts to unconstitutional restriction on liberty – Impugned orders quashed [Paras 10–14, 18–19]

Service Law – Government Employee – Pending Departmental Proceedings – Presumption of Innocence – Mere pendency of disciplinary proceedings or vigilance cases cannot be treated as conclusive of guilt – Held: Presumption of innocence must prevail until proven guilty – Executive circular cannot justify refusal of NOC without due process of law [Paras 10, 15, 17]

Administrative Law – Executive Instructions vs. Enacted Law – Letter dated 28.01.2014 by State Government is not statutory law – Cannot be treated as lawful basis to restrict passport issuance – Any restriction on fundamental rights must be supported by enacted law – Held: Administrative circular lacks legal authority to infringe personal liberty [Paras 10, 14]

Passport Law – Passport Manual and NOC Requirement – Clauses 4.23 to 4.25 of Passport Manual, 2020 make NOC mandatory for government employees – However, such requirement must align with constitutional rights – Held: NOC cannot be denied arbitrarily, and the Manual must be read in conformity with fundamental rights under Article 21 [Paras 11–12]

Judicial Precedents – Maneka Gandhi Case – Right to go abroad is part of personal liberty – Denial must follow fair procedure established by law – Applied in present case to quash refusal of NOC based on non-statutory executive communication [Para 13]

Decision:

Writ Petition allowed – Impugned rejection orders dated 12.07.2022 and 21.03.2025 quashed – State directed to issue No Objection Certificate to petitioner within six weeks from date of judgment [Para 19]

Tenancy Law - Lease Rent Demand – One-time Lease Rent – Delay in Payment – Petitioner deposited one-time lease rent equivalent to 11 annual instalments on 08.01.2007 in accordance with prevailing GNIDA policy – Lease rent was payable by 16.01.2007, and payment made on 08.01.2007 was within the stipulated period – Held: There was no default attracting penal consequences – Authority’s subsequent demand in 2025 for lease rent dues is legally untenable and arbitrary [Paras 14–17, 24–25]

Natural Justice – No Prior Notice or Explanation – Impugned demand letter dated 10.07.2025 issued without any show-cause notice or opportunity to respond – Held: Violative of principles of natural justice – Arbitrary quantification without calculation details renders the demand unsustainable [Paras 19–20]

Promissory Estoppel – Issuance of No Dues Certificates – GNIDA had issued No Objection Certificates in 2010 and 2020 and also granted mortgage permission in 2024 – Held: Authority is estopped from raising lease rent dues in 2025 after a long period of inaction – Such reversal of stand violates principles of promissory estoppel and fairness [Paras 21–23]

Legitimate Expectation – Consistency in Administrative Conduct – Repeated certifications by GNIDA confirming no dues and subsequent permission to mortgage created legitimate expectation that no lease rent remained unpaid – Held: Sudden reversal of position violates doctrine of legitimate expectation and Article 14 of the Constitution [Paras 21–22]

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Demand letter dated 10.07.2025 quashed – Direction issued to GNIDA to process petitioner’s pending applications for permission to mortgage dated 08.10.2024 and 02.01.2025 within six weeks from receipt of certified copy of this order [Paras 26–27]