Criminal Law – Quashing Of Complaint – Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Property Dispute Among Co-owners – Complaint Quashed – Allegations of cheating, forgery, and conspiracy made by complainant against his co-owner relatives in relation to surrender of tenancy and execution of a memorandum of understanding—Court found dispute to be among family members over jointly owned commercial property—Held: Dispute essentially civil in nature, relief lies in civil court, not criminal prosecution [Paras 1–9, 14–16].

Forgery Allegations – No Prima Facie Criminal Intent – Absence of Essential Ingredients – Complaint accused petitioners of impersonating authority and executing forged MOU without complainant’s consent—Court held that allegations did not prima facie make out offences under IPC as essential criminal elements were absent—Proceedings amounted to misuse of criminal process [Paras 7–9, 16–17].

Judicial Precedents – Civil Disputes Given Criminal Colour – Quashing Justified – Court applied settled principles from Paramjeet Batra, Randheer Singh, and Bhajan Lal cases—Held: Complaint designed to harass petitioners, falls under categories 1, 3, and 7 of Bhajan Lal—Criminal action not sustainable where civil suit was already pending and remedy lies therein [Paras 11–16].

Abuse of Process – Power Under Section 482 CrPC – Court reiterated that inherent powers under Section 482 should be exercised to prevent harassment through frivolous litigation—Held: Continuation of proceedings would be an abuse of court process—Complaint quashed to secure ends of justice [Paras 12–14, 17].

Decision – Criminal revision allowed – Complaint Case No. C/724 of 2023 under IPC Sections 406, 419, 420, 423, 464, 467, 468, 470, 471, 120B, and 34 pending before 4th Court, Alipore quashed in respect of petitioners Pawan Agarwal and Vishnu Kishen Agarwal – Connected applications disposed – Interim orders vacated [Paras 18–22].

Criminal Law - Dishonour of Cheque – Section 138 NI Act – Conviction Justified – Cheque issued for Rs. 5,20,000 as part payment of existing liability – Dishonoured for insufficient funds – Legal notice issued but no reply or payment made – Trial Court and Appellate Court rightly convicted the accused and sentenced him to two months’ simple imprisonment with compensation of Rs. 5,50,000 – Held: Accused admitted signature on cheque; presumption under NI Act not rebutted – Conviction upheld [Paras 3, 5–6, 15–20].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Scope – No Reappreciation of Evidence Unless Perverse – The Court held that in revisional jurisdiction, it cannot re-appreciate evidence unless findings of lower courts are perverse or unreasonable – Both Trial and Appellate Courts considered the material properly – No interference warranted with findings of conviction [Paras 20–22].

Sentence Modification – Deposit of Compensation – Sentenced Reduced to Till Rising of Court – Considering full deposit of compensation amount and nature of offence being quasi-civil under NI Act – Sentence modified from two months’ imprisonment to “till rising of the Court” – Reliance placed on Supreme Court ruling in P. Mohanraj v. Shah Brothers Ispat Pvt. Ltd. highlighting compensatory nature of Section 138 [Paras 23–27].

Decision: Criminal Revision Partly Allowed – Conviction Maintained – Sentence Modified – Accused sentenced to undergo imprisonment till rising of the Court – All pending applications disposed of [Paras 27–28].

Service Law – Teacher’s Transfer – Quashing of Transfer Order – Appellant initially appointed as Teacher Grade-III without subject specification – Claimed eligibility and experience in Social Science based on optional subjects studied during graduation – Transfer order dated 09.01.2025 posted her as Teacher Level-II in English, a subject she had only as a compulsory paper, not optional – Held: Transfer order arbitrary and punitive in nature as appellant lacked requisite qualification to teach English – Transfer violative of statutory rules and guidelines issued by Education Department – Quashed [Paras 1–18].

Qualification Criteria – Subject-wise Eligibility – Appellant’s graduation subjects included History and Economics (optional), not English – Guidelines dated 16.02.2016 clarified that subject eligibility must be based on optional subjects, not compulsory – Advertisement dated 16.12.2022 and Rule 266 of Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 reiterated same principle – Appellant validly qualified to teach Social Science, not English [Paras 2–5, 9, 13–16].

Judicial Review – Scope in Transfer Matters – Though limited, interference justified where transfer is mala fide, without jurisdiction or punitive – Present transfer considered punitive and passed with legal malice, as it assigned teaching responsibility outside appellant’s qualification domain – Likely to cause adverse civil consequences and violate students’ right under Article 21-A – Held: Transfer cannot be justified under guise of administrative exigency [Para 12].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Impugned judgment dated 04.02.2025 and transfer order dated 09.01.2025 quashed – Respondents directed to repost appellant where she may teach Social Science per her qualifications [Paras 17–18].

Guardianship and Child Custody – Interim Custody During Summer Vacation – Expedited Order Directed – Petitioner-father sought interim custody of minor son during summer holidays pending decision in OP(G&W) No. 921/2021—Family Court delayed disposal of application—High Court directed disposal of IA No. 22/2025 (Ext.P7) without delay—Held: Delay could render application infructuous post school reopening on June 2, 2025 [Paras 2–3].

Supervisory Jurisdiction – Article 227 – Intervention to Prevent Infructuous Relief – Invoking Article 227, petitioner sought timely judicial intervention to prevent delay from defeating custodial relief—Court acknowledged urgency and ensured disposal by directing prompt Family Court action—Supervisory jurisdiction invoked to protect effective remedy [Paras 2–3].

Subsequent Compliance – Original Petition Rendered Infructuous – As Family Court passed order on IA No. 22/2025 on 13.05.2025, Court held nothing survived in the writ petition—Petition closed while reserving rights of parties to challenge final order if needed [Paras 4–5].

Decision – Petition disposed of as infructuous – No opinion on legality or merits of Family Court’s interim order – Rights of parties left open – No costs [Para 5].

Criminal Law - Summoning of Additional Accused – Validity of Summons under Section 193 Cr.P.C. – Special Court Empowered – Petitioners were initially cited as witnesses but were summoned as accused after evaluation of the case record – Held: Summoning was within the jurisdiction of the Special Court and does not constitute second cognizance – Offence-based cognizance allows summoning of new accused if material discloses their involvement [Paras 17-23, 26-27].

Sanction – Applicability to Retired Public Servants – Section 19 of PC Act – No Retrospective Effect – Petitioners (except Rajeev Arora) were retired before amendment to Section 19 took effect on 26.07.2018 – Held: Sanction not required for offences taken cognizance of prior to the amendment – Cognizance is of the offence, not the individual – Amendment does not apply retrospectively [Paras 65-68].

Section 197 Cr.P.C. – No Sanction Required for Offences of Cheating and Conspiracy – Held: Acts alleged have no reasonable nexus with official duties – Public servants cannot claim immunity under Section 197 Cr.P.C. for offences like cheating and abetment, as these acts lie outside the scope of official functions [Paras 63-64].

Article 20(3) – Protection Against Self-Incrimination – Not Violated – Petitioners were not accused at the time of their statements – Summons based on independent material – Held: No compulsion or constitutional violation established – Petitioners not entitled to protection under Article 20(3) [Paras 70-73].

Prima Facie Involvement – Deliberate Deferment of Award – Material Indicates Independent Action by Officials – Petitioners Rajeev Arora and D.R. Dhingra failed to act on repeated communications from the Land Acquisition Collector – Files went missing – Held: Prima facie case made out based on record and witness statements [Paras 29-37, 38-43].

Files Processed for Private Developers – Conduct of Petitioners Kulwant Singh Lamba and Dhare Singh – Petitioners involved in routing and clearing of license/CLU files post-deferment – Actions linked to benefit of private developers – Held: Same footing as co-accused – Summoning justified [Paras 44-48].

Disagreement with Police Report – Court Not Bound by IO’s Conclusions – Special Court has power to summon persons not named in chargesheet if prima facie material exists – Held: Magistrate or Special Court is not a post office – Summoning order valid [Paras 49-53].

Direction to Obtain Sanction – Procedural Step, Not a Mandate – Court directed CBI to place material before competent authority – Held: No judicial direction to grant sanction – Legal process under Section 19 of PC Act followed – No encroachment on administrative discretion [Paras 58-62].

Decision – Petitions Dismissed – No Legal Error in Special Court’s Summoning Order – At summoning stage, only prima facie case is required – Detailed evaluation not warranted – Held: Trial must proceed – Petitions dismissed [Paras 74-76].

Criminal Law - Section 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(C), 28, and 29 of the NDPS Act – Illegal Possession and Conscious Custody – Conviction Confirmed – Accused intercepted while transporting 150 kg of ganja—Search and seizure compliant with Section 50 NDPS Act—Evidence of P.W.1 and independent witness P.W.3 held credible—Contraband properly seized, sealed, and produced—Court upheld trial court’s findings on conscious possession and recovery [Paras 2, 8].

Section 42 NDPS Act – Compliance Established – Written information regarding secret tip-off was typed and timely conveyed to superior—Court held compliance sufficient under guidelines in Karnail Singh—Typed version acceptable when handwritten record unavailable—Challenge rejected [Paras 9.4–9.5]

Section 67 NDPS Act – Statements Held Admissible – Tofan Singh ruling held applicable prospectively—Since statements were recorded prior to the ruling, they remain admissible—Court accepted them as corroborative evidence of conspiracy and intention [Paras 10.1–10.3].

Section 52A NDPS Act – Non-Strict Compliance Not Fatal – Contraband produced at remand, stored in godown, and properly marked—Supreme Court’s Bharat Aambale and Kashif rulings followed—Substantial compliance considered adequate in light of corroborative evidence [Paras 13.1–13.3].

Conspiracy and Attempt – Sections 28 and 29 NDPS Act – Conviction Upheld – Court found that coordinated travel, volume of contraband, and Section 67 statements proved attempt and conspiracy to traffic drugs—Each charge considered independently valid despite acquittal under Sections 25 and 27(A) NDPS Act [Paras 14].

Accused’s Explanation under Section 313 CrPC – Found Unbelievable – Defense claim that third party planted contraband during mechanical breakdown found to be false and unsubstantiated—No supporting material produced—Court held that explanation was an afterthought [Paras 11.1–11.2].

Decision: Appeal Dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C), 28, and 29 of the NDPS Act affirmed—Court found compliance with procedural safeguards and corroborated recovery—No merit in defense contentions [Paras 15–16].

Civil Procedure – Rejection of Plaint – Scope under Order VII Rule 11 – Petition for rejection of plaint on ground of undervaluation and jurisdiction dismissed – Trial Court held suit for injunction over trademark “Shahi Sikka” was not barred by law and disclosed cause of action – Held: At threshold, only plaint averments are relevant and no legal bar or undervaluation could be established ex facie [Paras 1-3, 18-22].

Commercial Courts Act – Jurisdictional Threshold – Intellectual Property Suits Valued Below ₹3 Lakhs – No Presumption of Bar – Defendant contended that suit must lie before Commercial Court due to IPR subject – Court rejected, citing Division Bench of Delhi High Court in Pankaj Ravjibhai Patel – Held: Unless specified value crosses ₹3 lakhs and it involves commercial dispute, Commercial Court jurisdiction not attracted – Plaintiff’s valuation accepted in absence of contrary material [Paras 4-15].

Trade Marks Act – Section 142(2) – Bar on Suits for Groundless Threats – No Groundless Threat Alleged – Defendant invoked Section 142(2) but failed to establish that suit for injunction was hit by statutory bar – Court held provisions inapplicable as suit did not allege threat of infringement action but sought direct relief against trademark usage [Paras 3, 5].

Plaint Valuation – Court Fee and Jurisdiction – Presumption in Favour of Plaintiff’s Valuation – No Evident Undervaluation – Court held that in absence of minimum statutory threshold, valuation must be tentatively accepted unless prima facie arbitrary – Defendant failed to show undervaluation or that court lacked jurisdiction [Paras 16-17].

Judicial Discretion – Use of Order VII Rule 11 – Drastic Power to be Exercised Cautiously – Only if Suit Ex Facie Barred by Law or Discloses No Cause of Action – Court reaffirmed that rejection of plaint must be based solely on plaint contents and not defendant's assertions – Held: Trial required for adjudication of factual disputes [Paras 19-22].

Decision: Revision petition dismissed – No legal bar or jurisdictional defect found in trial court’s refusal to reject plaint – Suit to proceed to trial [Paras 23-24].

Criminal Law - Custodial Death – Sections 302, 302/149, 147, 148, and 120-B of the – Appeal Against Acquittal - Eyewitness Credibility – Acquittal Upheld – The prosecution alleged that the accused, including a police constable, were involved in the murder of an undertrial prisoner after taking him out of judicial custody – The two eyewitnesses presented by the prosecution were found to be unreliable due to inconsistencies, contradictions, delayed disclosure, and intoxication – Held: The trial court rightly disbelieved their testimony and the High Court declined to interfere with the finding [Paras 11–11.2].

Recovery of Weapons – Lack of Independent Corroboration – Evidentiary Gaps – The prosecution relied on the recovery of blood-stained weapons allegedly used in the offence – The High Court found the recoveries were made after 12–13 days, without independent witnesses, and the FSL report did not confirm human blood – Held: Such recoveries were doubtful and could not support the prosecution’s case [Paras 13–14].

Hostile Witnesses and Omissions – FIR and Testimonies Not in Sync – Several witnesses were declared hostile – Key omissions in FIR and contradiction in the statements of family members regarding timeline and threats – Held: Material inconsistencies and lack of credible motive weakened the prosecution’s version significantly [Paras 7–7.6, 15–16].

Scope of Acquittal Appeals – Reversal Only on Perversity or Illegality – The appellate court reiterated that interference in an acquittal is permissible only where the trial court's judgment is perverse, illegal, or ignores material evidence – Held: Trial court’s conclusions were based on plausible appreciation of facts and law, hence no interference was warranted [Paras 17–19].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Acquittal Confirmed – The High Court upheld the trial court’s acquittal of the accused as the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt – The surviving respondents were directed to furnish bonds under Section 437-A CrPC – Appeal dismissed [Paras 20–21.2].

Police Service – Dismissal for Absence – Prolonged unauthorized absence from duty – Plaintiff/constable dismissed for remaining absent from duty for extended periods – Departmental inquiry conducted, orders of dismissal confirmed by appellate and revisional authorities – Courts below upheld dismissal, noting absence of valid medical justification and procedural adherence – Plaintiff’s appeal dismissed [Paras 1-27].

Procedural Compliance – Departmental Inquiry – Plaintiff’s claims of procedural lapses in departmental inquiry rejected – Inquiry and subsequent orders found to be in accordance with Punjab Police Rules – Courts emphasized the disciplined nature of police service and necessity for strict adherence to rules – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1-27].

Judicial Review – Limited Interference – High Court’s jurisdiction in reviewing disciplinary actions – Upheld findings of lower courts absent wanton or arbitrary action by authorities – Precedent from Supreme Court and High Court cited to affirm dismissal – Appeal dismissed [Paras 13-17].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Concurrent findings of the Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court affirmed – Orders of dismissal from service upheld [Paras 19-20].