Criminal Law – Kidnapping of Minor – Sections 363 and 366 IPC – Conviction Affirmed – The appellant was convicted for kidnapping a minor girl aged 11-13 years under Sections 363 and 366 IPC – Evidence established the girl was taken away without parental consent under false pretext and confined unlawfully – The minor’s consistent testimony, corroborated by other witnesses and medical evidence, proved kidnapping beyond reasonable doubt – Held: Conviction under Sections 363 and 366 IPC rightly upheld [Paras 7-9, 14-15].

Attempt to Rape – Section 376/511 IPC – Proof of Attempt – Conviction Sustained – Though complete penetration was not established, repeated sexual assault attempts, forcible undressing, and physical advances were proved by the prosecutrix’s consistent and credible testimony – Medical evidence indicated broken hymen and absence of injuries due to minor age – Held: Ingredients of attempt to rape made out, conviction under Section 376/511 IPC valid [Paras 9, 19-23].

Delay in FIR – Justified and Not Fatal – Delay in reporting incident explained due to familial involvement and societal stigma – Reliance placed on Supreme Court rulings clarifying delay is normal in sexual offences especially involving relatives – Held: Delay does not weaken prosecution’s case [Paras 17-18].

Victim’s Testimony – Sole Reliable Evidence – Conviction Based – The court emphasized testimony of prosecutrix is sufficient to secure conviction if trustworthy – No material discrepancies were found in cross-examination – No plausible reason for false implication was established – Held: Conviction sustained primarily on prosecutrix’s credible evidence [Paras 24-25].

Benefit of Probation – Not Applicable in Heinous Crime – Rejected – Considering the heinous nature of the crime involving sexual assault on a minor by a relative, benefit of probation or first offender protection was denied – Held: Trial court rightly denied benefit under Probation of Offenders Act [Para 27].

Defence Evidence – Unreliable and Unconvincing – Rejected – Defence witness failed to provide credible alibi or contradict prosecution case – Allegations of false implication due to property enmity found baseless and unsupported – Held: Defence failed to create reasonable doubt [Paras 12, 28].

Appeal – No Ground for Interference – Dismissed – The court found no illegality or perversity in trial court findings, conviction based on consistent, cogent, and credible evidence – Held: Appeal devoid of merit, dismissed [Paras 29-30].

Employment Law - Reservation of Municipal Wards – Rotation of SC/ST Seats – Rotation Not Mandatory – Appeal Allowed – The High Court reversed the order of the Writ Court which had quashed the reservation notification for municipal wards in Indore on grounds of failure to rotate reserved seats – Held: Rotation principle under Article 243T and Rules applies only to OBC and Women categories, not to SC/ST seats where reservation is based on concentration of population – Writ Court erred in interpreting rotation as mandatory for SC/ST seats [Paras 1-32].

Article 243T Interpretation – Use of “May” Indicates Discretion – Not Compulsion – The Court held that the term “may” in Article 243T relating to rotation of SC/ST reserved seats signifies discretion and not a mandatory obligation – Held: Legislative intent was to ensure reservation in proportion to concentrated SC/ST population; rotation is not a constitutional mandate for SC/ST seats [Paras 20-30].

Reservation Rules of 1994 – Rule 3 and 4 Distinguished – Rotation Limited to OBC and Women Categories – Court found that Rule 3 provides reservation of SC/ST wards based on population concentration in descending order while Rule 4 applies rotation principle only to OBC and Women reservations – Held: No legal requirement to rotate SC/ST wards during successive elections [Paras 24-30].

Reliance on Supreme Court Precedent – K. Krishna Murthy Judgment Not Applicable to SC/ST Ward Rotation – The Court clarified that reliance on K. Krishna Murthy’s judgment by writ petitioners was misplaced as it pertains to broader policy issues and not specific application of rotational reservation under local municipal statutes – Held: Supreme Court rulings do not mandate compulsory rotation of SC/ST wards [Paras 12-13, 28].

Overruling of Writ Court – Prior Division Bench Judgments Affirmed – High Court reaffirmed earlier judgments (Sunil v. State of M.P.; Mohammad Azad v. State of M.P.) holding non-applicability of rotation to SC/ST wards – Held: Writ Court’s contrary interpretation erroneous, appeal allowed [Paras 26-27, 31].

Final Decision – Writ Court Order Quashed – State’s Appeal Allowed – Notification Restored – High Court allowed appeal, set aside Writ Court judgment, upheld validity of Gazette Notification dated 06.11.2020 regarding ward reservations in Indore – Writ Petition dismissed [Paras 31-32].

Criminal Law  – Abetment of Suicide – Appeal Against Conviction - Sections 306 and 498A IPC – Acquittal Granted – Appellant was convicted for cruelty and abetment to suicide of his wife based on stale allegations and letters referring to incidents from 1999–2000 – Suicide occurred in 2005 – Court held that the time gap negated any proximate cause or intention required under Section 306 – Conviction set aside, appellant acquitted [Paras 18-24, 30-34].

Legal Presumption – Section 113A Evidence Act Inapplicable – No Reverse Burden – Since suicide occurred over seven years after marriage, the statutory presumption under Section 113A did not apply – Burden remained on prosecution to prove mens rea and abetment – Held: Mere harassment or vague allegations without proximity to suicide do not suffice [Paras 19, 30].

Testimony of Child Witness – Held Unreliable – Testimony of daughter (PW21) alleged daily quarrels – But inconsistencies in cross-examination and evidence of tutoring reduced credibility – Court noted her mother’s erratic behaviour and no corroboration from early investigation records [Para 28].

Section 106 Evidence Act – No Adverse Inference – Appellant was not present at home at the time of suicide – Prosecution failed to rebut alibi – Section 106 not attracted in absence of exclusive knowledge or possession of facts [Para 31].

Appeal Allowed – Conviction and Sentence Set Aside – CRA-S-2271-SB-2008 allowed – Conviction under Sections 306 and 498A IPC quashed – Appellant acquitted – Connected revision and appeal for sentence enhancement disposed as infructuous [Paras 34-36].

Taxation Law - Bunching of Show Cause Notices – Composite Notice for Multiple Financial Years – Sections 73 and 74 of the CGST Act – Composite Assessment Order Quashed – The petitioner challenged the legality of a single show cause notice issued for six financial years resulting in a consolidated demand order – Held: The GST law mandates issuance of notices based on each financial year or tax period independently – Issuing a single notice for multiple years defeats statutory limitation provisions and prejudices the assessee’s rights to present year-specific defenses – The bunching of notices and orders is impermissible under the GST Act and hence liable to be quashed [Paras 5-29].

Jurisdictional Error – Violation of Sections 73(10), 74(10), and 136 of the CGST Act – Orders Void for Lack of Jurisdiction – The Court held that bunching of multiple financial years into a single notice and assessment order is in violation of statutory time limits and procedural safeguards under Sections 73(10), 74(10), and 136 – Such orders are passed without jurisdiction and are therefore void ab initio [Paras 9-27].

Independent Adjudication Mandate – Separate Notices Required for Each Financial Year – Reliance on Judicial Precedents – The Court reiterated the principle laid down in Titan Company Ltd. and Tharayil Medicals cases that each financial year is a separate unit for assessment under GST – Clubbing years through composite notices is inconsistent with the legislative scheme and judicially unsustainable [Paras 10-26].

Hardship to Assessee – Impact on Amnesty Schemes and Compounding – Separate Adjudication Mandated – The Court highlighted that bunching notices causes hardship by preventing the assessee from availing year-wise remedies like compounding under Section 138 and settling disputes under amnesty schemes – Such practices unjustifiably constrain the assessee’s statutory rights [Paras 21-24].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Composite Order Set Aside – The Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order on grounds of illegality arising from bunching of financial years, and directed that if necessary, fresh proceedings be initiated separately for each financial year in accordance with law [Paras 28-29].

Civil Law - Dynamic Injunction - Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 and Section 151 of the CPC - Copyright Infringement – Cinematographic Film – Prima Facie Case Established – Plaintiff, a film production house, alleged large-scale online piracy of its film “Kannappa” on platforms including Instagram, Facebook, and X (formerly Twitter) – Allegations supported by over 1776 infringing URLs, with only 191 removed – Held: Prima facie case made out; balance of convenience in Plaintiff’s favour – Unauthorized streaming and sharing of content cause irreparable harm to Plaintiff’s commercial and reputational interests – Ex parte ad-interim injunction granted [Paras 27–31].

Dynamic Injunction – Ex Parte Relief Against Infringing URLs – Court granted dynamic injunction directing Meta Platforms (Defendant No. 2) and X Corp. (Defendant No. 4) to take down specific infringing URLs detailed in the plaint – Directions issued under IT Rules, 2021 – Plaintiff directed to comply with procedural requirements under Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC for Defendant No. 4 [Paras 31–33].

Pre-Institution Mediation – Exemption Granted – In light of urgency and guidance in Yamini Manohar v. T.K.D. Keerthi, (2024) 5 SCC 815 and Chandra Kishore Chaurasia v. RA Perfumery Works Pvt. Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine Del 3529 – Plaintiff exempted from pre-institution mediation under Section 12-A of Commercial Courts Act [Para 2].

Court Fee and Service Exemptions – Extension of Time and Procedural Flexibility – Plaintiff allowed to file court fees within four weeks – Exemption also granted from advance service on unserved Defendants due to urgency of interim relief sought [Paras 5, 8].

Deletion of Party – Defendant No. 3 Removed – At Plaintiff’s request, Defendant No. 3 deleted from array of parties – Amended memo directed to be filed within two weeks [Paras 11–13].

Procedural Directions – Written Statements and Replications – Defendants directed to file written statements within 30 days with affidavits of admission/denial – Plaintiff may file replications within 30 days thereafter – Summons issued for unserved Defendants returnable before Joint Registrar on 26.09.2025 [Paras 14–20].

Decision – Suit Registered – Ex Parte Injunction Granted – Plaintiff’s suit registered; dynamic injunction granted for immediate take-down of infringing URLs – Further process directed against unserved parties [Paras 10, 31–33].

Criminal Law – Dismissed In Default for Non-Prosecution – Section 256 CrPC – Acquittal of Accused – Complaint Cannot Be Restored – Magistrate Lacked Jurisdiction - Complaint under Section 138 NI Act was dismissed in default due to complainant’s absence, and the accused was present – Held: This amounted to acquittal under Section 256(1) CrPC – The Magistrate has no power to restore such complaint – Impugned restoration order dated 24.07.2019 set aside [Paras 1-2, 5-8, 11-12].

Restoration of Complaint – Only Remedy is Appeal – Section 378 CrPC – No Revisional or 482 Petition Maintainable - Once a complaint is dismissed and accused acquitted under Section 256, complainant’s only remedy is to file an appeal under Section 378(4) CrPC – Restoration by Magistrate or via revision/482 petition is impermissible in law – Relied on precedents including Atul Sood, Mohd. Sakil, and Hardev Singh [Paras 7-10].

Terminology – “Discharge” in Magistrate’s Order – Interpreted as “Acquittal” – Legal Consequence Not Affected - Though the Magistrate used the word “discharged” in order dated 24.01.2018, Court held that in substance it amounted to “acquittal” – Substance prevails over form in such interpretation [Para 8].

Decision – Petition Allowed – Order of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh dated 24.07.2019 restoring the complaint quashed – Respondent-complainant may avail alternative remedies as per law [Paras 12-13].

Civil Law  – Declaration and Injunction Suit – Title not established – Appeal dismissed – The plaintiff-appellant sought a declaration claiming ownership over 5 kanals of land on the basis of a sale deed executed by her husband Gurlal Singh, but the lower courts dismissed the suit holding that Gurlal Singh’s ownership was limited to 1/4th share and there was no evidence of ownership of 3/4th share as mentioned in the sale deed – The High Court upheld the concurrent findings observing that execution of a sale deed without lawful title cannot confer ownership – Held: No substantial question of law arises, second appeal dismissed [Paras 2-10].

Sale Beyond Ownership – Effect of Invalid Title – Legal Principle Reaffirmed – The Court reiterated that a vendor cannot sell more than his ownership share – Jamabandi entries recorded only 1/4th share of Gurlal Singh while the sale deed wrongly mentioned 3/4th share – Held: Execution of sale deed by a person without title does not vest ownership rights in vendee [Paras 7-9].

No Proof of Excess Sale by Defendants – Courts’ Findings Upheld – The appellant failed to prove that defendants/respondents had sold land in excess of their share – The courts below rightly relied on revenue records showing that the land sold by respondents was within their recorded share – Held: No illegality in the sale deed executed by respondents, suit rightly dismissed [Paras 9].

Concurrent Findings – No Substantial Question of Law – Appeal dismissed – The Court found no perversity or misapplication of law in the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Trial and First Appellate Courts – Held: In the absence of any substantial question of law, second appeal not maintainable and liable to be dismissed [Para 10].

Decision of the Case – Appeal dismissed – The judgments and decrees of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court dismissing the plaintiff’s suit for declaration and injunction are affirmed – Pending applications also disposed of [Para 10].

Criminal Taxation Law - Criminal Prosecution – Quashing of Complaints – Sections 276C(1)(i), 276D, 277(1) of the Income Tax Act – Complaints Quashed – The petitioner challenged criminal complaints under Sections 276C(1)(i), 276D, and 277(1) based on an assessment order which was subsequently set aside by ITAT – The ITAT held there was no incriminating material found during search proceedings and the foreign bank account data from French authorities remained unauthenticated – Held: Prosecution based on unauthenticated documents with no corroborative material is unsustainable and constitutes an abuse of process – Criminal complaints quashed [Paras 54-74, 87-98, 103-122].

Consent Waiver Form – Failure to Sign – Section 276D of Income Tax Act – No Ground for Criminal Prosecution – Prosecution was initiated against petitioner for failing to sign consent waiver form to allow authorities to verify alleged Swiss bank accounts – Held: Non-signing of consent form in absence of any credible incriminating material cannot justify criminal prosecution – At best, it is punishable by penalty under Section 271(1)(b), which has already been imposed and upheld – Further prosecution under Section 276D unsustainable [Paras 75-86].

False Statement Allegations – Section 277 of Income Tax Act – Absence of Falsification – Prosecution Unwarranted – The department alleged petitioner made false statements in tax filings – Held: No independent evidence or verified material establishing falsification of income – ITAT categorically found no substantive basis to support such allegations – Prosecution under Section 277 held legally untenable [Paras 87-98].

Effect of ITAT Orders – Impact on Criminal Prosecution – ITAT as Final Fact-Finding Authority – Once the ITAT set aside assessment on facts, quashing of complaints warranted – Held: Where assessment orders are quashed by ITAT, in absence of incriminating material or proven concealment, criminal complaints are liable to be quashed to prevent miscarriage of justice – Reference made to K.C. Builders, G.L. Didwania, and other binding precedents [Paras 100-122].

Decision – Petitions Allowed – Complaints Quashed – Held: Continuation of criminal proceedings on unauthenticated documents without independent evidence amounts to abuse of process – Criminal complaints against petitioner under Sections 276C(1)(i), 276D, and 277(1) of the Income Tax Act quashed – Petitions allowed accordingly [Paras 122-123].

Civil Law - Property Ownership – Co-ownership Rights – Mandatory Injunction for Rectification of Records – Dismissal of Appeal – The appellant challenged concurrent findings of Trial Court and First Appellate Court which decreed mandatory injunction for rectification of municipal records to reinstate plaintiff’s name as co-owner – Supreme Court found the registered sale deed showed joint purchase of property and no proof was provided by appellant justifying exclusive ownership – Held: Both Courts rightly directed rectification of records in favour of co-owner; second appeal dismissed [Paras 3-11].

Registered Sale Deed – Evidentiary Value – Conclusive Proof of Joint Ownership – The registered sale deed dated 01.05.1996 (Ex.P-2) conclusively proved joint ownership of the suit property by plaintiff and appellant – Held: Official municipal records and RTI information corroborated the joint ownership status, and appellant could not rebut documentary evidence of co-ownership [Para 10].

Res Judicata – Prior Litigation on Distinct Property – No Bar to Current Claim – The Court rejected the plea of res judicata based on a 2004 judgment regarding a different property (common Haveli and flour mill), holding that the suit property was separately purchased by the plaintiff and appellant – Held: Mere pendency of other proceedings regarding different properties does not extinguish rights derived from a valid registered sale deed [Para 10].

Municipal Record Mutation – Mutation Entries Do Not Create Ownership – Mutation Change Invalidated – The Court held that mutation entries changed during a 2002 survey without supporting documentation or legal basis could not override title under a registered sale deed – Held: Mutation entry in favour of appellant without plaintiff’s knowledge is illegal; plaintiff’s name directed to be restored [Para 10].

No Substantial Question of Law – Concurrent Findings Upheld – The High Court found no substantial question of law arose in the matter since the findings were based on clear documentary evidence of ownership – Held: Appeal dismissed as devoid of merit [Para 11].

Decision – Second Appeal Dismissed – High Court affirmed judgments of both lower Courts – Mandatory injunction in favour of co-owner plaintiff upheld, rectification of municipal record ordered, and no merit found in appeal [Paras 10-11].