Criminal Law - Adjournments – Excessive and Repeated Requests – Court’s Duty to Prevent Abuse of Process – Repeated adjournments sought by the petitioner/accused for leading defence evidence were granted, including a final opportunity on 11/11/2024 – Despite this, no evidence was produced on 21/12/2024 – Held: The petitioner’s conduct was aimed at delaying proceedings, and the order of the trial court closing the defence evidence is proper and justified [Paras 4-6, 9].

Fair Trial – Right to Lead Defence Evidence vs. Timely Justice – While the right to lead defence evidence is a fundamental component of a fair trial, it cannot be used as a tool to delay justice – The petitioner’s repeated failure to comply with court orders to produce defence evidence demonstrated gross negligence, justifying the closure of his right to lead evidence [Paras 7, 9].

Judicial Responsibility – Addressing Adjournment Culture – Courts have a duty to discourage adjournments granted in a mechanical or routine manner, which harm the justice delivery system – Reiterating the principles in Ishwarlal Mali Rathod vs. Gopal, (2021) 12 SCC 612, the Court emphasized the need to avoid delays that erode public trust in the judicial process and undermine the rule of law [Paras 7-8].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Speedy Remedy Undermined by Delays – The petitioner’s dilatory tactics in a case under the Negotiable Instruments Act undermined the efficacy of the Act, which is designed to provide a speedy remedy – Held: The trial court rightly refused to tolerate delays that obstruct the purpose of the law [Para 10].

Decision: The criminal revision petition is dismissed, and the impugned order dated 21/12/2024, closing the petitioner’s right to lead defence evidence, is upheld.
 

Matrimonial Law - Divorce – Cruelty – Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act – The respondent-husband filed for divorce on grounds of cruelty, citing that the appellant-wife displayed unruly behavior, threatened suicide, and created disturbances at the matrimonial home – The appellant denied these allegations and, in turn, claimed that she was subjected to physical abuse and forced to consume poison – The Family Court found that the allegations of cruelty were established and granted divorce – Held: Findings of cruelty by the Family Court were justified based on evidence presented, and no interference is warranted [Paras 2.2, 5-6].

False Allegations – Filing of Section 498-A IPC Case – Impact on Divorce – The appellant filed a criminal complaint under Section 498-A IPC against the respondent and his family after the filing of the divorce petition – The respondent and his parents were acquitted – The High Court, relying on Rakesh Raman v. Kavita (2023 SC) and K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa (2013 SC), held that false allegations leading to acquittal amount to mental cruelty, justifying the grant of divorce [Paras 2.2, 6].

Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage – Long Period of Separation – The parties had been separated for 23 years since 2001, and the marriage had irretrievably broken down – Relying on Savitri Pandey v. Prem Chandra Pandey (2003 SC) and Jorden Diengdeh v. S.S. Chopra (1985 SC), the High Court observed that prolonged separation is a strong indicator of irretrievable breakdown, which is a valid ground for divorce – Held: The appeal lacks merit, as the long separation further justifies the decree of divorce [Paras 7-9].

Alimony – Right of Wife to Withdraw Maintenance Amount – The Family Court had ordered alimony, which was deposited by the respondent – The High Court directed that the appellant-wife is permitted to withdraw the amount from the Family Court, Vadodara – Held: The respondent’s obligation towards alimony remains intact [Para 10].

Decision: Appeal Dismissed – Divorce Granted on Grounds of Cruelty – Wife Permitted to Withdraw Alimony from Family Court – The Family Court’s findings were upheld, as the allegations of cruelty were supported by evidence – The long separation and the false criminal complaint further justified the decree of divorce [Paras 9-10].
 

NDPS - Interim Custody of Seized Vehicle – Confiscation Not Automatic – Section 457 Cr.P.C. – Order Denying Custody Set Aside – The trial court erred in rejecting interim custody of the seized vehicle merely on the ground that it may be confiscated if the offence is proved – Confiscation is subject to trial and can only be ordered upon proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt – At the interim stage, denial of custody is unjustified [Paras 4-5].

Ownership of Seized Vehicle – Non-Accused Owner Entitled to Custody – No Evidence of Involvement in Crime – The petitioner was the registered owner of the vehicle, with hypothecation to Kotak Mahindra Prime Limited – He was not an accused in the case – Keeping the vehicle unused at the police station or court premises would lead to deterioration – Held, the rightful owner is entitled to interim custody subject to conditions ensuring production of the vehicle when required [Paras 5-6].

Trial Court’s Order – Lack of Proper Legal Reasoning – Erroneous Interpretation of Confiscation Law – The trial court incorrectly presumed that the vehicle would necessarily be confiscated – Confiscation arises only upon conviction, not at the stage of investigation or trial – Held, the trial court’s reasoning was legally flawed, and interim custody should have been granted [Paras 4-6].

Decision: The criminal revision case is allowed, and the trial court’s order is set aside. The trial court is directed to grant interim custody of the vehicle to the petitioner upon execution of a self-bond for the vehicle’s value, as assessed by the Motor Vehicle Inspector, along with two sureties of like amount. The petitioner must also execute an undertaking not to alienate, transfer ownership, or make any physical modifications to the vehicle. Further, the petitioner shall produce the vehicle as and when directed by the trial court until the final disposal of the case.
 

Criminal Proceedings – Abuse of Process – Delay in Complaint – Section 498A IPC – FIR Quashed – The wife alleged cruelty and harassment but filed the complaint three and a half years after the alleged incidents – No explanation was provided for the delay – Multiple legal proceedings were initiated by the wife after failed settlement talks – Held: FIR lacked essential ingredients of Section 498A IPC and was an abuse of process of law [Paras 12-21].

Matrimonial Dispute – Retaliatory FIR – No Prima Facie Case – FIR Quashed – The husband’s FIR against the wife and her family alleged extortion and cheating based on maintenance claims – Held: Seeking maintenance through legal proceedings cannot be classified as extortion or cheating – No prima facie case was made out under Sections 420, 406, 403, 109, 384, or 34 IPC – FIR quashed [Paras 22-23].

Delay in Filing Criminal Complaint – Malafide Intent – Proceedings Initiated as Counterblast to Matrimonial Dispute – The FIR under Section 498A IPC was lodged years after the alleged acts, only after mediation talks failed – No allegations of demand for dowry were made – Held: Complaint was filed with an ulterior motive to harass the husband – FIR quashed [Paras 17-19].

Judicial Review – Quashing of FIR – Scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C. – High Court can quash proceedings if allegations in FIR do not constitute an offence – Held: The FIRs in both cases were maliciously instituted in a matrimonial dispute and did not disclose any cognizable offence – Quashing justified [Paras 20-22].

Legal Maintenance – Not Extortion – No Criminal Offence in Seeking Maintenance – The husband alleged that the wife obtained maintenance through fraudulent means – Held: Legal maintenance orders cannot be equated with extortion – FIR under Sections 420 and 384 IPC quashed [Paras 22-23].

Decision: Writ Petition No. 28591 of 2023 filed by the husband is allowed, and the FIR in Crime No. 295/2023 registered under Sections 498A and 506 IPC, pending before the 7th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, is quashed. Writ Petition No. 3809 of 2024 filed by the wife is also allowed, and the FIR in Crime No. 176/2023 registered under Sections 420, 406, 403, 109, 384, and 34 IPC, pending before the 6th Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mangalore, is quashed. It is made clear that the observations made in this order are only for the purpose of quashing the FIRs under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and shall not influence any pending civil proceedings between the parties.
 

Suo Motu - Digital Arrest Scams – Modus Operandi – Psychological Manipulation and Technology Exploitation – Scammers posing as law enforcement officials deceive victims into believing they are under "digital arrest" for alleged crimes – Fraudsters employ psychological tactics like fear, urgency, and isolation while exploiting tools such as AI to mimic voices and counterfeit documents – Victims are coerced into paying money under threat of arrest – Held: These scams have no legal standing in India, and comprehensive measures are required to address this menace [Paras 2-7, 26].

International Best Practices – Collaborative Efforts – Legal and Technological Innovations to Combat Cybercrime – Various countries like Singapore, Australia, and the USA have adopted advanced technologies, public awareness campaigns, and legislative measures to combat such scams – Examples include AI-driven call blocking in Singapore and joint operations by INTERPOL and EUROPOL – Held: India must learn from these global practices to adopt robust measures for preventing digital arrest scams [Paras 10, 23].

Role of Government Agencies – Steps Taken and Directions Issued – Agencies such as I4C under the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), Reserve Bank of India (RBI), and State Governments have taken steps to address cybercrimes, including creating cybercrime hotlines, public awareness campaigns, and blocking fraudulent accounts – Directed: MHA and State Governments must submit detailed reports on steps taken to curb digital arrest scams – RBI and financial institutions must develop mechanisms to stop payments to scammers upon complaints [Paras 13-28].

Public Awareness Campaigns – Essential for Prevention – Court emphasized the need for mass awareness campaigns through print, electronic, and social media, as well as radio and television, to educate citizens about the non-existence of digital arrests in Indian law – Directed: Daily public campaigns must highlight that digital arrests are scams, and citizens should report such incidents immediately [Paras 9, 26].

Legal Framework and Financial Safeguards – Strengthening Mechanisms to Combat Fraud – Emphasized the use of Section 63 of BNSS for secure and verified electronic summons – Directed: RBI and National Payment Corporation of India (NPCI) to develop mechanisms to block fraudulent transactions upon receiving complaints – Importance of financial institutions acting promptly to safeguard victims’ funds [Paras 27-28].

Directions and Notices Issued – Multi-Stakeholder Coordination – Suo motu case registered, and notices issued to Union and State Governments, Reserve Bank of India, and other key agencies to file their responses on combating digital arrest scams – Directed: Central and State Governments to coordinate and take necessary steps to address the issue holistically – Matter referred to Hon’ble Chief Justice for listing before an appropriate Bench [Paras 29-33].
 

Service Law – Discrimination in Allowances – Parity with Police Personnel – Violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution – Writ Petition Allowed – Petitioners, Warders and Head Warders under the Home (Jail) Department, were initially granted Kit Maintenance Allowance and Ration Money Allowance under the 15th June 2017 notification, similar to police, fire, and forest personnel – However, subsequent enhancement of these allowances for police personnel was not extended to them – The matter was reviewed in a meeting chaired by the Chief Minister on 7th October 2021, wherein uniformity in allowances was recommended – Despite this, the Finance Department, Govt. of Tripura, rejected the proposal without assigning any reason – Held: Such exclusion is illegal, arbitrary, and discriminatory, violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution – Direction issued to extend the revised allowance benefits to all Warders and Head Warders with immediate effect [Paras 8-11] – Writ petition allowed.

Service Law – Retrospective Benefits – Claim for Arrears – Rejected – Petitioners sought arrears of enhanced allowances from 18/01/2020 and 26/04/2022 – Court held that since they approached belatedly, they were not entitled to arrears – However, direction issued for future implementation by February 2025 [Paras 12-14] – Held: No arrears shall be granted, but enhanced benefits to be implemented prospectively – Writ petition partly allowed.

Decision: Writ Petition Allowed with Directions – Government directed to extend revised Kit/Dress Allowances (₹7,500/- per annum) and Ration Money Allowance (₹2,000/- per month) to all Warders and Head Warders by end of February 2025 – No arrears granted as petitioners approached belatedly – Judgment declared as Judgment in rem, ensuring benefits to all similarly situated personnel [Paras 15-16].

Trademark Infringement – No Deceptive Similarity – "BundlePe" & "LatePe" Not Confusingly Similar to "PhonePe" – Plaintiff alleged that defendants' marks "BundlePe" & "LatePe" were deceptively similar to "PhonePe" and likely to confuse consumers – Held: The word "Pe" is not inherently distinctive and is commonly used in digital payments – Defendants' marks contain distinct prefixes, making them visually and phonetically different – No likelihood of consumer confusion – No infringement established [Paras 13-14].

Passing Off – Lack of Consumer Confusion – No Misrepresentation – Plaintiff claimed that defendants were misrepresenting their services as being associated with PhonePe – Held: Defendants' services differ from plaintiff’s – No substantial evidence of actual consumer confusion – Mere phonetic similarity of "Pe" does not constitute passing off – Claim rejected [Paras 15].

Trademark Dilution – No Evidence of Harm – Common Use of "Pe" in Industry – Plaintiff contended that the use of "Pe" in "BundlePe" & "LatePe" diluted the distinctiveness of "PhonePe" – Held: "Pe" is commonly used in the fintech industry (e.g., Google Pay, Paytm) – No exclusive rights over the word "Pe" – No proof that defendants' use of "Pe" weakened the plaintiff’s brand identity – No dilution established [Paras 21].

Domain Name Dispute – No Consumer Confusion – No Injunction Granted – Plaintiff sought injunction against defendants from using "bundlepe.com" & "latepe.in" – Held: The domain names contain distinct prefixes differentiating them from "PhonePe" – No substantial evidence of consumer confusion or damage – No injunction granted [Paras 18].

Well-Known Trademark – "PhonePe" Not Recognized as a Well-Known Mark – Plaintiff sought declaration of "PhonePe" as a well-known trademark under Section 2(zg) & Section 11 of the Trade Marks Act – Held: Common use of "Pe" in the digital payment industry diminishes its exclusivity – "PhonePe" does not meet the threshold for well-known status – Claim rejected [Para 20].

Jurisdiction – Suit Maintainable in Madras High Court – Defendants challenged jurisdiction, arguing lack of cause of action in Chennai – Held: Plaintiff has a branch office in Chennai – Defendants’ services accessible in Chennai via digital platforms – Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act permits jurisdiction where plaintiff carries on business – Suit maintainable [Para 12].

Use of "Pe" – No Exclusive Right Over a Generic Term – No Infringement – Plaintiff argued that "Pe" was an essential part of its brand identity – Held: "Pe" is a transliteration of "Pay" in Hindi and is commonly used – Rule 28 of the Trade Marks Rules allows transliteration between Hindi & English – No exclusive monopoly over "Pe" – Defendants’ use does not infringe plaintiff’s rights [Para 22].

Damages & Account of Profits – No Proven Financial Loss – Claims Rejected – Plaintiff sought ₹10,00,000 as damages and an account of profits – Held: No evidence of financial loss or unjust enrichment by defendants – No trademark infringement or passing off established – No damages or accounting ordered [Paras 16-17].

Decision: Suit dismissed – Plaintiff failed to establish trademark infringement, passing off, dilution, or consumer confusion – No injunction granted – No damages awarded – Plaintiff not entitled to reliefs sought.
 

Service Law – Promotion During Punishment Period – Eligibility Criteria – The respondent was awarded a penalty of stoppage of two increments for 30 months ending on 16.12.2017—The appellant bank reverted his promotion on the ground that he was ineligible on the date of initial promotion (14.08.2017)—Held: While an employee cannot be promoted during the currency of a penalty, once the penalty period ends, he is entitled to fresh consideration—The Promotion Committee must reassess his case based on his record as of 17.12.2017—Bank’s action of denying him promotion thereafter was unjustified—Single Judge’s order modified [Paras 25-27].

Promotion Policy – Prospective Application of New Rules – Applicability to Past Cases – The appellant relied on its 2018-19 Promotion Policy, which set 1st April as the cut-off date for eligibility—Held: The said policy was introduced prospectively and was inapplicable to promotions for 2017-18—The eligibility for promotions prior to 2018-19 must be assessed under the policy applicable at that time—Single Judge correctly held that the respondent should have been considered post 17.12.2017 [Paras 22-23].

Sexual Harassment Inquiry – Impact on Promotion – Validity of Reversion – The respondent was penalized based on a sexual harassment inquiry before the merger of his bank with SBI—After promotion, he was reverted on the ground that his punishment period was still active—Held: Though punishment bars promotion during its subsistence, a fresh consideration after its expiry was necessary—The bank’s decision to disregard the respondent’s promotion eligibility for subsequent years was arbitrary and violative of service rules [Paras 4-6, 27].

Judicial Interference in Promotion Matters – Scope of Court’s Power – Courts should not directly grant promotions but can direct reconsideration—Held: The High Court erred in granting promotion w.e.f. 17.12.2017—Instead, the bank must now assess the respondent’s case for promotion from that date, ignoring the expired penalty—Promotion, if granted, will carry only notional benefits without arrears [Paras 28-29].

Decision: Impugned order modified – The respondent's promotion w.e.f. 17.12.2017 is set aside – The appellant bank directed to reconsider his case for promotion from that date, ignoring the penalty – If found fit, promotion shall be granted with notional pay fixation but no arrears – Compliance to be ensured within three months – Appeal disposed of accordingly [Paras 29-31].

Criminal Law – Quashing - Cheating and Money Laundering – Ingredients Not Satisfied – The Applicants challenged the issuance of process under the PMLA and IPC, arguing that no criminal act was involved and the dispute arose solely due to delays in obtaining an Occupation Certificate (OC). The Court held that the contractual obligations between the parties were fulfilled, barring minor unfinished works, and payments were made as per mutual agreement. The dispute was deemed civil, not criminal. – Held: No cheating or money laundering established; process quashed. [Paras 17–38]

Territorial Jurisdiction – Invalid Order by Metropolitan Magistrate, Andheri – The Court found that the Metropolitan Magistrate, Andheri, lacked territorial jurisdiction, as the transactions and subject premises were situated in Malad. The complainant’s alleged meeting at Hotel Orchid, Vile Parle, was an afterthought to bring the case within the jurisdiction of Vile Parle Police Station. – Held: Orders passed by Andheri Magistrate and actions by Vile Parle Police Station null and void. [Paras 42.3–42.7]

Prevention of Money Laundering Act – Absence of Proceeds of Crime – The Enforcement Directorate’s claim of "proceeds of crime" was rejected, as the amounts received by the Applicants were payments under contractual agreements that were substantially fulfilled. The Court criticized the ED for failing to consider evidence of compliance with agreements and acting without due diligence. – Held: No proceeds of crime or money laundering; ED’s attachment order set aside. [Paras 16–39]

Civil Nature of Dispute – Abuse of Process – The Court observed that the dispute was purely contractual, concerning delay in possession due to lack of an OC. The complainant filed civil suits for recovery of amounts, reinforcing the civil nature of the case. Criminal proceedings were deemed a misuse of the legal process. – Held: Criminal proceedings quashed; exemplary costs imposed on complainant and ED. [Paras 36–42.10]

Decision: Criminal proceedings quashed. Process issued under IPC and PMLA is set aside. Attachment of properties by ED is cancelled. Exemplary costs imposed on the complainant and ED.