Negotiable Instruments – Dishonour of Cheque – Complaint by Struck-off Company – Proceedings Quashed – Complaints under Section 138 of the NI Act filed in 2020 by Raghav Aditya Chits Pvt. Ltd. after the company had already been dissolved on 08.08.2018 under Section 248(5) of the Companies Act – Court held that once a company stands struck off and dissolved, it ceases to exist as a legal person – Cheques issued and complaints filed post-dissolution are void and not legally enforceable – Held: Complaints filed by a non-existent company through unauthorised persons are an abuse of process and not maintainable [Paras 3, 3.3, 4.1, 4.3, 5, 11-14].

Company Law – Dissolution under Section 248(5) of Companies Act – Legal Effect – Dissolution notice published by Registrar has effect of terminating company’s existence under Section 250 – Certificate of Incorporation deemed cancelled – Company cannot operate bank accounts, enter into contracts, or initiate legal proceedings unless restored under Section 252 – Held: Proceedings initiated by ex-directors in the name of such company are without authority and legally untenable [Paras 7-10, 12].

Criminal Procedure – Abuse of Process – Trial Proceedings by Non-Existent Complainant – Quashed under Section 482 CrPC – Trial Court’s refusal to dismiss the complaints despite evidence of dissolution was held to be legally erroneous – Proceedings under Section 138 NI Act cannot be continued when the complainant lacks legal status – Continuation would serve no purpose and violate principles of natural justice – Held: Inherent powers under Article 226/CrPC invoked to prevent miscarriage of justice [Paras 5, 13, 14].

Security Cheques – Allegation of Misuse – Cheques issued as security in 2011 misused post-dissolution – Petitioners alleged cheques were never meant for presentation and were filled in with inflated amounts by ex-directors – Complaint was based on allegedly time-barred claims arising out of transactions between 2011 and 2014 – Held: Even if accepted, the complaints were otherwise non-maintainable due to dissolution of complainant [Paras 3.2, 4.8].

Limited Relief – Liberty Reserved – While complaints were quashed, Court clarified that successors-in-interest of the complainant company may pursue alternate remedies against petitioners if permitted under law – Held: This order does not preclude lawful recovery in other forums, subject to legal viability [Para 15].

Decision: Criminal complaints CC No. 2619/2020 and CC No. 4753/2020 titled “Raghav Aditya Chits Pvt Ltd. vs Space Services (India) Pvt Ltd. & Ors.” quashed – Summoning orders dated 21.12.2020 and 05.10.2021 set aside – Petitions allowed – Trial Court order dated 22.12.2022 set aside [Paras 14, 16].

Criminal Procedure – Section 311 Cr.P.C. – Power to Recall Witness – Investigating Officer – Application for recalling PW-12, Inspector Subhash Singh, rejected by trial court – Witness had investigated the case and received crucial electronic evidence (CD and pendrive) from deceased witness Sanjay (Ex-Sarpanch) – Held: Trial Court erred in dismissing application mechanically – In a murder trial, it is imperative that every material aspect of investigation be brought before the court – Recall of IO necessary to ensure complete and fair adjudication [Paras 1–3, 6–7].

Evidence – Electronic Evidence – CCTV Footage – Pendrive and CD handed to IO by deceased Ex-Sarpanch contained CCTV footage showing co-accused Ravinder at another location (library in Delhi) at time of offence – Such material potentially exculpatory – Re-examination of IO essential to bring this on record [Paras 3, 6].

Fair Trial – Duty of Court – In serious offences like murder, trial court must ensure full disclosure of investigative facts – Power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to be exercised to discover truth and render complete justice – Technical objections regarding “filling lacunae” cannot override requirement of fairness [Paras 6–7].

Summoning under Section 319 Cr.P.C. – Relevance – Accused Ravinder, initially found innocent, was later summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. – Additional evidence from IO could aid determination of his true involvement – Court directed to permit recall of witness for complete evidence [Para 6].

Decision: Revision allowed – Order of trial court dated 11.09.2025 set aside – Trial Court directed to recall PW-12, Inspector Subhash Singh, along with case records for re-examination regarding all investigative facts and electronic evidence – All pending applications disposed of [Paras 7–8].

Motor Accident Claim – Dismissal for Default – Maintainability of Second Claim – Appellant filed a second claim petition (O.P.(MV) No.1649/2006) after the first one (O.P.(MV) No.703/1999) was dismissed – Tribunal dismissed second petition for failure to prove negligence – On appeal, insurer raised objection that second claim is barred due to prior dismissal – Held: Earlier dismissal was under Order IX Rule 8 CPC since insurer was present and petitioner was absent – Filing of fresh petition on same cause of action is barred under Order IX Rule 9 CPC [Paras 6-12] –

Procedural Law – Order 9 CPC – Difference Between Rule 3 and Rule 8 – Tribunal rightly treated earlier dismissal as one under Rule 8 – Since the insurer had appeared, the petitioner's absence meant the proper provision was Rule 8 – Fresh petition not maintainable, only remedy was to seek restoration under Rule 9 [Paras 8-12] –

Motor Accident Claims – Procedural Bar – Appeal Not Maintainable – Second claim barred by CPC, appeal against dismissal also fails – Pure question of law regarding maintainability can be raised even at appellate stage [Paras 13-15] –

Interpretation – Meaning of 'Hearing' under CPC – Term "hearing" includes evidence stage – Even if case was posted for further evidence, it qualifies as hearing – Hence, dismissal validly treated under Order IX Rule 8 [Para 14] –

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Second claim barred under Order IX Rule 9 CPC – No compensation payable – Court records appreciation for Amicus Curiae assistance [Paras 15-16].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Legally Enforceable Debt – Time-barred loan – Cheques issued in 2009 for loan and presented in 2013 – Dishonoured for “insufficient funds” – Appellate court held loan time-barred and acquitted accused – Held: Under Section 25(3) of Indian Contract Act, cheque itself constitutes written promise to pay a time-barred debt; therefore, liability is legally enforceable – Acquittal unsustainable [Paras 7–8, 18–19, 25–26].

Presumption – Sections 118 & 139 of N.I. Act – Once signature and execution of cheque admitted, presumption arises that cheque issued for discharge of liability – Burden lies on accused to rebut by cogent evidence – Accused failed to prove repayment or misuse of security cheque – Presumption unrebutted [Paras 17, 20, 24].

Security Cheque – Validity – Defence that cheques were given as security rejected – Even security cheques mature for presentation upon default in repayment – Dishonour attracts Section 138 – Reliance on Sripati Singh v. State of Jharkhand, (2022) 18 SCC 614 [Para 23].

Limitation – Cheque towards Time-barred Debt – Cheque operates as fresh promise in writing under Section 25(3) of Contract Act reviving enforceability – Complaint maintainable despite lapse of limitation period for underlying loan [Paras 18–19, 25].

Case Law Applied – A.V. Murthy v. B.S. Nagabasavanna, (2002) 2 SCC 642; S. Natarajan v. Sama Dharman, (2021) 6 SCC 413; K. Hymavathi v. State of A.P., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1128 – All affirm the principle that cheque for time-barred debt constitutes valid enforceable liability [Paras 19–20].

Scope of Revision – Section 397/401 CrPC – Revisional court justified in interfering with perverse acquittal ignoring binding precedent and statutory presumptions [Paras 26–28].

Decision: Revisions by complainant allowed – Acquittal orders dated 06.04.2018 set aside – Trial court’s conviction and sentence dated 13.11.2017 restored – Revision by accused dismissed – One conviction by appellate court affirmed [Paras 28–29].

Application for regular bail in a case involving grievous assaults stemming from prior enmity and extortion demands – alleged repeated attacks on complainant and his nephew, including within hospital premises – petitioner identified as principal assailant with multiple past criminal involvements.

Succession Law – Proof of Will – Suspicious Circumstances – Appellants/defendants challenged concurrent judgments declaring Will of Late Sh. Satpal Chopra illegal and void – Trial Court and First Appellate Court found Will shrouded by suspicious circumstances – Held: Although attesting witnesses were examined, the burden lies on the propounder to dispel all suspicion – Courts below rightly found anomalies in execution (pre-signed blank paper, uneven handwriting, smooth signature despite trembling hands) – No interference warranted in second appeal [Paras 9–11].

Second Appeal – Scope under Section 41 of Punjab Courts Act – Punjab & Haryana High Court reaffirmed that under Section 41, unlike Section 100 CPC, framing of substantial questions of law is not mandatory – Reliance placed on Pankajakshi (Dead) through LRs v. Chandrika, (2016) 6 SCC 157; Kirodi v. Ram Parkash, (2019) 11 SCC 317; Satender v. Saroj, 2022 (12) Scale 92 [Para 8].

Inheritance – Declaration of Ownership and Joint Possession – Findings of lower Courts declaring respondents’ entitlement to 1/5th share in inheritance of Late Sh. Satpal Chopra upheld – Alleged Will and consequent mutations held null and void – Relief of permanent injunction denied but declaration sustained [Paras 1–6].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Concurrent findings of fact and law upheld – Will declared invalid – Respondents’ 1/5th share in inheritance confirmed – All pending applications disposed of.

Maintenance – Section 125 Cr.P.C. – Quantum – Concealment of Income – Revision Dismissed – Revisionist-husband, a company director, challenged Family Court order directing payment of ₹20,000/- p.m. each to wife and daughter – He alleged that maintenance was excessive considering his income of ₹2.4 lakh p.a. – Wife alleged concealment of true income and production of manipulated ITRs – Documentary evidence showed deposits exceeding ₹67 lakh in company accounts and assets worth over ₹1 crore – Court found deliberate suppression of income – Held: Revisionist had sufficient means and moral/legal duty to maintain wife and daughter [Paras 15–27].

Wife Living Separately – Justifiable Cause – Evidence showed wife was subjected to cruelty and dowry harassment – Husband failed to cross-examine her on key allegations – Trial court rightly held that she was living separately for sufficient reasons [Paras 10–11].

Wife’s Qualification – Capability to Earn – Effect – Wife, though qualified (B.Com and Interior Design Diploma), left employment at husband’s insistence – Presently unemployed and caring for minor child – Mere capability to work not ground to deny maintenance [Paras 12–14].

Standard of Living – Principle of Parity – Wife entitled to live in similar standard as husband – Husband’s attempt to evade liability by showing reduced income rejected – Maintenance to ensure dignity and prevent destitution – Court reiterated that sustenance implies living consistent with family status [Paras 18–22].

Determination of Quantum – Guiding Principles – Reaffirmed Supreme Court guidelines in Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324 – Maintenance must be reasonable and realistic, neither oppressive nor meagre – Financial capacity, lifestyle, inflation, and dependent obligations to be considered [Para 23].

Presumption – Able-Bodied Husband – Following Chander Prakash Bodhraj v. Shila Rani (AIR 1968 Del 174) – Able-bodied man presumed capable of earning sufficient to maintain wife and child; concealment of income invites adverse inference [Para 28].

Decision: Criminal Revision dismissed – Family Court order upheld – ₹20,000/- per month each to wife and minor daughter affirmed – No interference warranted [Para 30].

Municipal Laws – NDMC Act – Misuse of Premises – Complaint under Section 252 read with Section 369(1) – Allegation that petitioner, an advocate, used basement of residential premises as office – Held: Legal profession is not a commercial or business activity – Office of an advocate not a “commercial establishment” – Complaint unsustainable [Paras 4–6, 20–24].

Profession vs. Commercial Activity – Distinction – Legal profession depends on individual skill and intellectual effort – No trading or profit motive – Supreme Court precedents (V. Sasidharan v. Peter & Karunakar, AIR 1984 SC 1700; M.P. Electricity Board v. Narayan, (2005) 7 SCC 283) establish that a lawyer’s office is not a commercial establishment [Paras 20–22].

Master Development Plan & Building Bye-Laws – Permissible Use – Clause 10 of MDP 2001 allows 25% of residential premises or 50 sq.m., whichever less, for professional use – Clause 14.12.1(vii) of Delhi Building Bye-Laws, 1983 permits basement use for office or commercial purpose if air-conditioned – Petitioner’s office met these requirements – No violation shown [Paras 29–34].

Inspection Report – Deficiency – No evidence that basement violated height, ventilation, or FAR norms – Inspection failed to note air-conditioning or other structural aspects – Held: No prima facie case of misuse made out [Paras 33–35].

Criminal Procedure – Quashing of Complaint – Pendency of 22-year-old case based on unsubstantiated allegations constitutes abuse of process – In absence of offence under Section 252 NDMC Act, proceedings quashed under Section 482 CrPC following State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604 [Paras 36–37].

Decision: Petition allowed – Complaint No. 487/2004 under Section 252 read with Section 369(1) NDMC Act and all consequential proceedings quashed – Pending applications disposed [Para 37–38

Customs Law – Import Clearance – Out of Charge – DRI Officer’s Post-Clearance Action – Petitioner’s goods (dry dates) cleared under Section 47 of Customs Act after full verification by Customs, FSSAI, and Ministry of Agriculture – Despite clearance and gate pass, goods forcibly brought back to CFS by DRI Officer based on unverified intelligence alleging Pakistani origin – Held: Action of DRI Officer (Respondent No. 6) in securing return of cleared goods was arbitrary, not supported by law or legal procedure – No lawful revocation or show cause notice preceded such retrieval – Violation of natural justice and rule of law [Paras 1–7, 12–23, 33–34, 45, 54].

Customs Act – Section 47 – Legal Finality of Clearance Order – Goods once cleared for home consumption upon satisfaction by proper officer cannot be interfered with without following due process – No proceedings under Section 124 initiated – Held: Sixth Respondent’s telephonic “requests” to reverse clearance orders circumvented legal remedies available under Customs Act – Clearance once made under Section 47 cannot be undone without lawful proceedings [Paras 4, 19–23, 30–32, 37, 54].

Administrative Law – Natural Justice and Rule of Law – Highhanded action by government officer divesting goods already cleared without issuing notice or recording reasons – Held: Any civil consequence must be preceded by due process – Mere reliance on intelligence not enough – Absence of any file notings, written orders, or ‘reason to believe’ vitiates the action – Colour of office cannot replace colour of law [Paras 17, 23, 26–29, 31–33, 39, 54].

Powers of DRI – Section 106 Customs Act – Improper Invocation – DRI Officer relied on Section 106 to justify stopping and retrieval of goods – Held: Section 106 applies to smuggling suspicion before clearance – Goods in question already cleared after 6 days of examination – No lawful authority shown for recalling cleared goods post Out of Charge – Section 106 not attracted [Paras 24–26, 28, 32].

Disputed Origin – Pakistani Origin Allegation – Dry dates alleged to have originated in Karachi and routed through UAE – Clearance granted after specific examination instructions on Pakistani origin – Court refuses to adjudicate origin dispute under Article 226 – Directs Customs to issue show cause and follow due process [Paras 10–11, 38–42, 44–45, 54].

Remedy – Equitable Relief – Court refuses to order immediate release but imposes time-bound direction for issuance and adjudication of show cause notice – If not done, directs release of goods upon redemption fine/bank guarantee – Balances petitioner’s commercial interests with revenue’s concerns [Paras 47–50, 55].

Decision: Writ Petition partly allowed – Court holds action of DRI Officer (Respondent No. 6) arbitrary, unlawful, and violative of natural justice – However, in the interest of balancing equities, permits Customs Authorities to issue show cause notice within 4 weeks and dispose of it within 6 weeks of reply – If not complied, goods to be released upon furnishing bank guarantee for redemption fine – Rule made partly absolute – No costs [Paras 54–56].