Criminal Law – Dishonour of Cheque – Section 138 NI Act – Appeal against Acquittal – Accused alleged to have taken Rs. 2,00,000/- as loan and issued two cheques which were dishonoured – Complainant served statutory notice and filed complaint upon non-payment – Trial Court acquitted the accused holding complainant failed to prove financial capacity and existence of legally enforceable debt – Held: Trial Court's findings justified – Accused rebutted presumption under Section 139 by raising probable defence – Complainant failed to prove specific date of loan transaction, failed to name lender friends, and produced no documentary proof of advancement of Rs. 2,00,000/- [Paras 2.1, 8, 11].

Negotiable Instruments – Presumption under Section 139 – Rebuttal – Accused claimed cheques were old, issued to his brother-in-law in 2000, and misused – No complaint filed by accused, but explanation consistent from notice reply onwards – Defence plausible – Once probable defence is raised, burden shifts to complainant to prove debt – Complainant earning Rs. 3000/- p.m., had dependent children, and gave no proof of loan capability or transaction – Held: Presumption rebutted on preponderance of probabilities – Trial Court rightly held complainant failed to establish foundational facts [Paras 8.1, 11].

Criminal Procedure – Appellate Review of Acquittal – Principles – High Court reappreciated evidence and found no perversity or legal error in Trial Court’s reasoning – Held: Interference not warranted when view of acquittal is plausible and supported by evidence [Para 12].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Acquittal of accused confirmed – Bail bond cancelled – No interference warranted with Trial Court's judgment [Paras 12-13].

Public Trusts – Suit for Possession – Consent of Charity Commissioner – Sections 50 and 51, Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 – Maintainability of Suit by Trustees – Trustees, as natural legal owners of trust property, are competent to sue for recovery of possession from trespassers without prior written consent of the Charity Commissioner – Section 50 is an enabling, not restrictive, provision conferring additional rights upon beneficiaries or the Charity Commissioner – Consent under Section 51 required only for “persons having interest in the trust,” not for trustees – Trustees’ common law right to protect trust property unaffected [Paras 25–29, 35].

Charity Commissioner – Jurisdiction – Section 80, Bombay Public Trusts Act – Scope – Charity Commissioner has no power to adjudicate on trespass or recovery of possession of trust property – Hence, civil court’s jurisdiction not barred – Suit for possession maintainable [Paras 36–39].

Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Rejection of Plaint – Non-joinder of Necessary Party – Housing Society not necessary party in a suit for possession against trespassers or co-owners – Non-joinder not a ground for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC [Para 40].

Interpretation – Distinction between Maharashtra and Gujarat Public Trusts Acts – Though Section 50 of BPT Act (Gujarat) refers to “any person including one holding adversely to the public trust,” it remains an enabling provision – Does not curtail trustees’ inherent power to sue trespassers – Consent requirement applies only to non-trustees or persons interested [Paras 19–21, 27–29].

Precedents – Reliance on Binding Authority – Division Bench ruling in Amirchand Tulsiram Gupta v. Vasant Dhanaji Patil (1992 SCC OnLine Bom 4) and Gujarat High Court decision in Nadiad Nagarpalika v. Vithalbhai Zaverbhai Patel (AIR 1980 Guj 161) followed – Trustees can maintain suit without Charity Commissioner’s consent – Earlier judgment in Shri Hari Ashram v. Khushalbhai Bhawan Kawa reaffirmed [Paras 22–26].

Decision: Application for rejection of plaint dismissed – Held that trustees can sue for recovery of possession of trust property without consent of Charity Commissioner – No bar under Section 80 of BPT Act – Non-joinder of Housing Society not fatal – Application misconceived and rejected [Paras 35, 39–42].

Civil Law - Intellectual Property – Trademark Infringement – Ex Parte Injunction – Plaintiff alleged infringement of its registered marks ‘GOBOLD’, ‘GOJOLT’, and ‘GOVO’ by defendant’s use of ‘GOBOULT’ – Commercial Court granted ad-interim injunction without notice – Defendant argued that 'GOBOULT' is a registered mark in its favour with substantial sales turnover and business investment – Held: Commercial Court’s injunction lacked adequate reasoning on urgency – Modified to permit defendant’s continued use of trademark subject to weekly account filings and final adjudication of interim injunction application [Paras 3, 5, 15–17]

Commercial Courts Act – Section 12-A – Pre-institution Mediation – Commercial Court dismissed plaintiff’s application under Section 12-A and directed referral to DLSA for time-bound mediation – Both parties agreed such hybrid course impermissible post-20.08.2022 – Held: Commercial Court’s direction was unsustainable – Plaintiff’s application under Section 12-A allowed – Direction to DLSA quashed [Paras 2, 6–8]

Civil Procedure – Balance of Convenience – Defendant demonstrated hardship and significant disruption to ongoing business and workforce due to ex parte injunction – Commercial Court’s assumption of no inconvenience to defendant unsupported by material reasoning – Interim order modified to balance equities – Commercial Court directed to decide interim injunction application expeditiously [Paras 10–17]

Decision: Appeals partly allowed – Rejection of plaintiff’s Section 12-A application set aside – Direction to DLSA for mediation quashed – Defendant permitted to continue business under ‘GOBOULT’ trademark subject to filing weekly business accounts – Commercial Court directed to dispose of injunction application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC by 10.11.2025

Criminal Law – Sections 7 and 12 of PC Act - Discharge – Prima Facie Case – Application under Section 239 CrPC by public servant accused of abetting co-accused in demanding illegal gratification for unfreezing bank accounts – Applicant alleged to have prepared and shared Excel sheets containing account details of 300+ individuals, which were misused by co-accused – Trial Court rejected discharge application – Held: On basis of WhatsApp chats, statements of co-workers, and material showing destruction of evidence (mobile phone), prima facie case made out – Discharge rightly denied [Paras 8–9].

Criminal Conspiracy – Use of Official Position – Petitioner allegedly shared account data of hundreds of bookies via Excel sheet used by cybercrime officials to extort money – Evidence includes statements of former employee and digital communication – Held: Material on record sufficient to presume commission of offence under IPC Sections 120-B, 389, 385 and PC Act – No “groundlessness” as per Section 239 CrPC [Paras 7–9].

Scope of Discharge – Section 239 CrPC – Court reiterated that at discharge stage, detailed evaluation of evidence is not permissible – Material must merely disclose reasonable suspicion of guilt – Cited Supreme Court’s rulings in R. Soundirarasu, M.R. Hiremath, and Ashok Kumar Kashyap – Held: Trial court not expected to conduct a mini-trial; mere sufficiency of suspicion enough for framing charge [Paras 10–15].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Scope of Interference – Revisional power cannot be equated with appellate review – High Court can interfere only where charges are groundless or continuation of trial is legally barred – Held: No error in Special Judge’s reasoning – Interference unwarranted in absence of perversity or legal infirmity [Paras 16–17].

Decision: Criminal revision application dismissed – Discharge rightly rejected by Special Judge – No interim relief extended post-judgment [Paras 17–18 and Further Order].

Senior Citizens Act, 2007 – Section 23(1) – Void Transfer – Gift Deed executed by senior citizen in favour of son and grandson declared void – Tribunal found that donees failed to maintain and provide necessities to the transferor – Held, express recital in gift deed that transferee shall maintain transferor not necessary – Such expectation is implicit when transfer made out of love and affection in evening of life – Non-maintenance attracts deeming fiction of fraud, coercion or undue influence – Gift rightly declared void [Paras 18–25, 33–36].

Maintenance of Senior Citizens – Condition Precedent under Section 23 – Two conditions must co-exist: (i) transfer of property by way of gift or otherwise subject to condition of maintenance, and (ii) refusal or failure to provide maintenance – Such condition can be implied from nature of relationship and surrounding circumstances – Execution of gift during senior citizen’s hospitalization for cancer showed vulnerability and coercion – Neglect thereafter established from record – Deeming fiction validly invoked [Paras 22–28, 33–35].

Interpretation – Beneficial Legislation – Senior Citizens Act to be liberally construed to protect aged persons from neglect and deprivation – Courts must adopt purposive construction advancing legislative intent of securing welfare and dignity of elders – Technical arguments regarding absence of recital or strict proof cannot defeat object of statute [Paras 24–25].

Procedural Fairness – Opportunity of Hearing – Petitioners’ claim that no sufficient opportunity was given before Tribunal rejected – Petitioners failed to produce material in initial proceedings and cannot later claim violation of natural justice – Summary procedure under Section 8 intended to ensure expeditious relief to senior citizens [Paras 29–31].

Execution of Order – Eviction of Transferees – Petitioners evicted from subject flat pursuant to Tribunal’s order – Petitioners allowed three weeks to remove their belongings – Tribunal’s execution order not arbitrary or excessive given proven neglect of senior citizen [Paras 35, 38].

Case Law Explained – Sudesh Chhikara v. Ramti Devi, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1684 – Conditions for invoking Section 23(1) restated – Urmila Dixit v. Sunil Sharan Dixit, applied – beneficial construction emphasised – Varinder Kaur v. Kaljit Kaur, Delhi High Court, followed – human conduct and implied obligation of care form foundation for invoking Section 23(1) [Paras 23–25, 32].

Decision:

Writ Petition dismissed – Orders of Maintenance Tribunal (06.05.2025) and Appellate Authority (14.08.2025) upheld – Gift Deed dated 24.08.2022 declared void – Senior citizen entitled to retain possession of flat – Petitioners granted three weeks to remove belongings – Rule discharged.

Anticipatory Bail – Sections 75, 79, 351(2), and 352 BNS - Allegation of Sexual Harassment – Guest Lecturer alleged that petitioner (Accused No.1), a University official, filmed her, used obscene language, and threatened job loss unless she complied with sexual demands – Accused Nos. 2 and 3 granted bail by Sessions Court – Petitioner’s bail rejected without reasons – Held: On parity and absence of direct evidence of mobile phone recovery or production, anticipatory bail granted with conditions [Paras 3, 6–9].

Criminal Law – Section 75 BNS – Abuse of Authority – FIR lacked corroboration that petitioner misused official position for sexual exploitation – Allegations stemmed from prior employment disputes and complainant’s removal from guest lecturer post – Held: Prima facie case of Section 75 BNS not made out at anticipatory bail stage – Other offences substantially bailable [Paras 6–8].

Parity in Bail – Accused Nos. 2 and 3, who were similarly placed and present during incident, granted anticipatory bail – No material distinction in allegations against petitioner – Held: Denial of anticipatory bail to petitioner unsustainable on parity grounds [Para 7].

Custodial Interrogation – Not Necessary – No evidence that complainant returned or surrendered mobile phone allegedly containing recording – No urgency for custodial interrogation – Bail granted with safeguards and liberty to investigating officer to approach Trial Court if required [Paras 6–9].

Decision: Petition allowed – Anticipatory bail granted in Cr. No. 393/2025 registered by Jnanabharathi Police – Petitioner to execute bond of ₹1,00,000 with two sureties – Directed to cooperate with investigation and refrain from influencing witnesses or committing similar offences [Para 9].

Motor Accident Claim – Compensation – Quantum – Pain and Suffering – Modification of Award – Tribunal awarded ₹7,60,000 with 7% interest – Appellant (Insurance Co.) challenged the award as excessive and based on planted vehicle – Claimant filed cross-objection for enhancement – High Court held: ₹5,00,000 awarded for pain and suffering justified in light of 55% disability (pelvic fracture and urethral injury), but ₹2,00,000 awarded for loss of amenities reduced to ₹1,50,000 – Total compensation revised to ₹7,10,000 with 7% interest from date of filing [Paras 10–12].

Motor Accident – Delay in FIR – Not Fatal – Medical Emergency Justified Delay – FIR was lodged with delay showing involvement of unknown vehicle – Insurance Company alleged false implication – Court held that delay due to medical emergency and hospitalisation is not fatal – Tribunal rightly rejected allegation of planting of vehicle – Charge-sheet and testimony of injured supported claim [Paras 7–9].

Motor Accident – Permanent Disability – Functional Disability Rejected – No Loss of Income Granted – Claimant suffered 55% physical disability (spine and hip) but failed to prove functional disability or reduced earning capacity – Tribunal rightly declined compensation for loss of income or promotion denial – High Court upheld [Paras 6, 8A].

Cross-Objection – Enhancement Claim – Rejected for Lack of Evidence – Claimant alleged loss of salary due to reversion from medical category B-1 to C-1 – Tribunal found no evidence of functional impairment or reduced pay – High Court declined to enhance compensation [Para 8A].

Decision:

Appeal partly allowed – Tribunal's award modified – Total compensation reduced from ₹7,60,000 to ₹7,10,000 with interest @7% p.a. from 25.03.2015 till realization – If not paid within 8 weeks, penal interest @9% shall apply – Cross-objection dismissed – No costs.

Criminal Law – Religious Conversion – Quashing of FIR – Allegations of mass religious conversions of over 100 persons across 37 Hindu families to Islam through allurement, foreign funding, promises of jobs and housing – FIR registered under multiple sections of IPC, Gujarat Freedom of Religion Act, IT Act and SC/ST Act – Petitioners argued that conversions were voluntary and pre-dated 2021 amendment – Held: Conversion by inducement is a continuing offence – FIR maintainable – Delay in FIR not fatal as punishment exceeds three years [Paras 1.1, 6–7, 19–25].

Constitutional Law – Freedom of Religion and Article 21 – Interim stay by Division Bench on amended provisions of Gujarat Freedom of Religion Act applies only to inter-faith marriages – Present FIR not related to inter-faith marriage – Hence, interim relief inapplicable – Court held petitions are not barred from hearing [Paras 2–3, 20].

Criminal Procedure – Sanction for Prosecution – Section 6 of the Gujarat Freedom of Religion Act – Petitioners contended FIR invalid due to absence of prior sanction – Held: Sanction dated 25/07/2022 granted by District Magistrate – Validity of sanction is to be tested during trial, not in quashing proceedings under Section 482 CrPC [Paras 12.4, 13.5, 15.6, 28–30].

Criminal Law – Absconding Accused – Petition by foreign national (UK resident) accused of funding conversions – Non-cooperation with investigation, declared absconding in separate case – No anticipatory bail sought – Held: Petition dismissed on grounds of conduct and non-cooperation – Liberty granted to approach court after charge-sheet is filed [Paras 13.6–13.9, 35–37].

Criminal Law – Prima Facie Offence – Petitioners alleged to have played varied roles in conversion activities – Some accused claimed to be victims of earlier conversion – Held: Statements, digital evidence and witness testimonies sufficient to establish prima facie offence – Role of each accused to be tested during trial – Quashing not permissible at this stage – Petitions dismissed accordingly [Paras 12, 13, 15–17, 31–32].

Criminal Procedure – Summons under Section 160 CrPC – Applicant advocate challenged summons – State assured no action would be taken against him – Petition dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to re-approach if grievance arises [Para 34].

Decision: Petitions dismissed – Criminal Misc. Application Nos. 13496, 13662, 13667, and Special Criminal Application No. 1225 of 2022 dismissed on merits – Criminal Misc. Application Nos. 309 and 11426 of 2022 dismissed with liberty to apply afresh after charge-sheet – Special Criminal Application No. 66 of 2022 dismissed as withdrawn [Paras 38–39].

Family Law – Divorce – Ex Parte Decree – Special Marriage Act – Decree set aside – Marriage dissolved by Family Court based on unchallenged testimony of husband after wife failed to file written statement and remained absent – Held: Even in absence of contesting party, Family Court must assess evidence on merits and provide reasoned findings – Mere non-appearance or failure to file written statement not sufficient to decree divorce – Trial Court’s reliance solely on absence of wife without independent assessment of cruelty allegations rendered judgment perverse – Judgment set aside and matter remanded for fresh trial [Paras 10-16].

Civil Procedure – Duty of Court in Ex Parte Proceedings – Trial Court must scrutinize pleadings and evidence even when defendant is ex parte – Decree cannot be automatic – Reiterated that evidence must be evaluated independently and findings must be recorded with reasons – Failure to do so amounts to miscarriage of justice [Paras 11-12, 15].

Appellate Intervention – Remand Ordered – Matter restored to original file to allow appellant-wife to file written statement – Both parties granted opportunity to lead and test evidence afresh – Trial Court directed to complete proceedings within nine months [Paras 16-17].

Subsequent Remarriage – No Bar to Appellate Relief – Fact that respondent-husband remarried during pendency of appeal does not prevent appellate court from setting aside a perverse and unreasoned decree – Rule of law must prevail over subsequent developments [Para 18].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Decree of divorce set aside – Matter remanded to Family Court from the stage of written statement – Trial to proceed afresh – No costs [Paras 19-20].