Cognizance – Closure report – Magistrate relying on complainant’s statement and affidavit – Error in law – Matter should have been treated as complaint under s.190(1)(a) CrPC – Impugned order set aside; liberty to proceed under Chapter XV CrPC [Paras 12-16, 23-24].

Cognizance – Scope of Magistrate’s power – Magistrate not bound by investigating officer’s conclusion; may accept closure, order further investigation, or disagree and take cognizance under s.190(1)(b) – However, if relying on complainant’s evidence, must treat case as complaint under Chapter XV CrPC [Paras 12-14, 20-22].

Protest Petition – Nature – Judicially evolved concept; though not in CrPC, recognized by courts to safeguard victim’s participation – May be treated as complaint only if it satisfies s.2(d) CrPC and procedure under ss.200, 202 followed – Every protest petition need not be treated as complaint [Paras 18-21].

Trial Court Error – Magistrate misdirected in law by taking cognizance under s.190(1)(b) while relying on affidavit and statement of complainant – Proper course was to proceed as private complaint under Chapter XV – Impugned order set aside [Paras 23-24].

Proclaimed Person – Quashment – BNSS S.528; CrPC S.82(2); NI Act S.138 – Non-service at correct address; cumulative compliance under S.82(2) mandatory – Proclamation dated 21-09-2023 quashed conditionally (surrender by 30-09-2025; Rs 10,000 costs; bail on bonds) – Petition allowed; non-compliance to entail dismissal.

Proclaimed Person—Quashment—Section 528 BNSS, Section 82(2) CrPC, Section 138 NI Act—Proclamation set aside subject to surrender and costs—Non-service due to incorrect address; mandatory cumulative compliance with Section 82(2) CrPC emphasized; petitioner ready to join—Held: Impugned proclamation order quashed subject to surrender by 30.09.2025 and payment of Rs.10,000; bail on bonds and conditions; failure to comply: petition deemed dismissed [Paras 5, 7-9].

Service of Process—Incorrect Address—Zimni orders—Proclaimed Person—Where the complainant did not furnish the correct address and the accused had shifted residence, non-appearance not wilful or deliberate—Process (summons/bailable warrants/warrants) not received; declaration as proclaimed person unsustainable—Quashment warranted to secure presence and expedite trial [Paras 2-3, 6-8].

Criminal Procedure—Section 82(2) CrPC—Mandatory Cumulative Compliance—Court reiterates that the steps under Section 82(2) CrPC must be complied with cumulatively, not alternatively; failure vitiates proclamation proceedings—Reliance placed on Gurbir Singh Mundi v. State of Punjab (P&H, 16.12.2021) [Para 5].

Purpose of Proclamation—Securing Presence, Not Punishment—Objective is to compel appearance and advance adjudication; where the accused shows readiness to join and reasons for absence are justified, setting aside proclamation with conditions furthers the ends of justice [Paras 6-8].

Conditional Relief—Surrender, Costs, Bail & Undertakings—Proclamation order dated 21.09.2023 set aside subject to surrender by 30.09.2025; costs of Rs.10,000 to complainant (R-2); on furnishing bail/surety bonds, release on bail; undertake to appear on all dates; not to leave India without leave; trial court free to impose additional conditions—Non-compliance results in petition being deemed dismissed [Para 8-9].

Decision: Petition allowed; proclamation order dated 21.09.2023 quashed subject to conditions—Surrender by 30.09.2025; pay Rs.10,000 costs to R-2; bail on bonds; affidavit undertaking to appear; do not leave country without permission; trial court may impose further conditions; non-adherence will deem petition dismissed [Paras 8-9].

Tenancy Law - Eviction – Bona Fide Requirement & Misuse – East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act S.13 – Basement let for storage used as shop; misuse led to resumption order; landlords required basement for storage/general store; tenant’s objections of res judicata & alternative accommodation rejected – Eviction upheld; revision dismissed [Paras 7-20].

Change of User – Basement leased exclusively for storage of crockery (clause in rent agreement) – Tenant admitted sale activity since 1981 – Misuse contrary to lease terms and without landlord’s written consent – Estate Officer passed resumption order; appeal dismissed; change of user proved – Eviction justified [Paras 8-9].

Impairment of Value/Utility – Tenant’s continued misuse led to cancellation of lease and jeopardised landlords’ title – Held: Such misuse materially impairs value and utility of premises – Eviction warranted to protect landlord’s ownership [Paras 8-10].

Bona Fide Requirement – Landlord best judge of need – Earlier petition withdrawn due to exemption notification (later quashed by SC) – Present need different (basement for storage, upper floor for small shop) – Availability of other floors irrelevant; tenant cannot dictate how landlord should adjust – Courts below rightly upheld necessity [Paras 11-18].

Res Judicata – Not applicable to petitions based on personal necessity, especially when earlier petition withdrawn owing to change of law/notification – Changed circumstances and modified need justified fresh petition [Paras 12-14].

Alternative Accommodation – Letting out of other portions during pendency does not defeat landlord’s claim – Law settled that even if landlord has other premises, tenant cannot compel him to utilise them – Tenant’s plea rejected [Paras 16-18].

Safeguard for Tenants – Court noted statutory protection under S.13(4) of the Act: if landlord after eviction does not occupy or misuses within 12 months, evicted tenant may seek restoration – Safeguard supports genuineness of need [Para 20].

Decision: Revision petition dismissed – Eviction order maintained – Tenant directed to vacate premises as per orders of Rent Controller and Appellate Authority [Para 20].

Partition Suit – Maintainability – Hindu Law – Son cannot sue for partition during lifetime of father-Karta without his consent – Principles laid down in Sitara Lal, Hari Kishen and Satish Narain reaffirmed – Suit filed by plaintiff-son against father-Karta held not maintainable [Paras 9-10].

Cause of Action – Bald pleadings – No particulars of ancestral property or joint family nucleus alleged – Mere assertion of HUF existence insufficient – Plaint lacking material facts discloses no cause of action – Trial court erred in rejecting O.7 R.11 CPC application [Paras 11-12].

Court Fee – Ad Valorem Liability – Plaintiff admitted non-possession of properties – Claim of 1/3rd share without joint possession attracts ad valorem court fee on market value of share claimed – Supreme Court ruling in Kinny Kapur v. Gunveer Kapur applied – Trial court erred in deferring issue [Para 13].

Benami Transactions Act – Defence plea that properties purchased in names of other family members hit by prohibition – Strengthens requirement for plaintiff to specifically plead source of HUF funds – Absence of particulars fatal to plaint [Paras 2.1, 3].

Procedure – Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Sufficiency of pleadings and valuation are threshold issues; cannot be deferred – Trial court’s approach contrary to settled law [Para 14].

Decision: Revision petition allowed – Impugned order dated 10.02.2023 set aside – Matter remitted to trial court for fresh decision on O.7 R.11 CPC application in light of findings – [Paras 15-16].

Anticipatory Bail – Cheating/Criminal Breach – Intraday trading with assured 10–15% monthly returns – Civil dispute plea rejected – Multiple victims and electronic admissions considered – Professional misconduct (liaisoning) noticed – Custodial interrogation necessary – Anticipatory bail and continuation of interim relief refused [Paras 8–16, 19–27, 29–30].

Criminal Law – Anticipatory Bail – Rejection – Applicants apprehending arrest under Sections 318(4) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 for alleged inducement to invest in intraday share trading with false assurance of 10%-15% monthly profit – FIR alleged Rs.30 lakh was collected from complainant under false pretext – Applicants later failed to repay the amount – Additional victims reported similar fraud – Held: Prima facie dishonest intention existed from inception – Civil dispute plea not sustainable – Application for anticipatory bail rejected [Paras 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 25, 27, 28, 29]

Cheating – False Assurances of High Profit – Applicants lured complainant into investing in share trading with unrealistic returns – Promise of 10%-15% profit per month considered inherently false and impossible to fulfil – Inducement coupled with such assurance held sufficient to attract offence of cheating – Defence that the transaction was civil in nature rejected [Paras 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 18]

Evidence – WhatsApp Messages and Transcripts – Applicants’ admissions regarding receipt of money and promises made reflected in WhatsApp chats and draft MoU – Transcripts certified under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act – These documents prima facie supported prosecution version and were inconsistent with defence of civil liability [Paras 12, 16, 17]

Professional Misconduct – Advocates Engaged in Liaisoning Work – Applicant No.2, a practicing advocate, admitted to paying Rs.26.32 lakhs for ‘liaisoning’ with revenue officials – Court observed such activity as unethical and prima facie misconduct under Section 35 of the Advocates Act – Strengthened inference of criminal conduct beyond civil dispute [Paras 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24]

Pattern of Offence – Multiple Complaints – Investigation revealed four other victims with similar complaints of inducement and financial loss – Court held this pattern indicated a larger fraudulent scheme and not isolated incident – Rejected argument that complainant knowingly invested despite risks [Paras 8, 25, 26]

Decision: Anticipatory bail application rejected – Interim protection also refused – Custodial interrogation held necessary for effective investigation [Paras 27, 28, 29, 30]

Criminal Proceedings Against Doctors – Summoning Order for Medical Negligence Quashed – Magistrate failed to conduct mandatory enquiry or obtain expert opinion before issuing process under Section 304A IPC [Paras 15, 21–23, 29–30].

Medical Negligence – Section 304A IPC – Preliminary Enquiry Mandatory – Summoning Order Set Aside – Magistrate issued process against doctors without conducting enquiry under Section 202 CrPC despite petitioners residing outside jurisdiction – Held: Magistrate failed to examine supporting documents, did not apply mind or follow procedural safeguards before summoning – Order cryptic and non-speaking – Matter remitted for fresh consideration [Paras 15, 21–23, 29–30].

Medical Professional – Jacob Mathew Guidelines – No Prior Medical Board Opinion – Proceedings Vitiated – Complaint lacked credible medical board report from Government hospital applying Bolam test – Held: For prosecuting a doctor under Section 304A IPC, court must seek independent expert opinion before issuing process – Magistrate erred in ignoring this requirement under Jacob Mathew precedent [Paras 6, 19–20, 29–30].

Territorial Jurisdiction – Accused Residing Beyond Local Area – Section 202 CrPC Inquiry Mandatory – Summoning Invalid – Petitioners Nos. 2 & 3 not residing within jurisdiction of Magistrate – Held: Inquiry under Section 202 CrPC was mandatory before issuance of process – Magistrate's failure to comply renders process illegal [Paras 22–23, 29].

Summoning Process – Application of Mind – Requirement of Reasoned Satisfaction – Summoning Order Invalid – Held: Even if a detailed speaking order is not required, the order must reflect judicial satisfaction that complaint discloses prima facie offence – Absence of reasons or reference to documents renders order mechanical and unsustainable [Paras 21, 23–24].

Role of Magistrate – Not a Post Office – Active Scrutiny Required – Held: Duty of Magistrate to examine complaint intelligently, filter frivolous claims, and elicit supporting material – Complaint citing complex medical negligence required deeper scrutiny before setting criminal law into motion [Paras 23–27].

Remand – Direction for Medical Board – Fresh Order to be Passed – Held: Magistrate to constitute Medical Board of at least 3 Government Doctors including one Orthopaedician to opine on medical negligence – Opposite party to furnish documents within 8 weeks – Magistrate to proceed afresh thereafter [Paras 30–31].

Decision – Summoning Order Dated 04.03.2017 and Subsequent Orders Set Aside – Matter Remitted – Magistrate directed to seek medical board opinion and reconsider issuance of process in accordance with law [Para 30].

Specific Performance – Readiness and Willingness – Section 16(c), Specific Relief Act – Specific Performance Denied – Plaintiff failed to demonstrate financial capacity or readiness to perform obligations under agreement – Held: Plaintiff did not have funds or financing to pay remaining ₹1.75 Cr – Failure to establish readiness and willingness bars specific performance [Paras 22–25].

Proof of Payment – Receipt Dated 23.06.2016 (Ex.A3) Disbelieved – Specific Performance Denied – Plaintiff claimed additional payment of ₹2 lakhs to defendant after contract deadline to argue waiver of time clause – Court found contradictions in witness depositions and date on receipt was self-inserted – Held: Payment of ₹2 lakhs on 23.06.2016 not proved – No implied waiver of time clause [Paras 13, 17–21, 27].

Time as Essence – Clause in Sale Agreement Mandated Strict Compliance – Agreement Stands Cancelled – Ex.A1 stated forfeiture of advance and termination if balance was unpaid by due date – Held: Plaintiff failed to comply; time was indeed the essence – Non-performance warranted dismissal [Paras 16, 27].

Unregistered Partnership – Alleged Agreement (Ex.A2) Found Fabricated – Partnership Argument Rejected – Plaintiff claimed purchase was on behalf of 6 persons, formalised in Ex.A2 – Court disbelieved execution of Ex.A2 and found inconsistencies in testimonies of P.W.1 and P.W.3 – Held: Alleged agreement fabricated to bolster financial capacity argument [Paras 26–27].

Refund of Advance – Forfeiture Unjustified – Refund of ₹30 Lakhs Ordered with 12% Interest – Court noted no loss pleaded by defendant and land value had increased – Additional ₹2 lakhs disbelieved – Held: Plaintiff entitled to refund of ₹30 lakhs advanced under contract with interest @12% p.a. from 29.01.2025 [Paras 30–32].

Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – Decree for specific performance upheld – Plaintiff entitled only to refund of ₹30 lakhs advanced with 12% p.a. interest from 29.01.2025 – No costs awarded [Para 33].

Rent Control – Eviction on bona fide requirement – Leave to defend – Revisional scope – Landlord–tenant relationship proved on better title – Tenant’s pleas of ownership and alternate accommodation found bald – No triable issue – ARC order upheld – Tenant directed to hand over premises by 21.09.2025 – Sections 14(1)(e), 25B & 25B(8) DRC Act [Paras 15–16, 17–27, 28–29].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Scope under Section 25B(8) DRC Act – High Court cannot act as a first appellate court or re-appreciate facts – Tenant merely sought to re-agitate contentions negated by the ARC – Held: Interference unwarranted in absence of perversity or jurisdictional error [Paras 15–16].

Landlord–Tenant Relationship – Better title suffices – Registered Will dated 10.01.1949, Rent Agreement dated 03.09.1963 and rent receipts, and partition decree dated 25.07.2023 established landlords’ superior title – Tenant’s reliance on an MCD notice only showed status as “occupier”, not owner – Held: Relationship established and no triable issue arose [Paras 2, 5, 17–20].

Bona Fide Requirement – Landlord is best judge of need – No obligation to furnish minute particulars or area measurements – Challenge that “one room” would not suffice is immaterial – Held: Assertion of genuine residential need unrebutted by any substantive material – No triable issue [Paras 21–24].

Alternative Accommodation – Mere bald allegations – No documents showing self-owned alternative flats by landlords – Landlords shown to be living in rented premises – Held: No material to dislodge plea of lack of suitable alternate accommodation – No triable issue [Paras 25–27].

Decision – Revision petition dismissed – ARC order of eviction affirmed – Tenant to hand over the tenanted room marked E and F in the site plan at Plot No. 536, Mukim Pura, Sabzi Mandi, Delhi to the landlords on or before 21.09.2025 in terms of Section 14(7) DRC Act – Parties to bear their own costs [Paras 28–29].

Arbitration Law - Foreign Award – GAFTA Appeal Award 4618A (London) – Enforcement in India under Part II – Public Policy Objection – Enforcement Allowed – The petitioner, an Austrian company, sought enforcement of a GAFTA Appeal Award dated 28.09.2021 directing payment by the respondent, an Indian importer – The respondent resisted on grounds that the award violated Indian public policy and contained errors in interpretation of contract – Held: Section 48 does not permit a review on merits – Enforcement court cannot sit in appeal over contractual interpretation or factual findings – GAFTA Appeal Board’s award declared enforceable as decree under Section 49 – Execution permitted [Paras 23-29].

Public Policy – Narrow scope under Section 48 – No review on merits – The Court reiterated that post-2015 amendment, “public policy” in Section 48 is restricted to (i) fraud or corruption in making of award, (ii) contravention of fundamental policy of Indian law, or (iii) conflict with most basic notions of morality or justice – Mere misapplication of law or erroneous finding is not a ground – Respondent’s attempt to reopen the merits of GAFTA Appeal decision rejected [Paras 23-26].

Foreign Seat/Curial Law – English Arbitration Act remedies not availed – Estoppel at enforcement stage – Arbitration seated in London with English law as curial law – Under ss. 67–73 of English Arbitration Act, challenges to jurisdiction, serious irregularity, or errors of law must be made within 28 days – Respondent failed to take timely recourse – Citing POL India Projects, Court held that enforcement objections cannot substitute for missed challenge before seat court – Respondent estopped from raising new objections in India [Paras 11-14].

Scope under Part II – No “second look” at award – Enforcement court cannot revisit factual or legal merits of foreign award – Supreme Court in Shri Lal Mahal overruled Phulchand Exports, holding that Section 48 does not permit expanded “public policy” review – Court applied Renusagar test: only if contrary to (i) fundamental policy of Indian law, (ii) interests of India, or (iii) justice or morality, enforcement can be refused – Here none attracted [Paras 10, 15-16].

Seat/Law and Challenge Forum – London seat with English law as governing arbitration law – Following Eitzen Bulk, once parties choose foreign seat, Part I of Indian Arbitration Act is excluded – Any objections to fairness, procedure, or findings had to be raised before English courts under curial law – Respondent’s reliance on Indian domestic arbitration standards (Saw Pipes) misplaced [Paras 12-13].

NY Convention – Public Policy Defence – Application of Article V(2) – Enforcement to be refused only if contrary to fundamental policy of Indian law or most basic notions of morality and justice – Court cited Avitel and Vedanta to emphasise India’s pro-enforcement bias – Narrow defence cannot be stretched to cover mere contractual disagreement – Allegations of unjust enrichment or commercial unfairness do not amount to public policy violation [Paras 16-18].

Execution Proceedings – Section 46–49 of Arbitration Act – Section 46 makes foreign award binding; Section 48 sets limited defences; Section 49 provides that once enforceable, foreign award is deemed to be decree of Indian court – Court clarified that after recognition, petitioner may pursue attachment and sale of respondent’s assets, interest, and costs under CPC like any decree-holder [Paras 27-29].

Decision – Objections rejected; GAFTA Appeal Award No. 4618A (28.09.2021) treated as decree under Section 49; binding under Section 46; enforceable under Section 48 – Respondent’s resistance on public policy and merits grounds rejected – Petitioner entitled to execute award in India with all consequential reliefs – Application allowed [Paras 27-29].