Negotiable Instruments Act – Dishonour of Cheque – Legally Enforceable Debt – The petitioners sought quashing of complaints under Section 138 NI Act on the ground that part payments were made before cheque encashment – The Court held that unless payments are directly correlated to the specific cheque, Section 56 NI Act does not apply – Held: The petitioners failed to establish a direct link between part payments and the cheques in question, making Section 56 NI Act inapplicable. The complaints cannot be quashed at the pre-trial stage [Paras 7-8].

Criminal Procedure – Scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Quashing of Complaints – The Court reiterated that quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is permissible only if the material relied upon is of “sterling quality” and of “unimpeachable character” – Held: The bank entries submitted by the petitioners were insufficient to conclusively establish discharge of liability, and the dispute over part payments requires trial evidence [Paras 3, 8].

Section 138 NI Act – Presumption of Legally Enforceable Debt – The Court relied on Dashrathbhai Trikambhai Patel v. Hitesh Mahendrabhai Patel (2022 (6) CTC 467) to hold that a cheque must represent a legally enforceable debt on the date of maturity – Held: As no endorsement was made on the cheques as required under Section 56 NI Act, the presumption under Section 139 NI Act remains valid, and the case must proceed to trial [Paras 6-7].

Expeditious Trial of Section 138 NI Act Cases – Compliance with Supreme Court Directions – The Court took judicial notice of the pendency of Section 138 cases exceeding 33 lakh in India and the failure of Magistrates to adhere to Supreme Court-mandated timelines – Held: Directions issued to all Magistrates to ensure strict compliance with SC judgments, including speedy issuance of summons, recording of evidence, and disposal within six months [Paras 10-14].

Practice Directions for Trial Courts – Section 138 NI Act Cases – The Court issued detailed procedural directions for Magistrates, consolidating Supreme Court rulings in Indian Bank Assn. v. Union of India (2014) 5 SCC 590, Meters and Instruments (P) Ltd. v. Kanchan Mehta (2018) 1 SCC 560, and Re: Expeditious Trial of Cases Under Section 138 NI Act, 1881, In re (2021) 16 SCC 116 – Held: Trial courts must follow specific timelines for scrutinizing complaints, issuing summons, securing the appearance of the accused, and completing trials within statutory limits [Para 14].

N-STEP Facility for Digital Summons – Administrative Direction – The Court directed the High Court Registry to place the order before the Hon’ble Chief Justice to consider extending the N-STEP (National Service and Tracking of Electronic Processes) system for digital service of summons in Section 138 NI Act cases, to reduce delays in service – Held: Administrative measures must be implemented to ensure efficient service of summons in cheque dishonour cases [Para 18].

Decision: Dismissal of Quash Petitions – Direction for Expeditious Trial – The Court dismissed the quash petitions, emphasizing that trial must be concluded within six months – Held: The Judicial Magistrate, Aruppukottai, directed to dispose of C.C.Nos. 122, 123, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, and 136 of 2022 within six months [Paras 9, 17].
 

Murder Trial – Common Intention – Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 – Conviction Upheld – The appellants, along with other accused, forcefully entered the victim’s house at night, dragged him outside, and brutally assaulted him with iron rods, wooden sticks, and hammers – The assault continued at multiple locations, ultimately causing the victim’s death – Evidence from multiple eyewitnesses corroborated the sequence of events – Medical report confirmed homicidal injuries – Held: The appellants acted with common intention, making them liable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC [Paras 3-5, 46-47].

Non-Framing of Specific Charge – Section 464 CrPC – No Prejudice Caused – The appellant Badal Sarkar argued that since no specific charge under Section 302 IPC was framed against him, his conviction was illegal – The Court noted that the trial order sheet clearly indicated that all accused were charged under Section 302 IPC – The appellant was represented by counsel throughout the trial and fully participated in cross-examination – Held: The absence of a specific charge did not cause prejudice or failure of justice – Conviction sustained [Paras 25-35].

Acquittal of Co-Accused – Plea of Parity – Rejected – The appellants argued that since some similarly placed accused were acquitted, they should also be acquitted – The Court, relying on Supreme Court precedents, held that a wrongful acquittal does not justify setting aside a valid conviction – Independent evaluation of evidence revealed that the appellants had a more direct and active role in the crime – Held: The plea of parity was not applicable, and the conviction of the appellants was upheld [Paras 38-50].

Reliability of Eyewitness Testimony – Nighttime Identification – No Test Identification Parade Required – The appellants challenged the credibility of eyewitnesses on the ground of nighttime occurrence and lack of Test Identification Parade (TIP) – The Court held that the witnesses were familiar with the accused and had sufficient opportunity to recognize them – Testimony of PW1, PW2, and PW3 was consistent and corroborated by medical evidence – Held: TIP was not necessary, and the eyewitness testimony was reliable [Paras 65-67].

Delay in Recording Eyewitness Statements – Effect on Credibility – The appellants contended that a delay in recording the statements of eyewitnesses affected their credibility – The Court held that delay alone does not render testimony unreliable unless it is unexplained or unsupported by other evidence – The statements of PW1, PW2, and PW3 were recorded soon after the incident and corroborated by other witnesses – Held: No adverse inference could be drawn against the prosecution [Paras 69-72].

Non-Seizure of Weapons – No Adverse Inference Against Prosecution – The defense argued that the absence of seizure of weapons and fingerprints weakened the prosecution’s case – The Court held that in cases involving common household weapons like iron rods, sticks, and hammers, non-recovery was not fatal to the case – Medical evidence and eyewitness testimony sufficiently established the weapons used – Held: Conviction cannot be set aside due to non-seizure of weapons [Paras 73-75].

Medical Evidence – Cause of Death – No Inconsistency – The defense argued that the post-mortem report did not conclusively establish that the injuries were fatal – The Court found that the medical evidence clearly indicated multiple blunt force injuries leading to hemorrhage and cardio-respiratory failure – The injuries were consistent with the eyewitness accounts – Held: Medical evidence corroborated the prosecution’s case, and there was no basis to interfere with the conviction [Paras 56-60].

Assessment of Circumstantial Evidence – Collective Assault and Common Intention – Guilt Established – The Court examined the sequence of events, corroborated eyewitness testimonies, medical evidence, and the accused’s participation in unlawful assembly – The appellants had a clear common intention to cause death – Held: The cumulative effect of the evidence conclusively established the guilt of the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC [Paras 46-50, 62-64].
 

Bail - NDPS Act – Procedural Lapses in Search and Seizure – Section 50 Not Complied With – Bail Granted – The petitioner, a foreign national, was arrested based on secret information, and 57 grams of Amphetamine was allegedly recovered from his possession – The petitioner argued that the police failed to comply with mandatory provisions under Section 50 of the NDPS Act, as no notice was given before the search, and no independent witnesses were present – Held: Non-compliance with Section 50 casts serious doubt on the recovery, strengthening the case for bail [Paras 6-10].

Commercial Quantity – Stringent Conditions of Section 37 NDPS Act – Court's Discretion in Granting Bail – The prosecution opposed bail, contending that the seized quantity was commercial and thus attracted the stringent twin conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act – The Court held that while Section 37 imposes restrictions, Constitutional Courts retain discretion to grant bail if prolonged incarceration violates Article 21 – Held: The petitioner’s long incarceration without trial justified bail despite Section 37 restrictions [Paras 25-27].

Right to Fair Trial – Prolonged Incarceration – Bail Allowed Due to Delay – The petitioner had been in custody for over two years, and trial proceedings had been slow, with only two out of sixteen witnesses examined – Relying on Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, (2021) 3 SCC 713, and Manish Sisodia v. CBI, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 139, the Court held that prolonged incarceration without conclusion of trial violated Article 21 – Held: Bail granted due to delay in trial [Paras 26-28].

Bail Granted – Stringent Conditions Imposed – The Court admitted the petitioner to bail upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000/- with one surety of the like amount – Conditions imposed included restrictions on movement, mandatory court appearances, and prohibition from influencing witnesses – Held: Bail granted subject to conditions to ensure the petitioner remains available for trial [Paras 29-31].
 

Bail - Pre-Trial Incarceration – Right to Speedy Trial – Applicability of Section 436-A CrPC – Applicants had been in custody for nearly five years for offences carrying a maximum sentence of 7 years – The Court reaffirmed that Section 436-A CrPC applies to PMLA cases and overrides the rigors of Section 45 PMLA, as held in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India – Held: Where an undertrial has served more than one-half of the maximum possible sentence, bail should be granted unless there are exceptional reasons to deny it [Paras 9-11, 24-26].

Economic Offences – Special Considerations for Bail – Presumption of Innocence – The ED opposed bail, citing Supreme Court precedents (Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI, State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Porwal), arguing that economic offences require stricter bail considerations – The Court rejected this argument, stating that presumption of innocence applies equally to economic offences – Held: Economic offences, though serious, do not justify indefinite pre-trial detention, especially when trial is delayed [Paras 5.3, 21].

Delay in Trial – Responsibility of Prosecution – No Justification for Continued Detention – The trial had not commenced, despite multiple supplementary charge sheets being filed over four years – The Court noted that the prosecution failed to complete investigations and frame charges promptly, while the Applicants sought adjournments only on limited occasions – Held: Delays by investigating agencies cannot justify prolonged incarceration of an undertrial prisoner [Paras 23-24].

Judicial Discretion in Bail – Bail is the Rule, Jail is the Exception – The Court reaffirmed the principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, especially for undertrial prisoners, citing Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar, Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, and Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI – Held: Personal liberty must be protected, and pre-trial incarceration cannot be indefinite without just cause [Paras 12-14, 16].

Decision: Bail Granted – Continued Detention Unjustified Under Section 436-A CrPC.
 

Civil Law - Partition Suit – Validity of Family Settlement – Order XII Rule 6 CPC – Suit dismissed – The Appellant challenged the Trial Court’s dismissal of his suit seeking partition of 104 acres of land and declaration of 2005 and 2006 family arrangement documents as null and void – Appellant argued that these documents were executed without his consent – The Trial Court dismissed the suit based on Order XII Rule 6 CPC, holding that the appellant had admitted the validity of the documents in a 2017 compromise petition – Held: Admissions made in the compromise petition were binding and sufficient to dismiss the suit without trial – No interference warranted in the Trial Court’s judgment [Paras 8-10].

Compromise Petition – Admission under Order XII Rule 6 CPC – Legal Consequences – Suit not maintainable – The Appellant had entered into a Registered Deed of Family Settlement-Cum-Arrangement dated 25.01.2017, acknowledging the validity of 2005 and 2006 documents and receiving consideration for his relinquishment – Respondents successfully moved an application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, arguing that such admissions made further trial unnecessary – Held: Where admissions are clear, unambiguous, and unconditional, courts can dismiss suits under Order XII Rule 6 CPC without full-fledged trial [Paras 12-15].

Oral Partition and Family Arrangement – Binding Nature – Estoppel against Appellant – The properties in dispute were subject to oral partition in 1970, later confirmed by family arrangements in 1998, 2005, and 2006 – Appellant’s challenge to these documents was belated and legally unsustainable – Held: Once a party has accepted a family settlement and acted upon it, they cannot later seek partition on the same properties – Doctrine of estoppel applies [Paras 18-20].

Applicability of Precedents – Supreme Court Decisions on Order XII Rule 6 CPC – The Court relied on Uttam Singh Duggal & Co. Ltd. v. United Bank of India (2000) 7 SCC 120 and Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam (1974) 1 SCC 242 to hold that courts can pass judgment on admissions when there is no triable issue – Held: Admissions in compromise petition and related documents were clear, leaving no issue for trial – Trial Court’s decision upheld [Paras 21-23].

Final Decision – Appeals dismissed – The Appellant’s contentions that the compromise petition should not be relied upon for dismissal under Order XII Rule 6 CPC were rejected – The Trial Court correctly exercised its discretion in dismissing the suits – Appeals dismissed with costs [Paras 25-28].
 

Service Law - Juvenile Justice Act – Conviction as a Juvenile Cannot Disqualify from Public Employment – Termination Quashed – The petitioner, convicted as a juvenile under Sections 436, 457 & 380 IPC, was released on admonition without a sentence – The High Court ruled that under Section 19(1) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, no disqualification can attach to such a conviction – The purpose of the Act is to ensure rehabilitation and reintegration of juveniles without stigma – Held: Termination for non-disclosure of juvenile conviction is illegal, and the petitioner must be reinstated with all consequential benefits [Paras 1-10, 33-34].

Right to be Forgotten – Section 24 of JJ Act, 2015 Grants Absolute Protection – Juvenile Records Must Be Erased – The Court recognized the "right to be forgotten" as a fundamental right under Section 24 of the JJ Act, 2015, which mandates that all records of juvenile convictions must be erased – Held: Any disclosure or insistence on revealing a juvenile’s past conviction violates statutory protections and the petitioner’s fundamental rights [Paras 19-23, 29-30].

Public Employment – No Duty to Disclose Expunged Juvenile Records – Termination Unjustified – The petitioner’s failure to disclose his conviction did not amount to misrepresentation because the law mandated the expungement of his records – The High Court held that juvenile delinquency records cannot be used against an individual in recruitment – Held: There was no suppression of facts, and the termination order was contrary to law [Paras 25-28, 31].

Police Verification – Authorities Cannot Disclose Expunged Juvenile Records – Breach of Confidentiality – The Court strongly condemned the police for revealing the petitioner’s juvenile conviction during the verification process, despite statutory provisions mandating erasure – Held: Such disclosure amounts to a gross breach of confidentiality and violates the spirit of the Juvenile Justice Act [Paras 31-32].

Probation of Offenders Act – Section 12 Protects Against Disqualification from Employment – The High Court noted that Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 also supports the principle that a past conviction should not create disqualification for public employment – The Juvenile Justice Act goes further by requiring complete erasure of records – Held: The petitioner’s rights under both JJ Act and Probation of Offenders Act were violated by the termination order [Paras 24, 31].

Judicial Precedents – Juvenile Convictions Must Be Obliterated – No Stigma Should Attach – The Court relied on Supreme Court and Delhi High Court precedents holding that juveniles must be given a "fresh start" and their past offences should not affect future employment – Held: The stigma of juvenile conviction cannot be perpetuated, and reinstatement is the only lawful remedy [Paras 16-18].

Final Decision – Termination Order Quashed – Petitioner Reinstated with Full Benefits – The High Court held that the right to be forgotten for juveniles is absolute and public authorities cannot deny employment based on erased juvenile records – The respondents were directed to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits within three months – Held: Appeal allowed, termination quashed, and petitioner reinstated [Paras 33-34].
 

Civil Law - Summary Suit – Failure to File Leave to Defend – Consequence of Non-Compliance – Whether Trial Court Was Justified in Decreeing the Suit – Held: Yes – The respondent filed a summary suit for recovery of ₹4,70,000, claiming that the appellant had taken a friendly loan on 05.01.2018 against a promissory note and receipt – Despite service of summons for judgment, the appellant failed to file an application for leave to defend – Held: Failure to seek leave to defend within the prescribed period automatically entitles the plaintiff to a decree under Order XXXVII CPC – The Trial Court rightly decreed the suit in favor of the respondent [Paras 1-2, 5].

Service of Summons – Contention of Non-Service of Summons for Judgment – Whether Sustainable – Held: No – The appellant claimed that summons for judgment were never served – Held: The summons were sent to the same address disclosed by the appellant during appearance under Order XXXVII CPC – The record showed that the appellant’s father refused service – No explanation was given for not seeking leave to defend despite knowledge of the suit – Contention of non-service rejected [Paras 3-4].

Setting Aside Ex Parte Decree – Application Under Order XXXVII Rule 4 CPC – Whether Maintainable – Held: No – The appellant filed an application under Order XXXVII Rule 4 CPC, alleging that the decree should be set aside due to misconduct of his previous counsel – Held: A litigant cannot claim an absolute right to relief under Order XXXVII Rule 4 merely on allegations against counsel – There was no misconduct by previous counsel, and the appellant had ample opportunity to act – The Trial Court rightly dismissed the application [Paras 6-7].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Decree for Recovery Upheld – The High Court held that the Trial Court committed no error in decreeing the suit due to failure of the appellant to seek leave to defend – The judgment dated 07.02.2023 and order dated 03.04.2024 were upheld – The appeal was dismissed as devoid of merit [Para 7].
 

Partition Suit – Allegation of Forgery in Consent Letter – No Substantial Evidence – The appellants sought declaration of their 1/3rd share in ancestral property and cancellation of a consent letter allegedly executed by forgery – The lower courts found that the appellants failed to produce conclusive evidence to prove forgery and upheld the mutation in favor of the respondent – Held: Mere allegations of forgery without supporting evidence are insufficient; burden of proof lies on the appellants, which they failed to discharge [Paras 6-9].

Oral Partition – Legally Acceptable in Absence of Challenge – The respondents contended that an oral partition had already taken place, and each party was in possession of their respective shares – The Court noted that the appellants had failed to challenge the oral partition in a timely manner – Held: Once an oral partition is acted upon and accepted, it cannot be challenged belatedly without strong evidence [Paras 10-12].

Onus of Proof – Burden on the Plaintiff to Prove Forgery – The appellants argued that they never signed the consent letter for mutation – The Court held that in cases of disputed signatures, the burden of proof rests on the party alleging forgery – Held: The appellants failed to produce any expert opinion or credible evidence to substantiate their claim [Paras 13-15].

No Substantial Question of Law – Second Appeal Dismissed – The Court reaffirmed that a second appeal under Section 100 CPC can only be entertained if it involves a substantial question of law – Since both lower courts had arrived at concurrent findings based on facts and evidence, no interference was warranted – Held: No substantial question of law; appeal dismissed [Paras 16-18].

Civil Writ - Passport Reissuance – Mere Registration of FIR Not a Ground for Denial – Held: The mere pendency of an FIR or ongoing investigation is not a ground for refusing the issuance or renewal of a passport – Under Section 6(2)(f) of the Passport Act, 1967, the bar applies only when proceedings are pending before a criminal court – Investigation alone does not qualify as ‘pending proceedings’ before a criminal court – The refusal of passport renewal solely on this basis is arbitrary and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution [Paras 9-10].

Fundamental Rights – Right to Travel Abroad – Passport Cannot Be Denied Without Legal Justification – Held: The right to travel abroad is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution – It can only be restricted as per the procedure established by law – Supreme Court precedents in Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D. Ramarathnam, AIR 1967 SC 1836, and Menaka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597, reaffirm that restrictions on personal liberty must be authorized by law – The Passport Act, 1967, does not allow denial of passport reissuance merely due to an FIR without a charge sheet [Paras 8-9].

Precedent Followed – Coordinate Bench’s Decision in Rajesh Gupta v. Union of India – Held: The present case is squarely covered by Rajesh Gupta v. Union of India, WP(C) No. 1534/2022, decided on 23.11.2022 – In that case, it was held that FIR registration and ongoing investigation are not sufficient grounds to refuse passport renewal – Since no charge sheet has been filed against the petitioner, the same principle applies – Passport authorities directed to reconsider the petitioner’s application in light of this precedent [Paras 7, 11].

Decision – Petition Allowed – Directions Issued – Held: The respondents are directed to reconsider the petitioner’s passport reissuance application within four weeks – If no charge sheet has been filed in FIR Nos. 41/2020 and 02/2020, the passport should be granted – The refusal based solely on an FIR is quashed as illegal and unconstitutional [Paras 12-13].