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.
 

Service Law - Regularization of Contractual Employees – Applicability of 2003 Policy – Employees Entitled to Consideration – Petitioners, engaged on an ad-hoc, daily wage, or contractual basis for over two decades, sought regularization under the 2003 policy – The State argued that the policy was withdrawn in 2007 in compliance with Uma Devi (2006) – However, a 2014 notification restored the benefit to eligible employees who were denied regularization due to administrative reasons – Held: The State is bound by its 2014 notification – Petitioners eligible under the 2003 policy must be considered for regularization within six months – Arrears to be granted from the date of petition filing, without interest [Paras 26-30].

Regularization Under 2011 Policy – Marginal Shortfall in Service Period – Consideration Directed – Petitioners who fell short of the 10-year continuous service requirement by a few months were denied regularization under the 2011 policy – Held: The State should consider condoning shortfall of up to three months, subject to the outcome of pending Supreme Court litigation (SLP (C) No. 18374 of 2022) – If found eligible, petitioners are entitled to arrears from the petition filing date, without interest [Paras 31-34].

Regularization of Employees Already Regularized in 2014 – No Retrospective Benefit – Petitioners who accepted permanent appointments in 2014 after a walk-in interview sought retrospective regularization from 2003 – Held: These employees waived their earlier claims by accepting appointment terms and furnishing affidavits – They cannot now claim retrospective regularization – Relief denied [Paras 35-40].

Application of the Haryana Contractual Employees (Security of Service) Act, 2024 – Petitioners not eligible under 2003 or 2011 policies sought protection under the 2024 Act, which grants security of tenure until superannuation – Held: Petitioners to be considered under the 2024 Act for service continuation and benefits like gratuity and leave encashment [Paras 41(vii)].

State’s 2014 Notification – Inconsistent with Uma Devi (2006) – Requires Review – The Court noted that the 2014 notification contradicted the Uma Devi (2006) ruling, which prohibited backdoor regularization – However, given binding precedents from this Court, relief was granted to petitioners per existing notifications – The State may reconsider the notification’s validity in the future [Para 43].

Decision: No petitioner would be regularized as per the 1996 policy. The respondent shall consider and decide the claim of petitioners, within six months from today, who are claiming regularization as per the policy of 2003. If any of the petitioners is found eligible for regularization as per the policy of 2003, he shall be entitled to arrears from the date of filing the petition before this Court. The arrears shall not carry interest. If any petitioner has already retired, his/her pensionary benefits will also be fixed/revised apart from arrears from the date of filing the petition before this Court. It is made clear that this Court has not declared that the policy of 2003 is applicable to each instrumentality of the State Government. The competent authority of each organization would independently examine this aspect, and the employee would be granted an opportunity of hearing if any adverse opinion is formed.

Criminal Law - Matrimonial Dispute – Quashing of FIR Under Section 498A IPC – Abuse of Process of Law – The wife filed an FIR under Section 498A and 506 IPC against the husband three years after the alleged incidents of cruelty – The complaint lacked specific allegations of dowry harassment or cruelty, and was filed immediately after failed settlement discussions – Held: The FIR was a retaliatory action rather than a genuine case of cruelty – No prima facie offence under Section 498A IPC was made out – Complaint quashed [Paras 12-19].

Retaliatory FIR by Husband – Allegations of Cheating and Extortion – No Criminal Offence Made Out – The husband filed an FIR under Sections 420, 406, 403, 109, 384, and 34 IPC against the wife, alleging that she fraudulently obtained maintenance by filing false affidavits – Held: Seeking maintenance through legal proceedings does not amount to cheating or extortion – No offence made out under IPC – Complaint quashed [Paras 22-23].

Delay in Filing Complaint – Absence of Explanation – FIR Under Section 498A IPC Quashed – The wife alleged that she discovered her husband’s illicit activities on 15-06-2020 but filed the FIR only on 08-10-2023, without providing a reasonable explanation for the delay – The complaint was filed immediately after the failure of divorce settlement talks – Held: The delay raised serious doubts about the bona fides of the allegations – Proceedings quashed [Paras 13-18].

Multiple Legal Proceedings by Wife – Malicious Prosecution – Abuse of Judicial Process – The wife filed seven legal proceedings against the husband, including complaints under Section 498A IPC, Domestic Violence Act, maintenance proceedings under Section 125 CrPC, and a civil suit for judicial separation – Held: Filing multiple cases in quick succession suggests misuse of law for personal vendetta – Courts must prevent criminal law from being used as a weapon in matrimonial disputes – FIR quashed [Paras 20-21].

Legal Maintenance Cannot Be Construed as Extortion – No Offence Under Sections 420, 406 IPC – The husband alleged that the wife extorted money from him through maintenance proceedings and falsely declared her financial status – Held: Court-ordered maintenance payments cannot be considered extortion or cheating – The husband's allegations did not constitute a criminal offence – FIR quashed [Paras 22-23].

Judicial Precedents Against Misuse of Section 498A IPC Applied – The Court relied on Supreme Court judgments in Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana (2024 SCC OnLine SC 759), Abhishek v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2023 SCC OnLine SC 1083), and Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Telangana (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3682) – These judgments emphasized that false and belated complaints under Section 498A IPC should be quashed to prevent the misuse of criminal law – FIR quashed [Paras 18-21].

Decision: Both writ petitions allowed – FIRs quashed – Criminal proceedings terminated.

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].
 

Negotiable Instruments – Presumption of Validity – Burden of Proof – Second Appeal Dismissed – Suit filed for recovery of ₹37,890/- based on a promissory note (Ex.A1) executed by the deceased borrower, Rasappa Gounder – Defendants, legal heirs of the deceased, denied execution and alleged forgery of the promissory note – Trial Court decreed the suit, holding that the plaintiff had proved execution of the promissory note and that the defendants had failed to rebut the presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act – First Appellate Court upheld the decree – Held: Plaintiff’s evidence, including deposition of the attesting witness, proved execution of the promissory note – The defendants failed to discharge the burden of rebutting the presumption – Concurrent findings not perverse – Appeal dismissed [Paras 7–15].

Evidence – Contradictions in Witness Testimony – Materiality – No Substantial Question of Law – Appellant argued that discrepancies between the testimonies of the plaintiff (PW1) and attesting witness (PW2) rendered the findings unsustainable – Held: Minor inconsistencies in the recollection of events occurring 10 years prior to trial do not discredit testimony if the core facts remain corroborated – Both Courts rightly found PW2 credible and identified the signature of the deceased on the promissory note – Appeal dismissed as no substantial question of law arose [Paras 13–15, 16].

Second Appeal – Scope of Section 100 CPC – Substantial Question of Law – Jurisdictional Limits – Appellant contended that concurrent findings of fact were based on irregular appreciation of evidence – Held: High Court in second appeal cannot interfere with findings of fact unless shown to be perverse, based on no evidence, or contrary to law – Concurrent findings of the Courts below were well-reasoned and based on admissible evidence – No substantial question of law arose – Second appeal dismissed [Paras 16, 17].

Decision: The Second Appeal is dismissed. The decree and judgment dated 21/10/2016 passed in A.S. No. 22 of 2016 on the file of the Sub Court, Avinashi, and the decree and judgment dated 29/02/2008 passed in O.S. No. 19 of 2005 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Avinashi, are upheld. No costs.
 

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.
 

Service Law – Temporary Employees – Right to Continue Till Work Exists – The petitioners, engaged as temporary employees in various judicial districts of Punjab, sought regularization of their services – The Court noted that while regularization had been rejected in similar cases (Bikramjit Singh v. State of Punjab, 2019), the petitioners had been continuously working without any interim relief – Held: Petitioners to be allowed to continue working till their posts exist, subject to satisfactory performance [Paras 1-5].

Replacement by Another Temporary Employee – Prohibited – The respondents were directed not to replace the petitioners with another set of temporary employees on similar terms – However, the Court clarified that regular employees could be appointed against these posts as per law – Held: Temporary employees cannot be replaced by another set of temporary employees, ensuring continuity of employment [Paras 6-7].

Maternity Leave – Unlawful Termination – Reinstatement Ordered – One of the petitioners, Balvir Kaur, was terminated while on maternity leave – The Court held that curtailing sanctioned maternity leave to terminate service was illegal and violative of employment rights – Held: Petitioner entitled to salary for the entire maternity leave period, and termination would take effect only after completion of maternity leave [Paras 8].

Petitions Disposed Of – The Court refused to grant regularization but allowed continued employment till work exists – Specific relief granted to petitioner Balvir Kaur for wrongful curtailment of maternity leave – Held: Arrears of salary for maternity leave to be paid within eight weeks; no interim relief for others seeking regularization [Paras 10].

Landlord-Tenant Dispute – Recovery of Possession – Arrears of Rent – Suit Allowed – Plaintiff, a registered Sangam, sought recovery of possession of a marriage hall and movables (furniture and utensils) leased to the defendant, along with arrears of rent, damages, and mesne profits – Defendant admitted tenancy but failed to pay fair rent fixed by the Rent Control Tribunal and did not vacate the premises despite termination notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act – Held: Plaintiff proved ownership and entitlement to possession through oral and documentary evidence – Defendant failed to rebut claims of arrears or establish the existence of a valid lease – Civil suit allowed with costs, ordering ejectment and payment of arrears and damages [Paras 18–24].

Fair Rent – Use and Occupation – Damages and Interest Awarded – Plaintiff claimed arrears of ₹2,17,000/- for the period 01/06/2021 to 10/04/2022 and sought damages of ₹1,50,000/- per month for unauthorized use and occupation of immovable and movable properties – Defendant failed to prove payment of rent or justify continued possession – Held: Fair rent of ₹1,00,000/- per month for the building, as fixed by the Rent Control Tribunal in prior proceedings, accepted as damages for unauthorized occupation – Additional rent of ₹25,000/- for movables allowed – Plaintiff entitled to arrears with 6% interest and mesne profits [Paras 23–24].

Lease Agreement – Termination Notice – Applicability of Rent Control Act – Lease initially governed by written agreements, later continued orally after expiry in 2010 – Rent Control proceedings initiated by both parties were nullified on technical grounds as the lease was composite (building and movables) – Plaintiff subsequently issued termination notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act – Held: Termination notice valid, and defendant had no right to continue possession post-expiry of the lease [Paras 20–23].

Procedural Delays – Defendant’s Conduct – Applications to Reopen Evidence Dismissed – Defendant sought to reopen and recall plaintiff's witness after multiple opportunities were granted for cross-examination – Defendant repeatedly delayed proceedings and failed to file evidence or produce documents despite adjournments – Held: Defendant’s conduct amounted to abuse of process, justifying rejection of applications to reopen evidence – Plaintiff’s evidence remained uncontroverted [Paras 17, 19].

Decision: The Civil Suit is allowed with costs - Defendant directed to vacate and deliver possession of the schedule ‘A’ property (immovable property) and return the schedule ‘B’ property (movables) to the plaintiff immediately - Defendant directed to pay ₹2,17,000/- as arrears of rent for the period 01/06/2021 to 10/04/2022, with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the suit till realization - Defendant directed to pay ₹1,50,000/- per month (₹1,25,000/- for the immovable property and ₹25,000/- for the movables) from the date of the suit till delivery of possession.
 

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.