Criminal Law - Quashing of Proceedings – Commercial Dispute Given Criminal Colour – Allegations Civil in Nature – Proceedings Quashed – Petitioners challenged the criminal case alleging offences under Sections 420/406/422/34 IPC on the basis that there was no fraudulent or dishonest inducement from the inception – Court held that failure to pay outstanding dues in a commercial transaction does not constitute cheating or criminal breach of trust – Held: Allegations do not disclose criminal intent or offence – Proceedings are abuse of process and are quashed under Section 482 CrPC [Paras 1–22].

Cheating – No Dishonest Intention from Inception – Ingredients Not Satisfied – The complaint failed to demonstrate that the petitioners had any fraudulent intention at the time of initiating the transaction – Held: Mere failure to repay or honour a commercial obligation does not imply cheating under Section 420 IPC – No deception or inducement shown at the beginning of transaction [Paras 7, 14–17].

Criminal Breach of Trust – No Entrustment or Misappropriation – Offence Not Attracted – The complaint does not indicate any entrustment of property nor dishonest misappropriation – Held: Section 406 IPC not attracted as essential element of entrustment is absent – Civil dispute wrongly converted into criminal prosecution [Paras 11, 16–17].

Section 202 CrPC – Compliance Satisfied – Cognizance Valid – Petitioners’ claim that Magistrate failed to comply with Section 202 CrPC rejected – Held: Magistrate recorded complainant’s statement and other witness before issuing process – Procedural compliance found proper [Para 6].

Abuse of Process – Criminal Law Misused for Recovery of Dues – Proceedings Quashed – The complainant attempted to pressurise petitioners to settle civil dues by initiating criminal proceedings – Held: Such misuse of criminal process deprecated – Complaint quashed to secure ends of justice [Paras 8, 18–20].

Decision – Complaint Quashed under Section 482 CrPC – Criminal Revision Allowed – Court exercised inherent power to prevent abuse of process – Held: Entire proceedings in CS 41478 of 2017 quashed against the petitioners – All orders passed therein set aside [Paras 21–22].

Criminal Contempt of Court – Sections 2(b), 2(c), 12, 15, 17, and 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act  - Scandalous and Reckless Allegations Against Judiciary – Obstruction of Justice – Advocate Found Guilty of Civil and Criminal Contempt – Sentenced to Imprisonment and Fine – The High Court initiated suo motu contempt proceedings against Advocate Devesh Bhatt, practicing at Gujarat High Court, due to his repeated and persistent acts of making scandalous, libelous, reckless, and unfounded allegations against various Judicial Officers, Hon’ble Judges, and the Hon’ble Chief Justice. Despite explicit orders, the contemnor continuously failed to remain present in proceedings, ignored warrants issued by the Court, and breached the undertaking and conditions laid down for bail. The contemnor engaged in sending malicious legal notices to sitting Judges and Judicial Officers, issuing defamatory public notices in newspapers, filing frivolous criminal complaints against Judges and even against the Amicus Curiae appointed to assist the Court, thereby obstructing justice and severely undermining the judicial institution's dignity. Such persistent acts amounted to civil contempt under Section 2(b) and criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Held: Advocate Devesh Bhatt is guilty of civil and criminal contempt, sentenced to simple imprisonment for three months, with the forfeiture of Rs. 5 lakhs deposited as security and further imposition of exemplary costs of Rs. 1 lakh [Paras 1-60].

Constitutional Powers – Contempt of Courts Act – Limitation Period Not Applicable Strictly in Suo Motu Proceedings – Scope and Application – The inherent jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 215 of the Constitution of India to initiate suo motu contempt proceedings is a constitutional power that cannot be limited by procedural restrictions under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The statutory limitation period prescribed under Section 20 of the Act does not strictly apply to such inherent powers vested in the High Courts. This inherent power allows the Court to take cognizance of contempt irrespective of the time frame when acts of contempt come to judicial notice – Held: Limitation under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 does not strictly bind the Court in the exercise of its constitutional powers [Paras 37-47].

Misuse of Judicial Process – Advocate Seeking Permission for Prosecution of Sitting Judges – Malicious Legal Proceedings – Contemptuous Behavior – The contemnor, Advocate Devesh Bhatt, had persistently misused judicial and administrative processes by seeking permission under Section 197 CrPC and under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, to prosecute sitting Judges of the Gujarat High Court on frivolous charges. He also attempted to prosecute the Amicus Curiae appointed by the Court, impeding the latter’s duties and thereby obstructing administration of justice – Held: Such conduct constitutes criminal contempt as it directly obstructs the course of judicial administration [Paras 25-26, 30-31, 54-57].

Sentence and Punishment – Exemplary Costs – Justification for Strong Action – Advocate Devesh Bhatt, despite repeated warnings and opportunities to reform his conduct, demonstrated continued disregard for the dignity and authority of the judiciary, failing to tender any apology or explanation. Such conduct warranted exemplary punishment to deter similar attempts to scandalize and obstruct justice. Accordingly, the contemnor sentenced to simple imprisonment of three months, the security deposit of Rs. 5 lakhs forfeited, and additional exemplary cost of Rs. 1 lakh imposed. Directions issued to the Registry to inform judicial authorities and Bar Council to ensure enforcement – Held: Exemplary sentence justified and warranted to uphold the rule of law and protect judicial dignity [Paras 60-66].

Decision – Advocate Convicted for Civil and Criminal Contempt – Imprisonment and Costs Imposed – Advocate Devesh Bhatt convicted for contempt, sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months without set-off for previous incarceration, forfeiture of security deposit of Rs. 5 lakhs with accrued interest, and additional exemplary cost of Rs. 1 lakh. The criminal complaint filed by the contemnor against the Amicus Curiae is quashed, being obstructive to administration of justice. Registry directed to convey the order to the Bar Council of Gujarat, High Court Bar Association, and all judicial forums of the State for compliance and implementation [Paras 60-67].

Arbitration Law - Arbitral Award – Challenge under Section 34 – Patent Illegality – Award Set Aside – The petitioner challenged the arbitral award passed under MSMED Act by the Council at Punjab, which directed the petitioner to pay Rs.1,99,29,166/- including interest – Grounds included that the award was non-speaking, ignored vital evidence, and rejected the counter-claim without reasons – Held: The award suffered from patent illegality and violated public policy by ignoring inspection reports, failing to address delay in furnishing performance bank guarantee, and relying on interest calculations provided post-hearing without opportunity to rebut – Award set aside [Paras 3, 5, 16-27].

Jurisdiction – Exclusive Jurisdiction Clause – Chennai Court Held Competent – Despite the award being passed in Punjab, the original contract and purchase orders contained a jurisdiction clause conferring exclusive jurisdiction to Chennai Courts – Held: Petition under Section 34 maintainable before Madras High Court – Venue of arbitration under MSMED Act is only a matter of convenience for the supplier and does not override contractual jurisdiction clause [Paras 10-13, 16].

Pre-deposit under Section 19 of MSMED Act – Compliance Sufficient – Clarificatory Power of Court – Objection raised by respondent that 75% of post-award interest was not deposited – Held: Registry had accepted the deposit, and Court exercised its power under Section 19 to allow supplementation if necessary – Petition held maintainable [Paras 6, 31-33].

Counter-claim and Evidence – Rejection without Reason – Violation of Natural Justice – Petitioner's counter-claim based on delay, defective supplies, and documents including inspection reports was summarily rejected without reasons – Held: The Council failed to consider vital evidence or provide reasoning, making the award vulnerable under Section 34(2)(b)(ii) and 34(2A) as in conflict with public policy and patently illegal [Paras 5, 18-24].

Decision – Award Set Aside – Liberty to Initiate Fresh Arbitration – The impugned arbitral award dated 02.07.2024 was quashed – Both parties granted liberty to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings – Time spent before Council and Court excluded for limitation purposes under Section 14 of the Limitation Act [Para 35].

Bail – Section 20(b)(ii)(A) read with Section 8(c) of the NDPS Act – Small Quantity of Contraband – Bail Granted – Petitioner found in possession of 4 kg of ganja, not a commercial quantity – Detained for 48 days – Material part of investigation completed, charge sheet pending – Court held that no apprehension of absconding or tampering with evidence exists – Bail granted with stringent conditions [Paras 2, 6-8].

Judicial Discretion – Factors for Grant of Bail – Quantity of contraband and duration of custody considered relevant – Court exercised discretion in favour of bail as petitioner was cooperating, and offence did not involve commercial quantity – Conditions imposed to ensure appearance and prevent reoffending [Paras 6-8].

Conditions of Bail – Compliance Directed – Bail granted on execution of personal bond of ₹10,000 with two sureties – Weekly appearance before police mandated – Movement restricted to local district limits without trial court permission – Cooperation with investigation made mandatory [Para 8].

Final Order – Criminal Petition Allowed – Petitioner released on bail under specific conditions – Trial court directed to ensure compliance and monitor conduct [Para 8].

Criminal Revision – Conviction under Arms Act – Acquittal Ordered – Petitioner was convicted under Sections 25(1-B)(a) and 26 of the Arms Act for alleged illegal possession of a country-made pistol and cartridges – Trial Court and Appellate Court upheld the conviction – High Court on revision found discrepancies in recovery location and nature of ammunition – Held: Prosecution failed to prove conscious or exclusive possession beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction set aside [Paras 1-5, 11, 13-18].

Contradictions in Seizure – Place of Recovery and Type of Cartridge – Seizure list stated recovery near a cabin on petitioner’s land; however, prosecution witnesses claimed recovery from petitioner’s waist – Cartridge bore also differed between seizure list (8mm KF) and oral evidence (.315 bore) – Court held such material discrepancies go to the root of the prosecution case [Paras 7-10, 16].

Appreciation of Evidence – Revisional Scope Invoked – Though normally limited, Court held revisional interference justified due to perverse findings by lower courts – Misreading of evidence and failure to address contradictions necessitated intervention [Paras 15-17].

Final Order – Conviction Reversed – Accused Acquitted – Revision allowed – Petitioner acquitted and released from bail bond – Trial Court directed to comply and destroy seized material after limitation period for SLP [Paras 18-23].

Criminal Law - Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Inherent Powers under Section 482 CrPC – Alternative Remedy Available – The applicant sought quashing of proceedings under Section 406 IPC – Held: In view of recent Supreme Court decisions, inherent jurisdiction should not be exercised when efficacious statutory remedy exists – Application under Section 482 CrPC not maintainable when revision remedy available – Dismissed with liberty to approach revisional court [Paras 1-6].

Principle of Law – Inherent Jurisdiction Should Not Circumvent Statutory Remedy – Referring to judgments in Vipin Sahni v. CBI and Mohit alias Sonu v. State of U.P., the Court reiterated that Section 482 jurisdiction must be invoked sparingly and only in exceptional cases – Present case showed no extreme or unavoidable circumstance warranting intervention [Paras 3-6].

Relief to Applicant – Age and Warrant Consideration – Applicant aged 92 years – Non-bailable warrant issued – Court directed that if revision is filed within 10 days, no coercive action be taken and bail application be considered promptly in accordance with law [Para 8].

Decision – Petition Dismissed – Revision Permitted – Application under Section 482 CrPC dismissed as not maintainable – Liberty granted to file revision within ten days – Revisional court directed to decide the matter on merits within six weeks of filing [Paras 7-9].

Criminal Law - Quashing of FIR – Sections 115(2), 126(2), 351(3), 3(5) of the BNS - Cross Allegations in Family Dispute – Trial Not to Be Short-Circuited – Petitioners sought quashing of FIR citing contradictions in medical records and prior police intimation by complainant – Held: Allegations prima facie disclose cognizable offences – Disputed facts and evidence must be addressed at trial – FIR not liable to be quashed at this stage [Paras 1-5, 7-10].

Scope of Section 482 CrPC – Limited Role of High Court – High Court reaffirms that inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC are to be exercised sparingly – Courts cannot evaluate evidence or conduct mini-trials during quashing petitions – Petitioners failed to show case was among rarest of rare – FIR disclosure sufficient for trial to proceed [Paras 6, 6.1-6.8].

Prima Facie Offence – Obstruction and Assault Established – Complaint and MLCs alleged wrongful restraint of a long-time resident and use of weapons (stick, rod, hammer) – Held: Offence under Section 126(2) BNS clearly made out – Question of further charges to be determined by Trial Court independently [Para 10].

Petition Dismissed – Costs Imposed – All four petitions dismissed with costs of ₹10,000 on each petitioner, payable to Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee – Trial Court directed to proceed uninfluenced by observations in this judgment [Para 11].

Arbitration Appeal – Improper Constitution of Arbitral Tribunal – Arbitrator Lacked Jurisdiction – Fresh Commencement Required – After the initial award was set aside, appellants re-approached the same arbitrator without issuing notice under Section 21 or mutual agreement of parties – Held: Arbitrator lacked jurisdiction to recommence proceedings; Single Judge rightly held the award invalid due to defective constitution of the tribunal [Paras 13-29].

Commencement of Arbitration – Section 21 of the Arbitration Act – Notice Requirement Mandatory – No Request Served – Despite Court permitting fresh arbitration, appellants failed to serve Section 21 notice – Held: Substantial compliance absent; failure vitiated the entire arbitral proceedings – Award correctly set aside [Paras 22-28].

Contract Law – Memorandum of Understanding – Not a Concluded Contract – Directions Not Capable of Execution – The MoU lacked clarity on redevelopment terms and depended on uncertain tenant consents – Held: Absence of definitive agreement on demolition vs additional floors and tenant consent obligations meant the MoU was not enforceable – Arbitrator’s award directing specific performance was based on incomplete reading of the agreement [Paras 30-33].

Judicial Review under Section 34 – Arbitrator Ignored Vital Evidence – Perversity of Award – Arbitrator excluded critical clauses and proceeded as if MoU was a binding sale deed – Held: Such exclusion rendered the award perverse; Single Judge acted within Section 34 jurisdiction to set it aside [Paras 32-35].

Final Decision – Appeals Dismissed – Award Held Invalid – No Interference Warranted – The Division Bench confirmed Single Judge’s order setting aside arbitral award; appellants failed to establish jurisdictional or substantive error in findings – Held: No perversity or jurisdictional overreach found in Single Judge’s decision [Paras 35-36].

Writ Petition – Order 7 Rule 11 CPC – Section 230 Rajasthan Tenancy Act – Section 2(2) Hindu Succession Act – Maintainability of ST daughter’s suit for declaration of khatedari rights – Board’s revisional order quashed – Petitioner (sole daughter of a Meena ST father) filed revenue suit for declaration after civil court directed her to seek khatedari declaration – Board allowed O7 R11 relying on Section 2(2) HSA to hold daughters of ST have no succession – Held: In view of Supreme Court in Tirth Kumar and Ram Charan, discrimination against ST daughters is impermissible and rejection at threshold was illegal – SDO’s rejection of O7 R11 restored and suit to be tried on merits with expeditious timeline – Writ allowed [Paras 2, 5-8].

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Section 2(2) – Applicability to Scheduled Tribes vis-à-vis equality – Supreme Court’s rulings in Tirth Kumar (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3810) and Ram Charan (CA No. 9537/2025) – Court reiterates that while HSA is inapplicable to STs per S.2(2), exclusionary customs must be proved and in their absence denial of a daughter’s share violates Articles 14 & 15 – Reliance on S.2(2) to non-suit an ST daughter at the threshold is unsustainable – Board’s order set aside [Paras 6-7, 16-18].

Customary Law – Burden of proof – Where Hindu law is inapplicable by virtue of Section 2(2) HSA, succession among tribals turns on proved custom – Courts cannot presume an exclusionary (patriarchal) custom – In absence of proof of custom excluding female succession, equality principle controls – Outcome: Plaintiff’s claim is maintainable and must be adjudicated on evidence [Para 6].

Procedure – Prior civil suit for cancellation of gift and liberty to seek revenue declaration – Petitioner correctly approached SDO for declaration of khatedari rights – Order 7 Rule 11 cannot be invoked to decide disputed rights or to foreclose claims on a debatable legal position – Direction issued to decide the pending 2018 suit expeditiously, preferably within two years, uninfluenced by observations – O7 R11 application rejected [Paras 2, 5, 8].

Constitutional Law – Articles 14, 15(1), 15(3), 16, 21 & 51-A – Equality and non-discrimination for tribal women – Court echoes and builds on Supreme Court’s recommendation in Kamla Neti urging Union of India to revisit Section 2(2) HSA to secure parity in intestate succession for female tribals – Observation made as a way forward and not as a binding direction on merits of the suit [Paras 10-18].