Criminal Law - Victim Compensation – Enhancement – Application of Gujarat Victim Compensation Scheme – Compensation Enhanced – The trial court awarded Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation to the minor victim of rape without assigning proper reasons – High Court held that as per the Gujarat Victim Compensation Scheme, 2019, considering rape, resultant pregnancy, and the minor status of the victim, she was entitled to compensation of Rs.12,75,000/- including the statutory enhancement of 50% – Compensation enhanced accordingly [Paras 7-12].

Rape – Minor Victim – Applicability of Enhanced Compensation under Clause 9(5) of the Scheme – The Court observed that under Clause 9(5) of the Gujarat Victim Compensation Scheme, 2019, where the victim is a minor, the maximum compensation shall be deemed to be 50% higher than the scheduled amount – Since the victim suffered rape and pregnancy resulting in medical termination, she was entitled to full benefits under the scheme [Paras 8-11].

Non-Speaking Order – Trial Court Erred – Compensation Reassessed – Trial court failed to record reasons for awarding only Rs.3,00,000/- – High Court found the award arbitrary and reassessed it by applying the statutory provisions and guidelines under the Victim Compensation Scheme [Para 9].

Final Order – Compensation Enhanced to Rs.12,75,000/- – Directions to DLSA – The Court modified the judgment and directed the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) and State Legal Services Authority to ensure disbursement of the enhanced compensation to the victim, adjusting any amount already paid [Para 12-14].

Matrimonial Law – Contempt - Visitation Terms – Alleged Violation of Family Court Order – Contempt Petition Filed – Petitioner alleged that respondent breached visitation conditions by taking videos and disrupting her workplace during court-permitted visitation with children – Held: No merit in allegations; conduct of petitioner and her associates was provocative – Respondent accompanied only by permitted family members and sought peaceful visitation [Paras 1–5, 9].

Evidence Evaluation – Video Footage Presented – Court Reviews Footage in Camera – Petitioner's video showed her group instigating respondent – Respondent's mother seen requesting for calm and respectful conduct – Held: Visitation disrupted due to petitioner's conduct; allegations against respondent unfounded [Paras 7–9].

Costs Imposed – Contempt Petition Dismissed – Misuse of Judicial Process – Petitioner Directed to Pay Costs – Held: Petition lacked merit and was filed with an apparent motive to aggravate the situation – Cost of ₹50,000 imposed: ₹25,000 to be paid to respondent and ₹25,000 to Delhi High Court Advocates Welfare Fund [Paras 10–11].

Contempt Proceedings – Burden of Proof – High Threshold Not Met – No Wilful Disobedience – Held: For contempt to succeed, wilful disobedience must be shown – Present case shows no breach of court order by respondent – Petition dismissed accordingly [Paras 9–10].

Decision – Contempt Petition Dismissed – Costs Imposed – After examining all submissions and evidence including video clips, the Court found that the petitioner’s allegations were baseless – Petition dismissed with directions for cost payment to both respondent and Welfare Fund [Paras 10–11].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Valid Loan Transaction and Dishonoured Cheque – Conviction Upheld - The petitioner contended that no loan was availed and the cheque was misused – The Court upheld concurrent findings of both courts holding that the accused had availed Rs.1 crore as loan and had issued cheque (Ex.P4) and acknowledgment (Ex.P2 & Ex.P3) – Defence that cheque was issued to one Santhosh for a smaller loan was found unsubstantiated and lacking in evidence – Conviction confirmed [Paras 10-19]. 
 
Evidence – Admission by Accused – Presumption not Rebutted - The accused admitted execution of crucial documents including Ex.P2 (consideration receipt), Ex.P3 (confirmation of balance), and Ex.P4 (dishonoured cheque) – No independent evidence was led to prove the defence that the cheque was given to Santhosh – Admission of execution and failure to examine Santhosh undermined the defence – Presumption under Section 139 of N.I. 
Act stood unrebutted [Paras 14-18]. 
 
Power of Attorney – Substitution of GPA Holder – No Illegality - The petitioner contended that PW1 lacked authority due to subsequent substitution of GPA holder – The Court held that Ex.P1 continued to be valid as no material showed its withdrawal – PW1 was competent to depose on behalf of the complainant – The contention was rejected [Paras 11, 17-18]. 
 
Revision – Limited Scope – No Perversity Found – Dismissed - The Court reiterated that revisional jurisdiction is limited to correcting patent illegality or perversity – Since both courts properly appreciated oral and documentary evidence, no interference was warranted – Revision dismissed [Para 19]. 
 
 

Criminal Procedure – Challenge to Cognizance – Revision Already Dismissed – 482 Application Dismissed – The applicants sought quashing of the cognizance order dated 01.03.2024 on the ground of jurisdiction, alleging that the FIR was beyond territorial jurisdiction and constituted a second FIR – The Court found that the challenge had already been rejected in revision by a coordinate bench on merits and the dismissal had attained finality – The plea was not maintainable under Section 482 Cr.P.C. [Paras 1-19]. 
 
Absconding     Accused     –     Non-cooperation     in Investigation – Inherent Powers Not Invokable – The Court held that the applicants, having absconded throughout the investigation and failed to appear despite issuance of non-bailable warrants and Red Corner Notices, were disentitled to invoke the Court’s inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – The Court emphasized that inherent powers cannot be used to circumvent the regular criminal process [Paras 19-21]. 
 
Inherent Powers – Discretion to be Exercised Sparingly – Petition Rejected – The Court reaffirmed that inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are to be used sparingly and cannot be granted to those who flout court processes – Applicants’ conduct of avoiding investigation and trial disentitled them from relief [Paras 20-22]. 
 
Decision – Application Dismissed – Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed – Court refused to interfere with the criminal proceedings or the cognizance order challenged by the applicants [Para 22]. 
 

NDPS Bail – Prima Facie Evidence – Bail Rejected – The petitioner challenged her custody on the ground that her statement under Section 67 NDPS Act is inadmissible and the seizure was procedurally defective – The Court held that independent of the Section 67 statement, there were sufficient prima facie materials including parcel bearing petitioner’s name and number, deleted images of the parcel from her mobile, and links to other accused – Bail refused considering seriousness of offence and applicability of Section 37 NDPS Act [Paras 3-6]. 
 
Section 52A Compliance – Not a Ground for Bail at Pre-trial Stage – Relying on NCB vs. Md. Kasif, the Court reiterated that compliance lapses under Section 52A NDPS Act, including inventory certification and sample taking, are procedural and to be tested at trial – Such irregularities alone do not justify bail at the pretrial stage [Paras 5-6]. 
 
Evidence Act Compliance – Hash Values and Digital Certificates – Left Open for Trial – The petitioner argued that the prosecution failed to file proper digital certificates under Section 63(4)(c) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam for Call Detail Records and mobile forensic reports – The Court held that such objections pertain to evidentiary appreciation and must be adjudicated during trial, not at bail stage [Paras 6]. 
 
Decision – Bail Application Rejected – Considering the petitioner’s role, prima facie evidence and involvement in an international drug racket, bail prayer rejected – Trial court directed to expedite the trial after splitting the record against absconding accused [Paras 6-8]. 
 

Bail Application – Prolonged Incarceration – Right to Speedy Trial – Bail Granted - Applicants had undergone pre-trial incarceration for over 13 years without conclusion of the trial – The Court held that such prolonged detention amounts to pre-trial punishment and violates the right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution – The trial was stalled due to multiple pending applications and indefinite delay – Bail granted subject to conditions [Paras 2-8, 16-28]. 
 Parity Principle – Identical Role as Co-Accused – Bail Allowed - The Applicants demonstrated that similarly placed co-accused had been granted bail earlier – The Court accepted the plea of parity and held that denial of bail in such circumstances would amount to unequal treatment [Paras 4.2, 28]. 
 
Medical Grounds – Consideration under HIV Act – Applicant No.2's Bail Supported - Applicant No.2, being HIV positive, invoked Section 34(2) of the HIV Act which mandates priority in disposal of cases concerning HIV positive persons – The Court took judicial notice of his health condition while granting bail [Paras 4.3, 28]. 
 
Bail Principles – Article 21 – Bail as Rule, Jail as Exception – Reiterated - Relying on settled precedents, including Satender Kumar Antil, Maneka Gandhi, and Gudikanti Narasimhulu, the Court reaffirmed that bail is the rule and refusal is the exception – Long incarceration without trial violates constitutional guarantees of liberty [Paras 12-17]. 
 
Decision – Bail Granted - Applicants released on bail subject to strict conditions to ensure presence at trial and prevent interference with the evidence – Application allowed [Paras 2830]. 
 

Consumer Rights – Service Charge in Restaurants – Guidelines under CPA, 2019 – Upheld – CCPA guidelines prohibiting mandatory levy of service charge held valid – The Court upheld the guidelines issued by CCPA barring mandatory collection of service charge, observing that such charges cannot be imposed coercively, and must be voluntary – Held: Such mandatory collection is deceptive, amounts to unfair trade practice under Section 2(47) of CPA, and violates consumer rights – CCPA empowered under Section 18(2)(l) to issue binding guidelines in the interest of consumers [Paras 83-85, 174(i), 174(iii)(iv)]. 
 
Freedom of Trade – Article 19(1)(g) vs. Consumer Interest – Reasonable Restriction – Upheld – The guidelines were found not to infringe Article 19(1)(g) as they imposed reasonable restrictions in public interest – Court held the limitation on the restaurant’s right to impose service charges was proportional and constitutional – Larger interest of consumers prevailed over business interests of establishments [Paras 83-85, 174(ii)]. 
 
Contract Law – Unconscionable Contracts – Service Charge Clause – Invalid – Even if a customer accepts service charge knowing its inclusion on the menu, the resulting contract is not enforceable – Court ruled the unequal bargaining power and lack of real choice renders such contracts void as unfair and unconscionable under the CPA [Paras 99-101]. 
 
Statutory Backing – Guidelines of CCPA – Binding Nature – Upheld – The Court held that guidelines issued under Section 18(2)(l) of the CPA, 2019 are binding and not merely advisory – The statutory scheme envisages enforcement of such guidelines through penal provisions under Section 88 of the Act [Paras 73-75, 136-138, 174(i)]. 
 
Misleading Practices – Terminology and Lack of Transparency – Service 
Charge Illegal – The use of terms like “levy” and “service charge” was held to be misleading and deceptive to consumers – The absence of visible and transparent disclosure of service charge violated the consumer’s right to know 
– Held to constitute unfair trade practice under CPA [Paras 170-171, 174(iv)]. 
 
Final Decision – Writ Petitions Dismissed – Guidelines Validated – The Court dismissed the writ petitions filed by the restaurant associations and upheld the validity and enforceability of the guidelines issued by CCPA – Declared that the service charge must be voluntary and any mandatory imposition would be illegal [Para 174]. 
 

Criminal Law - Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Section 9, 10, 11, 12 & 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Lack of Prima Facie Evidence – Case based on CDRs and Transcripts – Quashing Allowed - The petitioners challenged the FIR, charge sheet, and summoning order alleging conspiracy and illegal gratification to obtain a loan from Syndicate Bank – The Court held that there was no corroborative evidence supporting the prosecution's allegations except for CDRs and intercepted conversations – CDRs alone, without independent proof, cannot establish conspiracy – Held: Petitioners cannot be subjected to criminal prosecution based solely on speculative evidence [Paras 80-93].

Vicarious Liability – Absence of Specific Allegations – Managing Director Not Liable – Quashing Allowed - The Court reiterated that vicarious liability cannot be fastened on company officials in the absence of specific statutory provision or clear allegations – Mere designation of Petitioner No.2 as CMD of M/s Prakash Industries Ltd. does not attract vicarious criminal liability – Held: Prosecution failed to demonstrate how the petitioners were involved in the alleged conspiracy [Paras 83-85, 106].

Criminal Conspiracy – No Prior Meeting of Mind – Mere Communication Not Sufficient – Quashing Allowed - Court found that the prosecution failed to prove any prior meeting of minds or agreement between petitioners and other accused – Routine business communication between petitioners and other accused like Pawan Bansal cannot amount to criminal conspiracy – Held: Mere presence of CDRs and conversations without corroboration cannot establish conspiracy under Section 120B IPC [Paras 87-93].

Witness Testimony – Contradictory and Inconclusive – Cannot Be Sole Basis – Quashing Allowed - Statements of key witnesses such as Mr. U.S. Majumdar and Mr. Ghanshyam Mudgal were found to be vague, inconsistent and not incriminating – Court held that such uncorroborated statements are insufficient for framing charges – Held: No prima facie case made out against the petitioners [Paras 109-116].

Commercial Transactions – Routine Loan Processing – Not Indicative of Conspiracy – Quashing Allowed - The petitioners’ engagement with Altius Finserve Pvt. Ltd. for processing a loan was held to be a standard business transaction – Absence of direct evidence linking this arrangement to any illegal gratification – Held: The prosecution’s theory of conspiracy was speculative and unsubstantiated [Paras 117-123].

Decision – FIR, Chargesheet, Cognizance Order Quashed – Proceedings Against Petitioners Terminated - The Court quashed FIR RC No. AC-1/2014/A-0005, the charge-sheet dated 27/09/2017 and the cognizance order dated 09/03/2018 passed by the Special Judge, Patiala House Courts against M/s Prakash Industries Ltd., Mr. Ved Prakash Agarwal, and Mr. Vipul Agarwal – All consequential proceedings also quashed [Paras 148-149].
 

NDPS Act – Bail Application – Prolonged Incarceration – Commercial Quantity – Application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. – Accused in custody since 31.10.2023 for offences under Sections 20(b)(ii)A, 22(c), and 25 of NDPS Act – Trial pending before Additional Sessions Judge-V, Thiruvananthapuram – Petitioner seeks bail citing prolonged incarceration and delay in trial – Held: Though commercial quantity is involved, prolonged incarceration due to prosecution’s laches militates against Article 21 – Petitioner can approach Trial Court for bail in light of Apex Court precedents [Paras 2, 4, 5, 6–11]. 
 
Prolonged Incarceration – Article 21 vs Section 37 NDPS Act – Accused in custody for more than 20 months – Court observed that prolonged incarceration without fault of the accused violates Article 21 – Referenced SC decisions in Ankur Chaudhary v. State of M.P., Nitish Adhikary v. State of W.B., and Hasanujjaman v. State of W.B. which held that delay in trial caused solely by prosecution can override rigour of Section 37 NDPS – Also relied on Kerala HC’s own precedent in Shuaib A.S. v. State of Kerala [Paras 6–11]. 
 
Trial Delay – Prosecution's Lapses – Prosecution failed to cite all necessary witnesses initially – After examining existing witnesses, prosecution filed petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to summon more witnesses without clear purpose – Petition was dismissed; prosecution later given another chance to file proper petition – Delay attributed solely to prosecution, not to accused – Such delay justified consideration of bail despite Section 37 bar [Paras 9–11]. 
 
Decision: Bail application disposed – Petitioner allowed to file fresh bail application before Trial Court – Trial Court directed to consider bail on merits applying principles laid down by SC and HC in cited cases – To be decided within two weeks of application [Para 10].