Criminal Law - Cyber Crime – Social Media Post – Conviction – Forwarding Offensive Content – Apology – Petitioner convicted for forwarding derogatory comments against women journalists through Facebook – Charged under Sections 504, 509 IPC, and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002 – Trial Court found evidence sufficient, relying on screenshot (Ex.P-3) and corroborative testimony – Petitioner claimed lack of mens rea and inadmissibility of electronic evidence due to non-compliance with Section 65-B, Indian Evidence Act – Trial Court rejected arguments, holding intent and awareness proven through subsequent apology and deletion of the post – Held: Conviction and sentence upheld – Apology insufficient to undo damage caused by defamatory content [Paras 15-16, 18-19, 24].

Admissibility of Electronic Evidence – Section 65-B, Indian Evidence Act – Screenshot of Facebook post marked as Ex.P-3 relied upon by prosecution – No Section 65-B certificate produced – Court found corroboration in petitioner’s admissions during cross-examination and circumstantial evidence – Held: Non-compliance with Section 65-B does not vitiate conviction when corroborated by other admissible evidence [Paras 15, 17].

Mens Rea – Intent in Social Media Posts – Petitioner argued message was forwarded without reading and lacked criminal intent – Trial Court observed that petitioner deleted the post and tendered apology only after public backlash – Petitioner’s actions showed awareness of content and consequences – Held: Mens rea proven; apology insufficient to absolve liability [Paras 15-16, 19].

Scope of Revision – Limited Role of Revisional Court – Revisional jurisdiction restricted to examining legality, propriety, and procedural irregularity – Trial Court findings supported by evidence and without perversity – Held: No ground for interference; conviction and sentence confirmed [Paras 23-24].

Decision: Criminal Revision Case dismissed – Conviction and sentence by Trial Court confirmed – Sentence execution stayed for 90 days to allow filing of Special Leave Petition before Supreme Court – Trial Court directed to secure custody of petitioner for serving sentence after expiry of limitation period [Para 24].
 

Civil Law - Specific Performance – Burden of Proof – Section 114(i) of Evidence Act – Plaintiff’s Suit Dismissed – The plaintiff sought specific performance of an unregistered sale agreement, asserting that the entire consideration was paid, and possession handed over. Defendants claimed refund of consideration and cancellation of the agreement – Held: The First Appellate Court rightly relied on Section 114(i) of the Indian Evidence Act to presume that possession of the original documents by the defendants indicated a refund – Plaintiff failed to rebut this presumption [Paras 14-16].

Conduct of Parties – Principle of Equity – Specific Relief Act – The conduct of the plaintiff, including delay in filing the suit and failure to explain possession of original documents by defendants, negates his claim – Equity under Specific Relief Act bars relief when the plaintiff’s conduct raises doubts [Paras 15, 18].

Bar under Section 53-A, Transfer of Property Act – Effect of Unregistered Sale Agreement – Post-amendment, Section 53-A bars relief of injunction based on unregistered agreements if possession is claimed under such documents – Plaintiff failed to prove possession and is not entitled to an injunction under Specific Relief Act [Paras 17].

Non-Compliance with Order XLI Rule 31, CPC – Allegation Dismissed – First Appellate Court complied with Order XLI Rule 31 by framing points for consideration and providing reasons for reversing the Trial Court’s judgment – Judgment upheld [Paras 18].

Limitation Act – Article 54 – Suit Timely Filed – While the suit was filed within three years from the refusal of execution of the sale deed, other factors, including plaintiff’s failure to prove readiness and willingness, precluded relief [Paras 10.1, 15].

Decision: The Second Appeal is dismissed. The judgment of the First Appellate Court is upheld, and the plaintiff’s suit for specific performance and injunction is dismissed. No costs are imposed.

Appeal Dismissed. CMP Closed.
 

Civil Law - Mortgage Deed – Validity of Execution – Evidence Sufficient to Prove Execution – The Appellant/Plaintiff asserted the existence of a validly executed registered mortgage deed (Ex.A.1), claiming consideration of Rs.10,00,000/- was passed, partially prior and partially at the time of execution – Trial Court dismissed the suit on the grounds of inconsistent evidence and lack of clarity on the passing of consideration – Held: The Plaintiff proved the execution of Ex.A.1 through testimonies of attesting witnesses and compliance with statutory requirements under Section 68 of the Evidence Act – Registration of the document further reinforced its validity – Dismissal of the suit was based on an incomplete and flawed evaluation of evidence [Paras 15-33].

Presumption of Validity – Registered Mortgage Deeds – Shifting of Burden – A registered document carries a presumption of validity under law – The onus to disprove the execution of a registered mortgage deed lies with the party challenging it – Defendant's failure to testify or provide evidence against the registered document led to an adverse inference under Section 114 of the Evidence Act – Held: Non-examination of the Defendant significantly weakened her claim of forgery [Paras 34-37].

Past Consideration – Legal Validity – Payment of Rs.6,00,000/- before the execution of the mortgage deed was valid consideration under Section 25 of the Indian Contract Act – Ex.A.1 explicitly recorded this consideration along with Rs.4,00,000/- paid at the time of execution – Trial Court erred in rejecting this evidence [Paras 18-21].

Adverse Inference – Non-appearance of Defendant – Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act – Defendant’s failure to testify or rebut the Plaintiff’s evidence warranted an adverse inference – Held: Defendant’s non-appearance indicated the lack of credibility in her claims, further supporting the Plaintiff’s case [Paras 35-37].

Decision – Suit Decreed – The Appellate Court reversed the trial Court's findings and allowed the appeal – Plaintiff entitled to recover Rs.13,95,000/- with interest: 12% per annum until the trial Court judgment date and 6% thereafter – Redemption period fixed at three months from the date of judgment [Paras 41-42].
 

Civil Writ - Legal Profession – Enrollment Fees – Validity of Charges for Verification – Supreme Court Directions Binding – Appellant challenged the collection of verification fees for enrollment certificates, relying on a Supreme Court order mandating that universities and boards verify such certificates without fees – Held: Bar Council cannot levy fees for verification beyond the express legal stipulation under Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act, 1961 – Supreme Court directions prevail over contrary administrative notices – Fees collection invalid [Paras 3–6].

Procedural Law – Verification of Educational Certificates – Responsibility of State Bar Councils – Bar Councils are responsible for verifying educational certificates directly with the concerned universities and boards – Any procedural lapses or delays should not prejudice the applicant – Held: Certificates must be verified without charging fees, and enrollment cannot be delayed due to incomplete verification if the applicant meets other requirements [Paras 7–10].

Interim Relief – Conditional Enrollment Allowed – Court directed the Bar Council of Kerala to process the appellant's enrollment application immediately, without requiring verification fees, and to permit conditional enrollment pending completion of certificate verification – Held: Enrollment subject to cancellation if certificates are later found inauthentic [Para 10].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Interim order modified – Enrollment application to be processed without charging verification fees – Conditional enrollment granted pending certificate verification [Paras 8–10].
 

Employment Law – Departmental Inquiry – Principles of Natural Justice – Petitioner alleged violations of natural justice in a disciplinary inquiry leading to his dismissal for alleged financial irregularities – Documents required for defense were not furnished, and the inquiry was conducted without adequate opportunity to respond – Held: Absence of required documents did not demonstrably prejudice the petitioner’s case – Allegations of procedural violations during the inquiry were rejected [Paras 8–12].

Acquittal in Criminal Case – Impact on Disciplinary Proceedings – Petitioner was acquitted in Criminal Case No. 636 of 2012, with no appeal filed against the judgment – Petitioner sought reconsideration of dismissal in light of acquittal – Held: Disciplinary proceedings and criminal cases operate independently, but the acquittal warranted reconsideration of the dismissal order – Respondents directed to review the dismissal order based on the criminal court’s judgment [Paras 11, 13].

Delay in Filing Appeal – Doctrine of Delay and Laches – Appeal against the dismissal order was filed five years late, citing ill health and unemployment – Held: Delay, though unsupported by documentary evidence, was not entirely unreasonable given the petitioner’s circumstances – The delay was excused to ensure substantive justice [Paras 12–13].

Decision: Writ petition disposed of with directions to the respondents to review the dismissal order in light of the criminal court’s acquittal judgment and to issue appropriate orders within three months – No costs awarded [Paras 13–14].

Bail Petition – Change in Circumstances – Successive Bail Applications – Change in Circumstances Justified – The petitioner, previously denied bail, filed a subsequent petition based on new evidence where the victim and her mother claimed she was major at the time of the incident, and the relationship was consensual – Held: New statements of the victim and her mother, prima facie, render the prosecution's claim of minority doubtful, especially as no school certificate was produced to verify the victim's age – Bail granted subject to conditions [Paras 17-19].

Age Determination – Preference for School Certificate – Under POCSO Act and Juvenile Justice Act – Where a victim's age is disputed, a school certificate is preferred over a Gram Panchayat certificate – Observed: In the absence of a school certificate, the Gram Panchayat's record loses significance when the victim claims she was major at the time of the incident [Para 17].

Parameters for Granting Bail – Consideration of Supreme Court Guidelines – Successive bail applications can be considered only with substantial changes in circumstances – Held: New evidence brought by the petitioner justified reconsideration – No reasonable ground to believe petitioner’s involvement under Section 376 IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act – Petitioner’s continued detention unjustified [Paras 7-19].

Conditions for Bail – Safeguarding Trial Integrity – Conditions imposed to prevent intimidation of witnesses, ensure attendance at trial, and restrict movement without informing authorities – Failure to comply may lead to bail cancellation [Paras 19-20].
 

Criminal Law – Look Out Circular – Fundamental Right to Travel – Suspension of LOC Upheld – The appellant challenged the suspension of the LOC issued against the respondent, who was permitted to travel abroad by the learned Single Judge subject to conditions – Held: The respondent has cooperated with the investigation, attended when summoned, and the investigating agency has failed to file a charge sheet since 2021 – The respondent is not a flight risk, has provided undertakings to return within five days of intimation, and cannot be deprived of his constitutional right to travel under Article 21 – LOC suspension upheld [Paras 17-19].

Companies Act – Pending Investigation – Conditions Imposed for Travel Abroad – Validity Upheld – The respondent, former director of a corporate debtor, is under investigation for alleged misappropriation and fraudulent acts – Despite allegations, the investigation has been pending since June 2022, and the appellant failed to provide a time frame for its conclusion – The conditions imposed by the learned Single Judge, including undertaking to return promptly and cooperation with the investigation, sufficiently safeguard against abuse – Held: No infirmity in the order permitting travel abroad [Paras 18-19].

Proportionality – Rights of the Respondent vs. Public Interest – While the public interest in investigating corporate misappropriation is vital, the appellant failed to establish any material showing non-cooperation by the respondent – The balance of rights must weigh in favor of the respondent's fundamental right to travel – Order permitting travel upheld [Paras 17-18].

Allegations of Fraud and Non-Disclosure – No Prima Facie Evidence Against the Respondent – The appellant alleged the respondent failed to disclose offshore investments and financial interests – Held: The respondent disclosed his assets, cooperated with investigating agencies, and refunded/compensated several allottees – Allegations of fraud and siphoning of funds not substantiated at this stage – LOC suspension justified [Paras 17-19].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Order suspending Look Out Circular upheld – Permission to travel abroad subject to conditions imposed by the learned Single Judge [Para 19].

Civil Law - Eviction and Redevelopment – Consent of Members – Definition of "Building" – Petition challenging redevelopment of Nidhi Apartment dismissed – Petitioners objected to redevelopment on the grounds of lack of requisite consent (75%) for Block No. 1 and absence of development permission – Held: Definition of "building" under Section 60A of Gujarat Housing Board (Amendment) Act, 2019 applies to the entire property, not individual blocks – Consent of 93% of members satisfies statutory requirements – Redevelopment validly initiated [Paras 14–18].

Development Permission – Vacating Premises – Petitioners argued that premises could not be vacated before obtaining development permission from AMC – Court found this claim baseless, stating that Clause 8 of the tripartite agreement requires members to vacate premises within 30 days of signing the agreement, not after development permission – Petitioners’ refusal to vacate premises unjustified [Paras 20–24].

Common Utility Areas – Ownership Rights – Petitioners contended that common utility areas (e.g., toilets) should be distributed pro-rata – Court rejected this argument, observing that such areas were not transferred under lease agreements and remain common property under Gujarat Housing Board ownership – Claim deemed an attempt to delay redevelopment [Para 25].

Suppression of Facts – Civil Suit – Petitioners failed to disclose dismissal of Civil Suit No. 777 of 2024 challenging the tripartite agreement – Court criticized the petitioners for their obstructive conduct and frivolous litigation – Held: Public interest in redevelopment outweighs the private interests of petitioners [Paras 10–12, 27–29].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Eviction and redevelopment orders upheld – Costs of ₹10,000 imposed on petitioners to discourage frivolous objections – Amount to be deposited with Gujarat State Legal Services Authority [Paras 30–30.1].

Criminal Law – Quashing - Abuse of Process – Multiple FIRs arising from the same incident – Quashing of Police Reports – Allegations of wrongful restraint, injury, and offenses under Sections 354, 354-B, 354-D IPC – FIR No. 20/2024 filed by Ajay Kumar Sareen against Rohit Krishan Bhat alleging assault – FIR No. 24/2024 filed by Ragini Rajput against Ajay Kumar Sareen alleging sexual harassment – Both FIRs investigated by the same police station lacked coherence and factual basis – Investigations were contradictory, incomplete, and improperly supervised – Both cases involved fabricated claims by parties attempting to misuse the judicial process – Held: Both police reports quashed – Fresh investigation ordered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for FIRs 20/2024 and 24/2024 to ascertain true facts – Court emphasized the need to uphold the integrity of criminal administration of justice and prevent misuse of legal provisions [Paras 137–143].

Investigation – Contradictory and Deficient Police Reports – FIR No. 20/2024 (alleging wrongful restraint and injury by Rohit Krishan Bhat) – Police Report (Challan No. 10/2024) found to lack evidentiary basis and involved non-relevant witnesses such as the complainant’s parents – FIR No. 24/2024 (alleging sexual harassment and assault by Ajay Kumar Sareen) – Police Report (Challan No. 38/2024) prepared without proper corroboration, key witnesses giving conflicting accounts, and delayed recording of statements – Both investigations found to have procedural lapses and indicative of partiality – Held: Final police reports for both FIRs quashed – Investigation directed to be conducted afresh to prevent miscarriage of justice [Paras 134–140].

Inherent Powers of the Court – Fresh Investigation Ordered – Citing State of Punjab v. CBI (2011 AIR SC 2962), the Court held that inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (now Section 528 BNSS, 2023) can be exercised to order re-investigation to ensure a fair and impartial inquiry – Investigation of FIRs 20/2024 and 24/2024 assigned to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to ensure credibility – Timeframe of 90 days set for CBI to conclude the investigation – Investigation of FIR No. 20/2024 with Police Station Pacca Danga directed to be completed by local police within two months – Clear directives issued to ensure accountability and avoid further delays [Paras 141–144].

Public Justice – Misuse of Judicial Process – Parties engaged in frivolous and self-serving claims – Failure of police to reconcile conflicting narratives and conduct impartial investigations – Both complainants and respondents found to be exploiting the legal system for personal vendettas – Court emphasized that justice cannot be reduced to a mockery through procedural inefficiencies or intentional misuse by litigants – Fresh investigation ordered to preserve the sanctity of the judicial process [Paras 137–143].

Decision: Police Reports No. 38/2024 and 10/2024 quashed – Fresh investigations to be conducted by CBI within 90 days for FIRs 20/2024 and 24/2024.
Police Station Janipur directed to hand over all records related to FIRs to the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), CBI, Jammu.
FIR No. 20/2024 under Police Station Pacca Danga to be investigated by local police and completed within two months, subject to extension by court upon valid reasons.
Petitions disposed of with detailed instructions for conducting fair investigations – Copies of the judgment sent to trial courts concerned for compliance [Paras 145–147].