Criminal Law - Maintenance - Territorial Jurisdiction - Criminal Revision against Family Court's order dismissing petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for lack of territorial jurisdiction - Section 126 Cr.P.C. allows proceedings under Section 125 to be taken in any district where the husband resides, wife resides, or where they last resided together - Held, temporary residence is sufficient to confer jurisdiction - Petition maintainable in Sonepat where respondent resides - Order of Family Court set aside and matter remitted for fresh consideration. [Paras 1-11]

Jurisdiction under Section 126 Cr.P.C. - Analysis - Held - The provisions of Section 126 Cr.P.C. should be liberally construed to provide relief to the wife or child - Temporary residence is adequate to confer jurisdiction - Petition maintainable at the place of respondent's residence, Sonepat, despite subsequent change in minor's residence. [Para 6-9]

Decision - Territorial Jurisdiction - Court finds that Family Court erred in dismissing the petition for lack of jurisdiction - The impugned order is set aside, and the case is remitted to the Family Court, Sonepat, for decision in accordance with law - Respondent to pay litigation expenses assessed at Rs.15,000/-. [Para 10-11]

Criminal Law – Anticipatory Bail – NDPS Act – Multiple FIRs – Petitioner sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. – High Court discussed the permissibility of registering a fresh FIR against the petitioner, citing Nirmal Singh Kahlon v. State of Punjab, validating the second FIR due to the larger canvass of the inquiry. The statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act were argued to be inadmissible based on Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu. The High Court noted the pending status of these issues in other appropriate forums and dismissed the bail application. [Paras 34-42]

Anticipatory Bail – Grant and Restrictions – Judicial Considerations – Analysis – Held – The High Court emphasized that anticipatory bail is not a routine exercise and must be granted only in exceptional circumstances. The allegations of political rivalry were not substantiated to justify anticipatory bail. The court reiterated that stringent conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act must be met, and the bail was denied due to the nascent stage of the investigation. [Para 46]

Decision – Dismissal of Anticipatory Bail Application – The High Court dismissed the anticipatory bail application, finding no sufficient ground to afford the concession of bail to the petitioner at this stage. The court provided the petitioner a three-day window to approach the Supreme Court for further relief. [Paras 59-64]

Criminal Law - Quashing of FIR – Section 482 CrPC – FIR registered under Sections 384, 511, and 506 IPC for alleged extortion and threat – Petitioner accused of attempting to extort money by threatening to implicate the complainant in a false rape case – Held, non-disclosure of previous application under Section 156(3) CrPC by complainant – Legal issues can be raised under Section 482 CrPC even if the report under Section 173 CrPC is not filed – FIR quashed. [Paras 1-24, 45]

Maintainability of Petition under Section 482 CrPC – Analysis – Legal issues raised in the petition for quashing cannot be rejected solely on the ground of non-filing of the report under Section 173 CrPC – Several situations listed where quashing can be considered without waiting for the report – Ensures prevention of abuse of process and securing ends of justice. [Paras 10-24]

Duty of Disclosure – Held – Complainant must disclose previous applications filed under Section 156(3) CrPC and orders therein – Non-disclosure amounts to suppression of material facts – FIR registered subsequent to application under Section 156(3) CrPC without disclosure of the same is abuse of process. [Paras 20-21]

Decision – Quashing of FIR – Petition allowed – FIR quashed due to non-disclosure and lack of substantive allegations constituting offences under Sections 384, 511, and 506 IPC – Exercise of power under Section 482 CrPC justified. [Paras 24, 45]

Civil Law - Suit for Specific Performance - Concurrent Findings - No Substantial Question of Law - Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC - Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell was dismissed by the trial court and the first appellate court - Both courts found no merit in the plaintiff's claims and noted a lack of evidence - Plaintiff unable to raise any substantial question of law - Appeal dismissed​​.

Validity of Power of Attorney and Sale Deed - Analysis - Held - Plaintiff failed to prove the execution of the agreement - Valid power of attorney was executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 - Sale deed executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.3 was valid and binding - Courts found collusion between plaintiff and defendant No.1​​.

Decision - Dismissal of Regular Second Appeal - Appeal dismissed with no substantial question of law arising - Concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts upheld​​.

Criminal Law - Revision Petition Dismissal - Application for Exemption - Criminal Miscellaneous Case under Section 482 CrPC - Petitioner was summoned under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act - Filed a revision petition along with an application for exemption from filing the certified copy of the impugned order due to its unavailability - Sessions Court dismissed the revision petition without deciding the exemption application - Order set aside by High Court - Sessions Judge directed to decide on the revision petition after considering the exemption application​​.

Procedural Law - Requirement of Certified Copy - Application for Exemption - Revision Petition Dismissal - Held - It was necessary for the Sessions Judge to consider the exemption application before dismissing the revision petition - Dismissal without such consideration is illegal - High Court directs the Sessions Judge to pass a fresh order on the revision petition within one month​​.

Decision - Setting Aside Dismissal of Revision Petition - Petition allowed - Impugned order set aside - Sessions Judge directed to consider the application for exemption and pass a specific order on the revision petition​​.

Criminal Law - Pre-Arrest Bail - Confirmation of Interim Bail - Criminal Miscellaneous Case under Section 438 CrPC - Petitioner sought pre-arrest bail for offences under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC - Interim bail was granted, and the petitioner was directed to join the investigation - Investigation concluded, and some dowry items were not recovered - Mere non-recovery of certain dowry items not a sufficient ground to deny confirmation of interim bail - Court confirmed interim bail making it absolute subject to conditions under Section 438(2) CrPC - Referenced Supreme Court precedents to support the decision​​.

Role of Accused in Dowry Harassment and Misappropriation - Analysis - Held - Absence of recovery of some dowry articles from petitioner does not justify refusal of bail - Referenced cases: Rajesh Sharma v. State of UP and Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar v. Union of India​​.

Decision - Confirmation of Interim Bail - Petition allowed, interim bail granted on 07.10.2019 made absolute subject to statutory conditions under Section 438(2) CrPC - Investigation concluded and no substantial reason found to deny bail​​.

Criminal Law – Negotiable Instruments Act – Vicarious Liability under Section 141 – Criminal Appeal against summoning orders issued under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act without referring to Section 141 – Petitioners argued they were neither signatories of the cheques nor responsible for the company’s daily affairs – Court quashes the summoning orders and complaints, finding that summoning orders were issued in a casual manner without necessary observations – Held, petitioners cannot be held vicariously liable as there were no specific averments indicating their responsibility in the conduct of the company's business. [Paras 1-31]

Role of Accused in Cheque Bounce Case – Analysis and Legal Framework – Examination of the requirements under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act – Held, for vicarious liability, the complaint must specifically state that the accused were in charge and responsible for the conduct of the company's business at the relevant time – References to various Supreme Court judgments, including SMS Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Neeta Bhalla, and National Small Industries Corp. Ltd. v. Harmeet Singh Paintal, which emphasize the necessity of specific averments for establishing vicarious liability. [Paras 22-31]

Decision – Quashing of Summoning Orders and Complaints – Summoning orders and complaints quashed due to lack of specific averments and evidence against the petitioners – Court directs that the civil right for recovery of the amount remains open between the parties, subject to the law of limitation. [Paras 30-32]

Criminal Law – Summoning of Witness – Petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C. – Criminal Appeal against the trial court's order dismissing the application to summon an eyewitness – Petitioner argues essential evidence was not adduced due to inadvertence – Supreme Court principles emphasize the need for Courts to permit correction of such oversights to administer justice fairly – Held, the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for summoning the eyewitness is allowed. [Paras 1-16]

Rectification of Inadvertent Omissions – Legal Framework and Court's Approach – Analysis of Section 311 Cr.P.C. – Held, Courts should distinguish between a prosecutorial lacuna and inadvertent oversight by the prosecutor – Function of criminal Courts is to ensure the administration of justice, not to count errors made by parties – Application of principles from Rajendra Prasad v. Narcotic Cell, Supreme Court case. [Paras 7-9]

Decision – Summoning of Witness – The trial court's order is set aside – Application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to summon and examine the eyewitness, Arashdeep Singh, is allowed – Matter remitted to trial court with instructions to summon and examine the witness and provide the accused an opportunity for cross-examination. [Paras 15-16]

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Sections 138, 141 – Petitions for quashing complaints under Section 138 NI Act and summoning orders – Business dealings and transactions involving purchase of paddy crops – Cheques signed by co-accused/Director of the Company – Authorized person responsible for day-to-day business of the Company, not the petitioner. The petitioner cannot be vicariously liable under Section 141 NI Act as he was neither the signatory of the cheques nor in charge of the company's day-to-day business. Summoning order passed in a casual manner, without referring to Section 141 NI Act. Petitions allowed. [Paras 1-36]

Evidence Evaluation – Supreme Court found substantial corroboration in the initial consistent statements of the complainants and the actions of co-accused Anil Mahajan, who was the authorized signatory and responsible for the company’s transactions. Despite the petitioner not being directly involved in issuing the cheques, his bona fide actions of settling payments were considered. However, this did not establish vicarious liability under Section 141 NI Act. [Paras 1-36]

Decision – Quashing of complaints – Held – The petitions are allowed based on the lack of evidence against the petitioner showing his involvement in the day-to-day operations or as a signatory to the cheques. The court highlighted that liability cannot be vicariously fastened under Section 141 NI Act without specific evidence of involvement in the company's operations. [Para 36]