Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Civil Dispute Given Criminal Color – Petitioner accused of failing to pay outstanding business dues of ₹5,93,760 despite repeated demands—Complainant alleged cheating and criminal breach of trust—Held: Business transaction disputes cannot be converted into criminal proceedings—There must be fraudulent or dishonest intention from inception to constitute cheating—Complaint lacked essential ingredients of criminal breach of trust or cheating—Proceedings quashed [Paras 19-26, 28-29].

Cheating – Requirement of Dishonest Intention at Inception – Complainant alleged that petitioner fraudulently induced them into supplying plywood on credit—Held: Mere failure to pay outstanding dues does not establish fraudulent or dishonest inducement from inception—Failure to fulfill a business contract does not constitute an offense under Section 420 IPC—Complaint does not disclose any inducement at the time of contract formation [Paras 20-23, 25].

Criminal Breach of Trust – Absence of Entrustment – To establish criminal breach of trust under Section 406 IPC, entrustment of property with an obligation to return must be proved—Held: No evidence of entrustment—Business transactions do not amount to entrustment—Failure to pay contractual dues is a civil matter, not a criminal offense [Paras 24-26].

Misuse of Criminal Law – Abuse of Process – Complaint filed to pressurize the petitioner to settle a civil dispute—Held: Courts must be cautious in allowing criminal complaints for purely civil disputes—Proceedings under Sections 406/420 IPC quashed as an abuse of process of law [Paras 27-29].

Inherent Powers of High Court – Quashing of Proceedings – Court relied on Supreme Court judgments to emphasize that criminal law cannot be used as a tool for settling civil disputes—Held: High Court must exercise its power under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of legal process—Proceedings quashed in the interest of justice [Paras 29-30].

Decision:  Criminal proceedings quashed – Complaint does not disclose ingredients of Sections 406 and 420 IPC – Orders dated 03.12.2021 and 03.05.2023 set aside [Paras 30-31].
 

Trade Mark Registration – Device Mark – Applicability of Section 9(1)(b) – Refusal by Registrar Set Aside – Petition filed against rejection of the petitioner’s device mark under Section 9(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999—Held: A device mark must be examined as a whole—Registrar erred in isolating constituent elements of the mark instead of assessing its overall distinctiveness—Supreme Court precedent (Registrar of Trade Marks v. Ashok Chandra Rakhit Ltd., AIR 1955 SC 558) followed—Refusal set aside, and registration directed to proceed [Paras 8-15].

Device Mark – Exclusive Rights and Statutory Protection – Section 17, Trade Marks Act, 1999 – Petitioner contended that device marks grant statutory protection as a whole—Held: Section 17(2) limits exclusivity over individual elements, but registration cannot be denied solely because individual components are descriptive—Court reaffirmed that registrability depends on the overall impression of the mark—Prior judgments from Delhi and Madras High Courts in Abu Dhabi Global Market v. Registrar of Trade Marks and Jawan Guarding Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Senior Examiner of Trade Marks relied upon [Paras 16-18].

Prior Registration of Similar Marks – Inconsistent Treatment by Registrar – Violation of Judicial Consistency – Petitioner’s word mark "KHADI PRAKRITIK PAINT" was previously granted registration—Additionally, an earlier device mark containing identical elements was also registered—Held: Registrar’s refusal of the present mark lacked justification—Court ruled that such inconsistent decisions cannot be sustained—Reliance placed on Consolidated Foods Corporation v. Brandon & Co. Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1965 Bom 35 [Paras 19-21].

Use of Trade Mark – Documentary Evidence Ignored – Violation of Principles of Natural Justice – Registrar incorrectly stated that no affidavit of use was filed, despite substantial evidence of marketing, advertisements, and product publicity—Held: Mere absence of invoices does not negate use if the mark is sufficiently publicized—Court found that Registrar failed to consider relevant materials and misapplied the law—Ishi Khosla v. Anil Aggarwal & Ors. (2007) relied upon [Paras 22-23].

Decision: Impugned order set aside—Registrar directed to proceed with registration of the device mark—Registrar further directed to complete statutory formalities, including advertisement of the mark.

Criminal Law - Discharge from criminal proceedings - Foreigners Act – Failure to Maintain Records – Criminal Liability of Hotel Manager – The petitioner, as the manager of Park International Hotel, Vizhinjam, was accused of failing to maintain records and submit C-Forms for a Russian citizen accommodated in the hotel—Held: Section 7(3) of the Foreigners Act, 1946, mandates hotel keepers to maintain a record of foreign guests—Violation of this provision attracts criminal liability—Petitioner’s failure to comply justified prosecution [Paras 2, 5].

Prescribed Format for Reporting Foreigners – Gazette Notification of 2010 – Petitioner relied on Vijukumar v. State of Kerala, 2009 (3) KLT 684, arguing that the Central Government had not specified a prescribed format for reporting foreign guests—Held: The Government of India, through Gazette Notification GSR 780(L) dated 24.09.2010, had substituted a new Form C under the Registration of Foreigners Rules, 1992—The petitioner’s argument was rendered untenable as the new format was in place at the time of the offence [Para 6].

Section 258 Cr.PC – Discharge Plea – No Grounds for Stopping Proceedings – Petitioner sought to stop proceedings under Section 258 Cr.PC, contending that the charge was unsustainable—Held: The prosecution was not merely for failure to submit Form C but also for failure to maintain records of foreign guests in the hotel—Trial court rightly refused to stop proceedings—Petition dismissed [Paras 4-6].

Decision: Criminal Revision Petition dismissed – Prosecution under Section 7 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, is maintainable – Petitioner’s failure to maintain records and submit Form C attracts liability – No ground for discharge under Section 258 Cr.PC [Para 6].
 

Income Tax – Search and Seizure – Section 153C Proceedings – Validity of Assessment Against Other Person – The Revenue initiated proceedings against the assessee under Section 153C without recording a satisfaction note in the file of the searched person – Held: Recording a satisfaction note by the Assessing Officer of the searched person is a sine qua non before invoking jurisdiction under Section 153C – Failure to do so renders the assessment void ab initio – Appeal dismissed [Paras 6-8, 51].

Jurisdiction – Requirement of Satisfaction Note – Section 153C of Income Tax Act – The Assessing Officer of the searched person must record a clear satisfaction that incriminating material belongs to the "other person" before initiating proceedings under Section 153C – Held: The note recorded only pertained to the searched person, with no reference to the assessee – Absence of such satisfaction vitiates the entire proceedings – No substantial question of law arises – Appeals dismissed [Paras 16-20, 48-50].

Binding Precedents – Supreme Court Decisions on Satisfaction Note – Applicability – The Supreme Court in Manish Maheshwari v. ACIT (2007), Calcutta Knitwears (2014), and Pepsi Foods (P) Ltd. (2018) held that a satisfaction note is mandatory before invoking jurisdiction under Section 153C – Held: The Tribunal rightly relied on these decisions to quash the assessments – No interference warranted – Appeals dismissed [Paras 31-36, 43-45].

CBDT Circulars – Circular No. 24/2015 – Applicability to Pending Litigation – The CBDT directed that appeals relating to satisfaction note deficiencies should be withdrawn if they do not meet the Supreme Court’s guidelines – Held: The present case falls within the scope of this circular – The Revenue ought to have withdrawn the appeals – Appeals dismissed [Paras 38-42].

Burden of Proof – Requirement to Demonstrate Jurisdictional Compliance – The Revenue failed to produce any separate satisfaction note for the assessee, and the affidavit filed by the Income Tax Department confirmed its non-existence – Held: In the absence of statutory compliance, the assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer was invalid – Appeals dismissed [Paras 10-12, 47].

Scope of High Court Review – Findings of Tribunal Based on Settled Law – No Substantial Question of Law – The Tribunal’s decision was based on binding Supreme Court judgments and CBDT instructions – Held: No substantial question of law arises – Appeals dismissed [Paras 53-54].

Patent Law  – Section 117-A of the Patents Act – Appeal Not Maintainable – The impugned order was issued in a review proceeding under Section 77(1)(f) of the Patents Act – Section 117-A does not provide for an appeal against orders passed under Section 77(1)(f) – Held: The appeal is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed at the threshold [Paras 16-17].

Sufficiency of Disclosure – Section 10(4) of the Patents Act – Enablement Not Satisfied – The claimed invention proposed persona extension and augmentation using black-box modernization techniques – Held: The specification failed to provide sufficient technical details or working examples to enable a person skilled in the art (PSITA) to work the invention without undue experimentation – Thus, the invention does not satisfy the enablement requirement under Section 10(4)(a) of the Patents Act [Paras 24-26].

Best Mode Requirement – Section 10(4)(b) of the Patents Act – Invention Lacks Workable Criteria – Appellant claimed that Claims 19, 24, and 30 disclose the best mode of performing the invention – Held: The complete specification lacks technical details regarding object-oriented analysis techniques and decussation of pyramids as claimed – Consequently, the best mode requirement is not met under Section 10(4)(b) of the Patents Act [Paras 30-31].

Clarity and Fair Basing of Claims – Section 10(5) of the Patents Act – Claims Ambiguous and Not Fairly Based – The claims lacked clear definition and the specification failed to disclose how the invention achieves its intended result – Held: The invention does not comply with the clarity and fair basing requirements under Section 10(5) [Paras 32-33].

Patent Eligibility – Section 3(k) of the Patents Act – No Technical Effect Demonstrated – The invention purportedly integrates humans with AI and objects using black-box modernization techniques – Held: The claimed invention does not demonstrate any technical effect beyond a general AI concept and fails the test for patent eligibility under Section 3(k) of the Patents Act [Paras 34-35].

Re-examination in Review – Controller Acted Beyond Jurisdiction – The Controller treated the review petition as a fresh examination and conducted a second hearing – Held: The Controller ought to have rejected the review application for failure to meet the grounds under Order XLVII, Rule 1, CPC – However, even on merits, the rejection of the patent application is justified [Paras 15-16, 36].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – The appeal was found to be non-maintainable under Section 117-A – Even considering the appeal on merits, the appellant failed to meet the statutory requirements for patent grant – Consequently, the appeal was dismissed without costs [Paras 36-37].
 

Advocates Act – Disciplinary Proceedings – Formation of "Reason to Believe" is Mandatory – Proceedings Quashed – Under Section 35(1) of the Advocates Act, 1961, a State Bar Council must form a "reason to believe" that an advocate is guilty of professional misconduct before referring a complaint to its Disciplinary Committee – Mere receipt of a complaint is insufficient – In the present case, no evidence established that the Bar Council applied its mind or formed a reasoned belief before issuing the impugned notice (Annexure P-2) – Non-compliance with this statutory requirement renders the proceedings void ab initio – Held: Disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner, including Complaint No. DCE/101/2024 and consequential notices, quashed [Paras 4-7].

Professional Misconduct – Safeguards Against Frivolous Complaints – Due Process Must Be Followed – The purpose of requiring a "reason to believe" under Section 35(1) is to prevent frivolous or baseless complaints against advocates – The Bar Council acts as a sentinel of professional ethics and must exercise its discretion judiciously – Failure to do so amounts to a jurisdictional error – The disciplinary process must not be misused to harass legal professionals – Held: Since no prior "reason to believe" was recorded by the Bar Council, the reference to the Disciplinary Committee was illegal and unsustainable [Paras 5-6].

Judicial Precedent – Supreme Court Interpretation of Section 35(1) – Binding on Bar Councils – Reliance placed on Nandlal Khodidas Barot v. Bar Council of Gujarat, (1980) Supp SCC 318, which mandates that a State Bar Council must apply its mind before referring complaints to the Disciplinary Committee – Failure to adhere to this statutory requirement results in vitiation of the proceedings – Held: The present case falls within the ratio of Nandlal Khodidas Barot, necessitating quashing of the impugned proceedings [Para 8].
 

FEMA – Omission of Section 6(3)(b) – Impact on Pending Proceedings – The petitioners argued that Section 6(3)(b) of FEMA was omitted by the Finance Act, 2015, and thus, no proceedings could be initiated for alleged violations under this section – Held: Omission of a statutory provision is equivalent to repeal, attracting the application of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act – Proceedings initiated for past violations under Section 6(3)(b) remain valid despite its subsequent omission [Paras 18-23].

Show Cause Notice – Delay in Issuance – Reasonableness of Time – Petitioners contended that the impugned notice was issued after an unreasonable delay of nearly 10 years – Held: Though FEMA does not prescribe a limitation period for initiating adjudication, proceedings must be initiated within a reasonable time – Determination of what constitutes a "reasonable time" depends on the facts and circumstances and is within the adjudicating authority’s jurisdiction – No interference warranted at the show cause notice stage [Paras 31-36].

Natural Justice – Allegation of Bias in Adjudicating Authority – Petitioners argued that the Special Director had already made up his mind as the Enforcement Directorate had filed a counter-affidavit supporting the allegations – Held: The counter-affidavit was filed by a subordinate officer and not the adjudicating authority – Mere filing of a counter does not establish bias – Adjudication remains open for explanation and appeal, ensuring due process [Paras 24-27].

Alternative Remedy – Maintainability of Writ Petition – Petitioners challenged the show cause notice directly before the High Court, bypassing statutory appeal remedies – Held: Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should not be invoked when an effective alternative remedy is available, except in cases of fundamental rights violation, lack of jurisdiction, or breach of natural justice – Petitioners had the right to appeal under Sections 19 and 35 of FEMA – Writ petition dismissed on grounds of alternative remedy [Paras 12-15, 28-30].

Decision: The writ petitions are dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to file their objections before the adjudicating authority within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order – The adjudicating authority shall consider the objections in accordance with law – No costs – Miscellaneous petitions closed [Para 39].
 

Criminal Procedure – Proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. – Non-Compliance with Mandatory Procedure – Held: The trial court declared the petitioner a proclaimed person without adhering to the procedural requirements of Section 82 Cr.P.C. – No prior issuance of summons or bailable warrants before resorting to proclamation – Failure to record satisfaction that the petitioner was absconding or concealing herself from the process of law – Such non-compliance renders the proclamation and all subsequent proceedings under Section 174A IPC illegal [Paras 43-44].

FIR under Section 174A IPC – Bar under Section 195(1)(a)(i) Cr.P.C. – Held: Section 195(1)(a)(i) Cr.P.C. mandates that no court shall take cognizance of offences under Sections 172 to 188 IPC except on a written complaint by a public servant – FIRs under Section 174A IPC cannot be registered based on a police report – Cognizance can only be taken through a written complaint before the competent jurisdictional court – The impugned FIRs are therefore unsustainable in law [Paras 40-42].

Personal Liberty – Violation of Article 21 – Procedural Safeguards Ignored – Held: Criminal prosecution must be in accordance with the procedure established by law to balance individual liberty and law enforcement – Declaring a person a proclaimed offender without due process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. violates personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution – Prosecution proceedings initiated against the petitioner without compliance with legal requirements stand vitiated [Paras 42-43].

Supreme Court Precedents – Compliance with Section 195 Cr.P.C. is Mandatory – Held: The Hon’ble Supreme Court in C. Muniappan & Others v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2010) 9 SCC 567, held that provisions of Section 195 Cr.P.C. are mandatory – FIRs registered in contravention of this provision are void ab initio – The High Court quashed the FIRs and all subsequent proceedings against the petitioner [Paras 39-41].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – FIRs Quashed – Held: The orders declaring the petitioner a proclaimed person, along with FIRs under Section 174A IPC and all subsequent proceedings, are quashed – Petition allowed [Para 44].
 

Criminal Law – Framing of Charge – Prima Facie Case Requirement – At the stage of framing charge, the court is not required to apply the final standard of proof but only ascertain the existence of a strong suspicion regarding the commission of an offense – Held: Where the allegations indicate that the accused induced the prosecutrix into a sexual relationship under a false promise of marriage, the matter should proceed to trial for proper adjudication – Discharge is not warranted at this stage [Paras 14-16].

False Promise of Marriage – Consent & Misrepresentation – The accused, despite being married, allegedly misrepresented his marital status and induced the prosecutrix into sexual relations under the pretext of marriage – The prosecutrix, believing this, obtained a divorce – Held: Where a woman’s consent is obtained through deception about a material fact, such as the accused’s marital status, it may vitiate consent and amount to rape under Section 64(2)(m) of BNS – Whether the accused had a mala fide intent will be determined at trial [Paras 10-13].

Plea of Alibi – Cell Tower & CDR Location Evidence – The accused contended that he was not present at the place of the alleged incidents, relying on toll receipts and mobile location data – Held: The plea of alibi involves factual determination and cannot be considered at the charge stage; it must be proved during trial [Para 8].

Social Context Jurisprudence – Impact of Misrepresentation in Relationships – Courts must consider the socio-legal implications where a woman alters her marital status based on assurances from an accused – The prosecutrix’s reliance on notarized divorce affidavits, though not legally valid, suggests she believed she was free to marry the accused – Held: In such cases, determining consent requires full evidence at trial, and the accused cannot be discharged solely based on preliminary contentions [Paras 12-13].

Decision: Charge under Section 64(2)(m) of BNS upheld – The trial court’s order framing charges was sustained, though on modified reasoning. Petition dismissed – The accused failed to establish grounds for discharge at this stage. Observations limited to the charge stage – No final determination on guilt; trial court to decide based on full evidence.