Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR under Sections 354, 354A, 323, 509 of IPC – Allegations of sexual harassment by Respondent No.2 against Petitioner – FIR filed after dismissal of complaint by the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) under POSH Act – High Court quashed the FIR on grounds that the intimate and consensual relationship between the parties was established, rendering the allegations of sexual harassment improbable – FIR found to be an afterthought following the ICC’s findings and Respondent No.2’s husband learning of the relationship [Paras 1-14].

Sexual Harassment – ICC findings under POSH Act dismissing complaint – Petitioner’s consistent testimony and supporting evidence, including witness statements and audio recordings, negated the allegations – Delay of more than 90 days in lodging FIR without explanation, further weakening the credibility of the complaint – High Court applied Bhajan Lal principles for quashing of FIR where allegations were found inherently improbable [Paras 8-11].

Evidence Evaluation – High Court relied on ICC findings, WhatsApp conversations, and conduct of Respondent No.2 to establish consensual nature of relationship – Court scrutinized FIR and found no prima facie case of criminal force or unwelcome contact – FIR filed with malafide intent to harass Petitioner following discovery of relationship by respective spouses [Paras 9-14].

Decision – Petition allowed – Held – The criminal proceedings initiated against the Petitioner were quashed based on findings that allegations of sexual harassment were concocted and motivated by personal vengeance – No ingredients of cognizable offence established – Quashing upheld as per Bhajan Lal principles [Para 14].
 

Criminal Law – Bail in Rape Case – Compromise with Victim’s Family – The petitioner sought bail in a case involving the rape of an 11-year-old girl, citing a compromise with the victim's family. The court rejected the bail application, emphasizing that in cases involving minors, any compromise lacks legal validity. The State has a duty to prosecute such offenses rigorously, irrespective of any private settlements. The court held that minors are vulnerable and their families might be influenced by financial incentives, making such compromises inadmissible in law. The court also noted that the victim's statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. confirmed the incident, making the petitioner's request for bail untenable [Paras 6-8].

Decision: Bail application dismissed. The court directed that the trial court should endeavor to record the statements of the victim and her parents at the earliest opportunity [Para 9].
 

Ex Gratia Compensation – Interest on Delayed Payment – Appellant, a victim of the 1984 Anti-Sikh Riots, received ex gratia compensation after multiple litigations spanning decades – Appellant sought interest on the delayed payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- – High Court held that although ex gratia compensation traditionally does not attract interest, Constitutional Courts have the authority to grant reasonable interest in cases of significant delay – Given the protracted litigation and delayed compensation, the Court awarded 10% interest per annum from the date of the Rehabilitation Policy (16th January, 2006) until the actual payment on 8th April, 2016 – Emphasized that policies for victim rehabilitation must be implemented in a time-bound manner to remain meaningful [Paras 13-17].

Delay in Government Disbursements – Judicial Remedy – Courts empowered under Article 226 of the Constitution can grant relief in cases where administrative delays cause significant prejudice – Held that failure to implement policies within stipulated timelines warrants judicial intervention to ensure justice for affected parties [Paras 12-15].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Respondents directed to pay 10% interest per annum on the delayed compensation amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- from 16th January, 2006, to 8th April, 2016 – Respondents also ordered to pay Rs. 25,000/- as costs to the appellant within six weeks [Paras 17-18].

Habeas Corpus – Custody of Minor Child – The High Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, the natural mother, granting her custody of the minor child. The Court held that the welfare of the child is paramount, and in this case, the mother, who is a well-educated government servant, is better suited to ensure the child's welfare compared to the grandparents who have no regular income and live in a rural area [Paras 1-12].

Natural Guardian – The Court emphasized that under Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, the mother is the natural guardian of a minor child, especially when the father is deceased. The Court dismissed concerns raised by the respondents about the safety and welfare of the child under the mother's care [Para 10].

Habeas Corpus Jurisdiction – The Court reiterated that habeas corpus petitions are maintainable in cases concerning the custody of minor children, particularly when the child is being unlawfully detained by persons other than the natural guardian [Para 9].

Decision:

Petition allowed. The Court directed the respondents to hand over the custody of the minor child to the petitioner-mother immediately in the court. The concerned Station House Officer (SHO) was instructed to ensure the safety of the petitioner and her child during their return to their residence.

Commercial Courts Act – Definition of Commercial Dispute – Partnership Agreement – The appellants contended that the dispute arising out of a Memorandum of Understanding for the reconstitution of a partnership firm should be classified as a "commercial dispute" under Section 2(1)(c) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. However, the court held that the MOU related to a future partnership agreement, not an existing one, and thus did not fall under the definition of a commercial dispute [Paras 1-18].

Specific Performance – Reconstitution of Partnership Firm – The plaintiff sought specific performance of the MOU, which involved the retirement of certain partners and the induction of new partners in the firm. The court found that the dispute did not arise out of an existing partnership agreement, as required under the Commercial Courts Act, but rather a future arrangement [Paras 19-24].

Order 7 Rule 11 CPC – Rejection of Plaint – The appellants' applications for rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC were dismissed, as the court found that the MOU did not fall within the ambit of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 [Paras 25-30].

Decision: Appeal dismissed. The court upheld the order of the learned Single Judge rejecting the applications under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.
 

Criminal Law – Section 125 Cr.P.C. – Maintenance – Interim Maintenance to Wife and Minor Son – High Court upheld the Family Court’s order granting interim maintenance of ₹12,000 per month to the wife and ₹8,000 per month to the son – Challenge to the estimation of husband's income at ₹60,000 per month despite his claim of earning ₹10,000 per month – Court found the husband’s declaration of income unsubstantiated and noted suppression of actual income – No modification to the interim maintenance despite the son reaching the age of majority – Father’s responsibility to maintain the son until proper education is secured [Paras 1-8, 10, 13-16].

Evidence Evaluation – Affidavit of Income and Assets – Suppression of Income by Husband – The Court observed inconsistencies in the husband’s affidavit regarding income and expenses – Family Court’s estimation of husband’s income based on a holistic view was found to be reasonable – No substantial evidence provided by the husband to prove his lower income or wife’s independent earnings – Revision petition dismissed [Paras 8-11, 19-22].

Decision – Dismissal of Revision Petition – Held – The petition challenging interim maintenance was dismissed – The Court confirmed the Family Court’s decision, emphasizing the importance of providing financial support to the wife and child, even in the interim stage – The trial court directed to expedite the final maintenance proceedings within three months [Paras 22-23].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 Acquittal – High Court Dismisses Appeal Against Acquittal by Trial Court – Petitioner’s Complaint Lacked Credibility – Discrepancies and Inconsistencies in Petitioner’s Testimony and Evidence – Respondent’s Defence Rebutted Presumptions Under Sections 118(a) and 139 of NI Act – Trial Court’s Findings Not Perverse, Acquittal Upheld [Paras 1-35].

Appreciation of Evidence – Double Presumption of Innocence in Favor of Accused in Appeal Against Acquittal – High Court’s Role in Reviewing Acquittal Limited to Instances of Perversity – Not to Disturb Findings Where Two Reasonable Views Are Possible – Rebuttal of Presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 of NI Act Considered Sufficient – Defence of Non-Existence of Debt/Liability Proven on Preponderance of Probabilities [Paras 17-26].

Decision – Petition Dismissed – High Court Found No Grounds for Interference with Trial Court's Acquittal – Defence Evidence and Testimony Adequately Supported Respondent’s Case – Petitioner’s Inconsistent Statements and Lack of Credible Evidence Failed to Disprove Defence [Paras 33-34].

NDPS Act – Regular Bail – Prolonged Incarceration: The petitioner was accused of smuggling and possessing 75 kg of poppy husk and was arrested with his co-accused. He had been in custody for 01 year, 09 months, and 20 days, with no other criminal cases against him. The trial had progressed slowly, with only three out of 17 prosecution witnesses examined. In line with precedents, the court considered the prolonged incarceration as grounds for granting bail, emphasizing the importance of the right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. Bail granted with strict conditions [Paras 1-14].

Section 37 of NDPS Act – Non-Compliance – Prolonged Custody: The court noted that despite the stringent conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, prolonged custody without significant trial progress warranted the granting of bail, as consistent with previous rulings by the Supreme Court. The petitioner’s lack of prior criminal record and the extended duration of custody were crucial factors in the decision [Paras 6-14].

Decision: Bail granted – Conditions imposed to prevent tampering with evidence and ensure the petitioner’s appearance in court.

Custody of Minor Child – Habeas Corpus – Petitioner, mother of a one-and-a-half-year-old child, sought custody of her minor son who was in the custody of his grandparents – Court held that the mother, being the natural guardian under Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, is entitled to the custody of her minor son – The welfare of the minor child is paramount, and the mother, who is a government servant with a stable income, is better suited to take care of the child’s welfare and future [Paras 1-12].

Grandparents' Custody – Welfare of Child – The Court noted that the grandparents, particularly the grandfather, were elderly, lacked formal education, and had no regular income, making them less capable of ensuring the child's welfare compared to the petitioner-mother [Paras 10(ii)].

Decision:

Habeas corpus petition allowed – The Court directed the respondents to hand over custody of the minor child to the petitioner-mother immediately in the Court – The SHO was instructed to ensure the safety of the petitioner and her minor son while they return to their residence [Paras 11-13].