Criminal Law – Dishonour of Cheque – Conviction under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act – Accused issued cheque for ₹5 lakh towards repayment of debt, which was dishonoured due to insufficient funds – Complainant issued legal notice but cheque remained unpaid – Trial Court convicted accused, sentenced him to 6 months simple imprisonment and fine – Appellate Court upheld conviction – Revision petition filed challenging conviction on various grounds including non-service of legal notice, invalidity of bank return memo, and absence of loan entries in income tax returns or account books – Held: Conviction valid [Paras 1-5].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Presumption of Legal Liability – Sections 118 and 139 – Statutory presumption of consideration arises when signature on cheque is admitted – Presumption is rebuttable, but accused failed to rebut by preponderance of probabilities – Accused merely claimed absence of loan in complainant's accounts but offered no credible evidence – Presumption of legally enforceable liability not displaced – Conviction upheld [Paras 12-20].

Income Tax Returns – Non-reflection of Loan – Non-mention of loan in income tax returns or account books does not invalidate debt – Held: Presumption under NI Act cannot be negated solely because loan is unaccounted in tax documents – Non-disclosure may invite action under tax laws but does not defeat complainant's case under Section 138 – Support drawn from Uttam Ram vs Devinder Singh Hudan and Ganga Prashad vs Lalit Kumar [Paras 18-22].

Service of Legal Notice – Validity – Registered Notice returned unclaimed – Presumption of valid service under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act applies – Non-service due to absence of accused at address does not invalidate notice – Complaint not rendered premature – Held: Accused had opportunity to pay after receiving court summons as well [Paras 23-25].

Bank Return Memo – Validity without Stamp – Section 146 NI Act – Return memo need not bear bank’s stamp if it carries official signature and branch details – Purpose is to relieve bank officers from entering witness box in every case – Return memo valid and admissible – Held: Objection to absence of stamp rejected [Paras 26-30].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Limits – Revisional Court cannot re-appreciate evidence to act as second appellate court – Held: Findings of conviction and sentence passed by Trial Court and affirmed by Appellate Court are based on correct appreciation of law and evidence – No jurisdictional error or perversity found – Revision dismissed [Paras 9-11, 32].

Conduct of Accused – Offer to Compound – Accused offered partial settlement post-conviction but withdrew when asked to pay fair amount considering interest since 2003 – Held: Conduct displays intent to evade liability rather than genuine defence – Supports prosecution version [Para 25].

Decision – Revision Petition Dismissed – Conviction and sentence confirmed – Trial Court directed to issue necessary warrants to secure custody of accused for serving sentence [Para 32].
 

Criminal Law – Appeal against acquittal - Abetment of Suicide – Essentials of Section 306 IPC – Acquittal Upheld – The Court reiterated that mere harassment or disputes over financial transactions are insufficient to constitute abetment unless direct or indirect incitement to commit suicide is proved – The deceased had the option to seek recovery of debt legally – Absence of instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid by the accused – Ingredients of Section 306 IPC not satisfied [Paras 15-19].

Suicide Note – General Allegation Not Sufficient – The suicide note vaguely referred to harassment by Subhash and the police without naming any officer or detailing specific acts of abetment – No nexus between the alleged harassment and the act of suicide was established – Suicide due to loan dispute does not by itself constitute abetment [Paras 18-19].

Delay and Absence of Proof – No Evidence of Finance Business or Loan Transaction – The prosecution failed to prove that the deceased was actually running a finance business or that a loan was advanced to the accused – Absence of documentary or reliable oral evidence regarding the alleged debt transaction and threats – Defence plea of false implication accepted [Paras 18-19].

Temperament of Deceased – No Proof of Prudence or Instigation – No evidence produced by the prosecution to establish that the deceased was prudent and was compelled to commit suicide due to unbearable harassment – Suicide attributed to hypersensitivity rather than actionable abetment – Courts must be cautious to avoid penalizing routine disputes as abetment [Paras 17-19].

Final Decision – Revision Petition Dismissed – No merit found in the challenge to the judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court – Petition dismissed with no relief granted [Para 20].
 

NDPS Act – Bail in Commercial Quantity – Section 37 NDPS Act – Bail Granted – Petitioner in custody for 1 year 6 months with no criminal antecedents – Although rigors of Section 37 apply, Supreme Court precedents permit relaxation when custody is unduly prolonged – Held: Bail granted subject to conditions [Paras 8-16].

Prolonged Pre-trial Detention – Article 21 and Bail – Right to speedy trial a facet of Article 21 – Court relied on Dheeraj Kumar Shukla, Shince Babu, Sohrab Khan, Ramlal and other Supreme Court rulings granting bail in similar cases due to long custody – Trial likely to take further time – Continued incarceration would offend Article 21 [Paras 10-14].

Bail Conditions – Reformative and Protective – Petitioner directed to comply with stringent conditions including surrender of arms, regular appearance, and prohibition from influencing witnesses – Trial Court directed to ensure surety is capable of securing petitioner's attendance – Reference made to Mohammed Zubair v. State of NCT of Delhi regarding proportionality of bail conditions [Paras 17-24].

Cancellation of Bail – Automatic Trigger – Court clarified that if petitioner commits any fresh non-bailable offence, State may apply for immediate cancellation of bail – Observed in light of Md. Tajiur Rahaman v. State of West Bengal [Paras 23-24].

Decision – Bail Petition Allowed – Petitioner ordered to be released on bail subject to conditions – Petition disposed of along with all pending applications [Para 27].

Regular Bail – SC/ST Act – Conspiracy and Assault Allegations – Bail Granted – Appellant accused of hatching conspiracy to assault complainant over financial dispute – Co-accused allegedly attacked complainant using weapons, causing grievous injuries – Court held that while injuries were serious, they were not lifethreatening – SC/ST allegations not directly attributable to appellant – Custody since 13.12.2024 and trial likely to take time – Bail granted with conditions [Paras 1–6]. 
 
Habitual Offender – Prior Criminal Cases – Not Absolute Bar to Bail – Appellant involved in multiple prior cases, some resulting in acquittals and one in conviction – Court held that pendency or history alone cannot justify continued incarceration – No material to suggest risk of absconding or influencing witnesses – Bail allowed subject to conduct undertaking [Paras 3–6]. 
 
Conditions of Bail – Non-Interference with Witnesses – Appellant directed not to approach, intimidate or influence complainant or other witnesses – Trial Court empowered to cancel bail on breach of conditions – Bail granted on furnishing surety and personal bond to satisfaction of Trial Court [Paras 7–8]. 
 
Decision: Appeal allowed – Order rejecting bail set aside – Appellant enlarged on bail subject to conditions – Observations confined to bail consideration and not to affect merits of trial [Paras 6–8]. 
 

Criminal Law - Quashing of Proceedings – Serious Non-Compoundable Offences – Sections 376 IPC and U.P. Conversion Act – Quashing Denied – Application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of proceedings on the basis of compromise between accused and victim – The Court reiterated that offences involving serious crimes like rape and unlawful religious conversion cannot be quashed merely because of a compromise – Such offences have a societal impact and are not just private disputes – Held: Quashing refused, proceedings to continue [Paras 15, 19, 31-38, 47-57]. 
 
Inherent Powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Scope and Limitations – Only to be Invoked in Exceptional Circumstances – The Court explained that while the High Court has wide powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., such powers must be exercised sparingly and not in cases involving heinous crimes – Compromises in such cases may be obtained by coercion or may undermine public confidence in justice delivery [Paras 17-20, 34-38, 47]. 
 
Religious Conversion and Consent – U.P. Conversion Prevention Act, 2020 – Conversion Without Free Will is Illegal – The Court highlighted that conversion for the purpose of marriage without genuine change of faith is illegal – Any such conversion prompted by coercion, allurement, or fraudulent means will not be protected by law – Held: Allegations under the U.P. Conversion Act are grave and proceedings cannot be quashed on compromise [Paras 49-56]. 
 
Compromise in Rape Cases – No Legal Sanctity – Cannot Override Public Interest – The Court firmly held that rape is an offence against society and not just an individual – Compromise or settlement between the accused and victim in rape cases cannot be a basis for quashing proceedings – Such offences must be adjudicated irrespective of any private settlement [Paras 38-45, 57]. 
 
Decision – Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Dismissed – The Court dismissed the application refusing to quash the charge-sheet and proceedings on the basis of compromise, considering the seriousness of allegations involving rape and unlawful conversion [Para 57]. 
 

Motor Accident Claim – Contributory Negligence – Finding Reversed – Claimant Exonerated – Tribunal had held both the bus driver and claimant contributorily negligent (50% each) because the claimant was driving an unregistered vehicle – High Court held that absence of registration does not imply causation unless overt negligence is shown – FIR and evidence confirmed the accident was solely due to rash and negligent driving of the bus – Held: Finding of contributory negligence against appellant set aside; sole responsibility fixed on bus driver [Paras 5, 6, 9].

Compensation – Disability – Enhanced by Applying Proper Multiplier and Future Prospects – Tribunal applied a multiplier of 15 and awarded ₹90,000 for 50% disability – High Court revised it to a multiplier of 18 with 40% addition for future prospects for a 22-year-old – Loss of future earning capacity recalculated at ₹1,51,200 – Held: Tribunal erred in not awarding for future prospects; enhanced just compensation awarded [Paras 6, 10].

Non-Pecuniary Damages – Additional Heads Granted – Tribunal had not awarded any compensation for pain and suffering, special diet, attendant charges, or future medical expenses – High Court awarded ₹50,000 for pain and suffering, ₹5,000 for special diet, ₹10,000 each for attendant charges and future medical expenses – Held: Compensation must be comprehensive and fair, covering both pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses [Para 10].

Final Decision – Appeal Allowed – Compensation Enhanced to ₹3,51,000 with 9% Interest – Tribunal award of ₹62,564 set aside – Compensation enhanced to ₹3,51,000 with 9% annual interest from date of award till realization – Any previously paid amount to be adjusted – Held: Appellant entitled to full compensation without deduction for contributory negligence [Paras 10–13].
 

Criminal Procedure – Summoning Additional Accused – Section 319 CrPC – Summoning order set aside – Petitioners were summoned based on partial appraisal of evidence, relying only on the statement of injured witness Ajit Singh (PW-3) – Trial Court failed to consider complainant Chandi Ram’s (PW-4) testimony, which was material to conspiracy allegations – Summoning order held unsustainable in absence of complete analysis [Paras 13-18].

Conspiracy – Evidence Requirement – Complainant’s testimony indicated conspiracy involving all named persons – Injured witness did not support conspiracy allegations against all petitioners – Trial Court erroneously omitted discussion of complainant’s version regarding the meeting and threats before the incident – Supreme Court’s guidelines in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 3 SCC 92 reiterated – Complete evidence must be examined before exercising power under Section 319 CrPC [Paras 13-17].

Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction – Revisional Court has power to test whether Trial Court has properly appreciated material evidence while exercising Section 319 CrPC power – Held: Partial reliance on evidence and omission to consider vital testimony constitutes error of law justifying interference [Paras 17-19].

Decision – Revision Petitions allowed – Impugned order dated 11.09.2024 set aside – Matter remanded to Trial Court to re-decide the application under Section 319 CrPC after considering full evidence including statements of both injured witness and complainant – Fresh order to be passed within 45 days – Benefit of remand extended to Raj Kumar, though not a revision petitioner [Paras 19-21].

Civil Writ – Appointments - Minority Institutions – Applicability of UGC Regulations, 2018 – Minority Institutions' Right to Administer – Selection Committees – Minority educational institutions have the fundamental right under Article 30(1) to administer their institutions, including the right to appoint staff – The UGC Regulations, 2018 prescribing the composition of selection committees for appointment of Assistant Professors and Principals, and adopted by the State through G.O.Ms.No.5 dated 11.01.2021, interfere with this right – Such Regulations cannot be applied to minority institutions – Held: Minority institutions are not bound by UGC Regulations relating to selection procedure but must comply only with qualifications, experience, and other merit criteria [Paras 30-38].

Res Judicata – Applicability of Forum of Minority Institutions Case – Previous Division Bench ruling in The Forum of Minority Institutions and Associations v. State of Tamil Nadu continues to apply – No substantial change introduced by UGC Regulations, 2018 as compared to earlier Regulations – Minority institutions not required to challenge every new Regulation if settled law applies – Preliminary objection of UGC rejected [Paras 23-25, 32-34].

Doctrine of Merger – High Court and Supreme Court decisions affirming finality – Judgment confirms that once the constitutional protection under Article 30(1) is attracted, regulatory control over the selection process stands limited to qualifications and service conditions only – The right to constitute selection committees rests with the management of minority institutions [Paras 35-38].

Final Decision – Writ Petitions Allowed – Universities directed to grant qualification approvals for appointments made by the petitioner minority institutions without reference to UGC Regulations, 2018 and G.O.Ms.No.5 dated 11.01.2021 – Directions issued for processing approval within four weeks – Consequential benefits including arrears of salary made available to selected candidates [Paras 39-41].

Criminal Law – Rape - Acquittal Appeal – Scope of Appellate Interference in Acquittal – Appellate Court Reiterated Limited Scope to Interfere – The appellate court while re-appreciating the evidence must interfere only when the judgment is perverse or leads to miscarriage of justice – Court found that trial court's judgment was not perverse and based on sound appreciation of evidence – Appeal dismissed [Paras 9-14].

Kidnapping and Sexual Assault – Victim Turned Hostile – Allegation of Kidnapping and Sexual Assault Not Established – Victim (PW1) denied the allegations during trial – No independent corroboration from parents or medical evidence – Court held that the prosecution failed to prove offence under Sections 363, 376 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act – Acquittal upheld [Paras 16-32].

Medical Evidence – No Signs of Recent Sexual Assault – Medical Officer (PW10) opined that there were no signs suggestive of recent sexual assault – Prosecution failed to corroborate charges medically – Acquittal confirmed [Paras 30-33].

Statement Under Section 164 CrPC – Not Substantive Evidence – Court reiterated that Section 164 CrPC statement can be used only for contradiction or corroboration – Cannot solely form basis for conviction in absence of substantive evidence – Victim did not support the prosecution case – Appeal dismissed [Para 31].

Final Decision – No Error Found in Trial Court’s Appreciation of Evidence – Benefit of Doubt Rightly Given – Appeal dismissed and acquittal confirmed [Paras 34-35].