Dishonour of Cheque – Section 138 of the NI Act – Summoning Order Upheld – The petitioner issued two cheques to the respondent institute under the terms of an employment contract, which were dishonoured upon presentation. The petitioner contended that the cheques were issued as security and not for discharging any legally enforceable debt. The trial court took cognizance of the complaint and issued summons. Held: The issuance of the cheques and the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act established a prima facie case. The petitioner's defense that the cheques were for security purposes is a matter to be examined during trial, and the summoning order cannot be quashed at this stage [Paras 12, 14, 27, 30].

Security Cheques – Defense to be Proved at Trial – The petitioner argued that the cheques were provided as security under coercion, and the terms of the employment contract were unconscionable under Section 23 of the Contract Act. Held: The court ruled that whether the cheques were issued for security or discharge of liability is a factual issue that requires a detailed examination during trial. The court cannot quash the complaint based on such defenses at the summoning stage [Paras 20-22, 29].

Application of Section 482 CrPC – Limited Scope for Quashing – The petitioner sought quashing of the criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC, arguing that no legally enforceable debt existed. Held: The court observed that at the stage of summoning, it is not appropriate to assess the merits of the case. The petitioner failed to present unimpeachable evidence to disprove the presumption of liability under Section 138. Therefore, the petition under Section 482 CrPC was dismissed [Paras 25, 28].

Decision:

Petition dismissed – Summoning order and criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act upheld – The court found that the matter involved questions of fact that should be adjudicated during trial, and no grounds were established for quashing the proceedings [Paras 30-32].

Partition Suit – Preliminary Decree – House Ownership – Allotment of Improved Property to Builder – The appellant and respondent were co-owners of the disputed suit land, with the appellant owning 4/5th and the respondent owning 1/5th – The respondent had constructed a wooden house on the suit land before the appellant became a co-owner – Held: In partition suits, the court must account for equitable distribution of property and improvements – The allotment of the land on which the house stands to the respondent, who built and maintained the structure, is just and equitable – No interference is warranted in the preliminary decree [Paras 8, 11, 18, 22].

Preliminary and Final Decree – Partition – Rights of Co-owners – A preliminary decree in partition suits only determines the rights and shares of the co-owners and leaves further inquiry for final partition – Held: The preliminary decree declaring the respondent's 1/5th share in the suit land and directing further division during the final partition is consistent with law – The appellant is entitled to his 4/5th share in the land, subject to adjustments for the respondent's construction [Paras 12, 14, 16, 20].

Allotment of Improved Property to Co-owner Who Made Improvements – In determining equitable partition, courts must consider improvements made by co-owners on the common property – Held: The respondent constructed the house on the suit land and maintained it, which justifies the allotment of that portion of land to him – The appellant’s claim for possession of the house is rejected [Paras 17-19].

Distinction Between Preliminary and Final Decree – Need for Further Inquiry – The appellant's request for possession of the house was premature at the stage of the preliminary decree – Held: The final partition, considering adjustments or compensation for the house, will be carried out during the final decree – No grounds for intervention at this stage [Paras 21, 22].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – The preliminary decree remains unchanged – The final decree will address the equitable partition and any compensation or adjustments regarding the house [Paras 22].

Counter-Claim – Requirement for Separate Appeals – Appeal filed challenging the dismissal of the main suit without filing a separate appeal against the counter-claim – Held: When both the suit and counter-claim are decided, separate appeals must be filed to challenge both – Failure to file separate appeals results in res judicata – The First Appellate Court erred by reversing the trial court's judgment on the counter-claim without a separate appeal challenging the dismissal of the counter-claim [Paras 24, 26, 32-37].

Res Judicata – Non-Filing of Separate Appeals – The First Appellate Court reversed the trial court's judgment, despite no separate appeal being filed against the dismissal of the counter-claim – Held: Since no separate appeal was filed against the trial court's dismissal of the counter-claim, the First Appellate Court's interference was barred by the principle of res judicata – The judgment of the trial court should have been restored [Paras 36-37].

Counter-Claim – Legal Principles – Counter-claims are treated as cross-suits and must be separately challenged in appeals – Held: The counter-claim in this case was a separate legal issue requiring its own appeal – Failure to appeal against the counter-claim resulted in the finality of the trial court's decision on that aspect, and the First Appellate Court had no jurisdiction to reverse the decision on the counter-claim [Paras 27-30].

Single Appeal for Suit and Counter-Claim – Not Permissible – Where both the suit and counter-claim are decided, a single appeal is insufficient to challenge both – Held: The appellants' appeal was defective as it did not separately challenge the dismissal of the counter-claim – The First Appellate Court’s decision was thus improper [Paras 22, 23, 33].

Decision: Appeal allowed – The judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court is set aside – The judgment and decree of the trial court, which decreed the appellants' suit and dismissed the counter-claim, is restored [Paras 38-39].

Commercial Law – Civil Revision Petition – Maintainability – Petitioners challenged the rejection of an application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC for rejection of the plaint – Petitioners argued that the suit was barred by limitation and failed to comply with Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 regarding mandatory pre-institution mediation – Held: Civil Revision Petition not maintainable due to the bar under Section 8 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 against challenging interlocutory orders – Petitioners failed to file an appeal under Section 13(1) or (1A) of the Act – Dismissal of the Civil Revision Petition upheld [Paras 9-17].

Limitation Law – Section 12A of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 – Petitioners contended that pre-institution mediation was mandatory and that the suit violated this requirement – Respondent argued that the suit, filed before 20.08.2022, was exempt from the mandate per the Supreme Court's ruling in Patil Automation Pvt. Ltd. v. Rakheja Engineers Pvt. Ltd. – Held: Patil Automation applies prospectively from 20.08.2022, and the suit, filed on 30.11.2021, is exempt [Paras 3, 7].

Supervisory Jurisdiction – Article 227 of the Constitution – Petitioners invoked Article 227 of the Constitution of India to bypass the bar under Section 8 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 – The court reiterated that the High Court’s power under Article 227 is not unrestrained and must be used sparingly, especially in light of specific statutes aimed at expediting dispute resolution – Held: Article 227 cannot be used to circumvent the bar on revision petitions under Section 8 of the Commercial Courts Act [Paras 13-17].

Decision: Civil Revision Petition dismissed as not maintainable under Section 8 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 – No costs awarded – No consideration of the merits of the dispute [Paras 18-19].
 

Criminal Law – Murder Conviction – Acquittal – Appellants convicted under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC for the murder of deceased by attacking him with wooden logs – Trial court sentenced appellants to life imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs. 10,000 each – On appeal, the High Court found that the evidence of the key prosecution witness (PW1) was unreliable, with contradictions and lack of corroboration – The alleged motive between the appellants and the deceased was weak, and there was stronger evidence of enmity between PW7 and the deceased – No credible connection was established between the recovered weapons and the crime – Held: Prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, leading to acquittal [Paras 10, 12, 16, 20, 21].

Witness Testimony – Reliability of Sole Witness – PW1, the third wife of the deceased, claimed to be an eyewitness but her testimony was inconsistent – Other witnesses like PW2 and PW9, initially projected as eyewitnesses, did not support the prosecution’s case – Contradictions in PW1’s statements during cross-examination, particularly regarding the presence of other witnesses and the sequence of events, undermined her credibility – The court found it unsafe to convict the appellants based solely on her testimony without corroboration [Paras 11, 13, 15, 18, 20].

Motive – Enmity Between the Parties – The prosecution’s claim of enmity between the accused and the deceased due to a property dispute was weak – Evidence showed that PW7, the son of PW1, had a serious altercation with the deceased 15 days before the incident, where the accused had intervened to save the deceased – This raised doubts about the alleged motive of the appellants – The court found the motive unsubstantiated and leaned towards an alternative narrative involving PW7’s enmity with the deceased [Paras 12, 13, 14, 16].

Circumstantial Evidence – Recovery of Wooden Logs – The trial court relied on the recovery of wooden logs allegedly used in the crime, based on the confession of the accused – However, the forensic report (Ex.P27) did not conclusively link the blood stains on the logs to the deceased, as the serology test was inconclusive – The lack of a direct connection between the recovered items and the crime further weakened the prosecution’s case – The court held that the discovery of the wooden logs did not substantiate guilt [Paras 19, 20].

Delay in FIR and Investigation – Appellants raised concerns about the delay in registering the FIR and forwarding it to the Magistrate – Additionally, the involvement of PW7 in informing others about the incident, despite PW1’s contradictory statements regarding the phone call, raised doubts about the sequence of events – The court noted these delays and contradictions as factors contributing to the unreliability of the prosecution’s case [Paras 7, 17, 18].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC set aside – Appellants acquitted – Fine to be refunded – Bail bond cancelled [Para 22].
 

Criminal Law – Murder – Acquittal -Circumstantial Evidence – Requirement of Full Chain of Proof – Benefit of Doubt Given – The appellant challenged his conviction for two murders on the grounds that the prosecution failed to establish the motive and the last seen theory – Held: The prosecution could not prove the essential elements of circumstantial evidence as per the legal standards – Motive was not established, and the testimonies of the last seen witnesses were unreliable – Appellant acquitted [Paras 13-29, 31].

Motive – Failure to Establish – Hostile Witnesses – The prosecution failed to establish the motive for the crime, as the key witnesses, including the alleged paramour, turned hostile – Without proof of motive, the chain of circumstantial evidence was incomplete – Conviction unsustainable [Paras 18-21].

Last Seen Theory – Unreliable Testimonies – Lack of Identification Parade – The prosecution’s last seen theory was based on the testimonies of two witnesses who were related to the deceased – Their identification of the accused was questionable, as no test identification parade was conducted – Held: Witnesses were not wholly reliable, and their testimonies could not be the sole basis for conviction [Paras 24-29].

Recovery of Material Objects – Insufficient to Prove Guilt – Although the recovery of cyanide and other material objects from the accused was established, it was not sufficient to conclude guilt in the absence of a complete chain of circumstantial evidence – Benefit of doubt extended to the accused [Paras 30-31].

Decision: Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellant acquitted of all charges – Directed to be released unless required in another case.
 

Bail – Criminal Jurisprudence – Circumstantial Evidence – Petitioner seeks bail in a case involving circumstantial evidence with no direct evidence linking him to the crime, except a witness of last seen – Court notes that the petitioner has already spent over one year and three months in custody – Petitioner has no prior criminal history, and the only evidence is the last-seen witness, which requires trial for full adjudication – Bail granted as prolonged incarceration without trial would violate the principle of presumption of innocence [Paras 3, 4, 11].

Presumption of Innocence – Right to Bail – Refers to the fundamental principle "Bail is the Rule and Jail is an Exception" established by the Supreme Court – Bail granted on the grounds of the petitioner’s right to liberty and a speedy trial, as per Article 21 of the Constitution – The Court emphasizes that unless it can be shown that the petitioner would interfere with the judicial process or pose a danger, continued detention is not justified [Paras 6–9].

Custodial Period and Trial Progress – Grounds for Bail – Petitioner has been in custody for over a year, and only four out of seventeen prosecution witnesses have been examined – Court observes that the trial is still at an initial stage, and further incarceration would be unnecessary when the petitioner can be released on bail under suitable conditions to prevent tampering with evidence [Paras 11–12].

Decision: Petition allowed – Petitioner granted regular bail upon furnishing a bond to the satisfaction of the concerned trial court – Court observes that any future involvement in similar offenses would lead to the possibility of bail cancellation, and nothing in the current order should affect the merits of the trial [Paras 12–13].

Bail - Hostile Witness – Testimony’s Value – Not Entirely Disregarded – The victim initially incriminated the applicant during her examination-in-chief, but later retracted during cross-examination – Held: Testimony of a hostile witness cannot be wholly disregarded – The court should scrutinize the evidence and rely on parts that remain credible and consistent with the prosecution’s case [Para 7].

Delayed Cross-Examination – Manipulation of Witness – Fair Trial – The victim's cross-examination was deferred by two months, and during this time, the applicant may have influenced the witness – Held: Deferring cross-examination for such a long period without valid reason can lead to manipulation of witnesses, as observed in Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab – A fair trial requires prompt and continuous examination to prevent witness tampering [Paras 8-10].

Bail Denied – Manipulation of Witness and Seriousness of Charges – Given the seriousness of the charges, the manipulation of the victim's testimony, and the circumstances leading to the delay in cross-examination, the court found no grounds to grant bail – Bail application rejected [Paras 10-12].

Decision: Bail application rejected – The court emphasized the seriousness of the charges, potential manipulation of the witness, and the need for a fair trial without interference – The trial court was directed to expedite the trial in accordance with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court [Paras 11-13].

Maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. – Prima Facie Marriage Dispute – Necessity to Establish Valid Marriage – The petitioner denied that the opposite party (Respondent No. 2) was his legally married wife and argued that she was his maid. The petitioner claimed to have been married to another woman since 1979 and provided documentary evidence, including a marriage invitation card and family nomination forms. The trial court erroneously concluded that the marriage was undisputed and awarded interim maintenance – Held: The court below must examine the disputed question of whether the opposite party is the petitioner's legally married wife before granting interim maintenance. The impugned order was set aside [Paras 6-9].

Wife Under Section 125 Cr.P.C. – Legal Definition – Need for Valid Marriage – The term "wife" under Section 125 Cr.P.C. refers to a legally married wife. In cases where the marriage is seriously disputed, the claimant must prima facie establish the existence of a valid marriage before any maintenance order can be made – Held: Prima facie proof of marriage is required even in summary proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The trial court must re-examine the issue after allowing both parties to present evidence [Paras 7-9].

Perverse Finding by Lower Court – Misinterpretation of Disputed Marriage – The trial court erred in holding that the marriage between the petitioner and Respondent No. 2 was undisputed, despite the petitioner's consistent denial and submission of evidence showing an existing marriage with another woman. This finding was perverse – Held: The trial court's order was based on an erroneous conclusion and was set aside [Paras 6, 9].

Opportunity for Fresh Hearing on Maintenance – Directions to Lower Court – The High Court directed the lower court to rehear the application for interim maintenance, allowing both parties to submit documents and evidence regarding the disputed marriage and other issues. The trial court was instructed to pass a fresh order within eight weeks – Held: The lower court must consider the disputed marital relationship and other issues afresh without being influenced by previous findings [Para 9].

Decision – CRR 2554 of 2019 allowed – The interim maintenance order dated 05.04.2019 was set aside, and the case was remanded to the lower court for a fresh hearing. Consequently, CRR 326 of 2024 was also allowed, and the execution proceeding was quashed [Paras 9-11].