Criminal Procedure – Application under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. – Prayer for Further Investigation – Alleged Death by Burn Injuries – Dismissal of Application Challenged – The petitioner sought further investigation into the death of his niece, alleging that her husband (the accused) made a video call to a relative instead of rescuing her while she was ablaze – Investigation was initially directed under Section 304B I.P.C., but the court found Section 304B inapplicable as the death occurred after seven years of marriage – The Investigating Officer did not include charges under Section 302 I.P.C. despite the petitioner’s requests – The Magistrate dismissed the petitioner’s application for further investigation – Held: The Court found that further investigation would not serve any fruitful purpose as the Investigating Officer was already permitted to continue investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. and would file a supplementary charge sheet if necessary [Paras 1, 9]. 

Witness Statements – Conflicting Testimonies – Victim's Statement to Doctor Contradictory – The petitioner alleged that the accused’s conduct during the incident indicated his guilt, while the Investigating Officer relied on statements from doctors and witnesses suggesting the victim set herself ablaze due to marital discord – The attending doctor stated that the victim claimed to have set herself on fire, while other evidence suggested foul play – Held: Discrepancies in witness testimonies do not necessitate further investigation at this stage, but the trial court may consider invoking Section 311 Cr.P.C. to examine witnesses if needed during trial [Paras 6, 7, 8]. 

Consideration of Section 302 I.P.C. during Trial – Although the investigating agency did not add Section 302 I.P.C. in the charge sheet, the trial court is expected to consider all charges, including Section 302 I.P.C., based on the evidence produced during the trial – Held: The trial court shall be at liberty to amend charges if relevant evidence of murder surfaces [Para 10]. 

Decision – Criminal revision application dismissed – Further investigation not required as the Investigating Officer was allowed to continue the investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. – The trial court shall consider the applicability of Section 302 I.P.C. during the trial, and summon additional witnesses under Section 311 Cr.P.C. if necessary [Paras 9, 10, 11]. 

Quashing of FIR – Civil Dispute Presented as Criminal Case – Sections 406 and 420 IPC – Petitioner alleged that the FIR registered by the complainant, claiming non-repayment of ₹70,00,000 lent as a loan, is a civil dispute being framed as a criminal offence – Petitioner contended that the FIR does not disclose fraudulent intent or breach of trust and that the complaint is aimed at recovering a time-barred loan through criminal means – Court held: The dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature, concerning non-repayment of a loan amount, which does not constitute criminal breach of trust or cheating without fraudulent inducement – FIR quashed [Paras 4-6, 14-18].

Criminal Breach of Trust – Section 406 IPC – No Entrustment of Money – The law distinguishes between simple advancement of money and entrustment of money – Court held: In a loan transaction, there is no "entrustment" of money; therefore, no criminal breach of trust under Section 406 IPC is made out in the absence of such entrustment, even if the petitioner fails to repay the loan [Para 10-11].

Cheating – Section 420 IPC – No Fraudulent Inducement – For an offence under Section 420 IPC, fraudulent inducement and mens rea must be present from the beginning of the transaction – Court held: The mere inability of the petitioner to repay the loan amount does not give rise to a criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent intent can be demonstrated from the outset – No such fraudulent intent was evident in this case [Para 12-13].

Decision: FIR quashed – The court found that the FIR and subsequent criminal proceedings initiated were a misuse of the legal process, as the matter was purely civil in nature – Consequently, the petition is allowed, and FIR No. 76/2018, along with all proceedings arising therefrom, is quashed [Paras 18-19].
 

Education Law - University Examination – Scaling Down of Marks – Unlawful Application of Old Regulations – Petition Allowed – The petitioner was declared "fail" in a re-appear examination due to the University's reduction of his marks from 54/80 to 41/60 based on outdated regulations (60:40 ratio) – The Court held that since the petitioner appeared for the examination under the amended regulations (80:20 ratio), the reduction of marks was arbitrary and without legal backing – No provision of law authorized the scaling down, and the University’s reliance on past practices was deemed unjustifiable [Paras 16-20].

Impact on Student's Career – Compensation Awarded – The Court criticized the University's arbitrary actions, noting that they had jeopardized the petitioner’s academic career – As a result, the Court awarded Rs. 1,00,000 in exemplary costs to the petitioner and directed the Vice-Chancellor to take corrective measures within two months [Paras 25-30].

Decision: The petition was allowed. The result was set aside, and the University was directed to declare the petitioner "pass" based on his actual marks (54/80). The petitioner was awarded Rs. 1,00,000 in compensation, and the University was directed to issue his degree within two months.
 

Arbitration – Interim Measures – Invocation of Bank Guarantees – Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – The appellant sought to invoke several bank guarantees provided by the respondent, while the respondent sought a restraint on this action – The Arbitral Tribunal granted an injunction restraining the appellant from invoking the bank guarantees on the grounds of special equities and non-compliance with the terms of the guarantees – The appellant challenged the Tribunal’s decision under Section 37(2)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Held: The Tribunal's decision was upheld as it found that the letters of invocation were not in compliance with the terms of the guarantees, and special equities existed in favor of the respondent, justifying the injunction [Paras 1, 4, 61-112].

Bank Guarantee – Conditional and Unconditional Bank Guarantees – Invocation Requirements – Appellant contended that a bank guarantee (BG) must be invoked according to its terms – If conditional, the invocation must meet specific conditions set out in the BG – If unconditional, injunction against invocation is permissible only under egregious fraud, irretrievable injustice, or special equities – Tribunal justified injunction against invocation on grounds that the letter of invocation did not conform to the BG and special equities existed – Held: BGs were unconditional and letters of invocation were in conformity with BGs, no egregious fraud or irretrievable injustice was shown – Injunction against invocation was not justified [Paras 89-91, 92, 106, 113-114, 128-130, 132].

Principles Governing Bank Guarantees – Precedents Cited – Court referred to Supreme Court judgments including Himadri Chemicals and Vinitec Electronics establishing principles for bank guarantee invocation – Unconditional bank guarantees must be honored by banks irrespective of disputes between parties – Injunction against invocation can be granted only in cases of egregious fraud, irretrievable injustice, or special equities – Fraud must vitiate the entire underlying transaction – Irretrievable injustice must be exceptional, overriding the terms of the guarantee [Paras 94, 24-28, 29-32, 36, 43, 49, 51].

Letters of Invocation – Compliance with Bank Guarantees – Letters of invocation must substantially meet the requirements of the BGs – Tribunal erred by limiting its consideration to specific paragraphs of the letters – Letters included references to termination notices detailing respondent's breaches – The invocation was in accordance with BGs’ stipulations – Subsequent addendum or curative notice can supplement initial defective invocation [Paras 96-110, 112, 113].

Special Equities – Justifying Injunction – Tribunal's decision based on alleged financial distress resulting from invocation lacked empirical evidence – Special equities must be overwhelming and predominate over bank's obligation to honor the BG – In absence of cogent evidence showing irretrievable injustice, special equities cannot justify injunction against invocation – Invocation does not result in irreparable harm to the respondent as restitution remains possible through arbitration [Paras 115-121, 122-124, 130, 131].

Conclusion – Tribunal’s Order Set Aside – Tribunal's findings were unsustainable on facts or in law – No case for injuncting invocation of BGs existed – Requirements of BGs were satisfied in the letters of invocation – No irretrievable injustice or special equities shown – Appeal allowed – Stay on invocation of BGs vacated [Paras 128-130, 132, 142-143].

Leasehold Property – Division and Partition – The Gupta and Jain families acquired a leasehold property on a perpetual lease from the Military Estate Officer – The property was sold to them in two equal undivided shares through two separate Agreements to Sell (ATS) – Held: The perpetual lease did not restrict division or partition of the property, allowing each family to have separate and independent possession – The court ruled that the property could be divided, and the respective portions were always intended to be separate, specific, independent, and exclusive since the purchase in 1983 [Paras 134-142].

Perpetual Lease Deed – Interpretation and Restrictions – Clause 8 of the perpetual lease allowed for assignment, transfer, or sub-lease of the property or any part thereof with mere intimation to the Military Estate Officer – Held: The clause did not prohibit subdivision of the property, and thus, the families were not restricted from dividing the property into distinct portions – The suit property was capable of being sub-divided as per the terms of the lease [Paras 136-140].

Sale Deeds and Supplementary Agreements – Division and Independent Portions – The families executed separate sale deeds and supplementary agreements defining specific portions of the property – The court observed that the ATS, supplementary agreements, and sale deeds indicated the intention for separate sales of independent and distinct areas – Held: The sale deeds executed in 2000 reflected the reality of the division, confirming separate ownership of the North-Eastern and South-Western portions by the Jain and Gupta families, respectively [Paras 150-156].

Construction and Alteration – Unauthorized Construction – The Gupta family was found to have constructed a new outhouse without obtaining requisite sanctions from authorities – The court noted that while the families had independent possession, any construction must comply with the terms of the perpetual lease and obtain necessary permissions – However, this did not affect the ownership of the separate portions [Paras 180-185].

Property Dispute – Partition and Ownership – Dispute between Gupta family and Jain family over the property located at 4 Cavalry Lines, Delhi – Disagreement on whether the property was divided or undivided and the validity of the construction and erection of a partition wall – Held: The suit property was divided into two equal shares, with the Gupta family owning the South West portion and the Jain family owning the North East portion – Agreement to Sell (ATS) executed on 16.09.1983 indicated the division – The purdah wall erected by the Jain family was a physical demarcation of the partitioned areas – Jain family entitled to an injunction against interference by the Gupta family [Paras 158-239].

Construction by Gupta Family – Unauthorized Additions – Evidence showed that the Gupta family expanded their outhouse from 900 sq. ft. to 3010 sq. ft. – Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) declared the construction unauthorized and issued a demolition notice – Additional construction indicated that the Gupta family treated their portion of the property as distinct and separate – Plaintiff witness PW1 testified to the changes in the outhouse but could not confirm specific details due to renovations [Paras 158-159].

Mutation Letters and Lease Rent – Separate Records Indicating Division – Mutation letters from 1985 indicate that the property was mutated in favor of both families, but did not specify distinct areas – The Hon'ble Supreme Court has established that mutation entries do not confer title and are meant for revenue records only – Evidence showed both families were paying lease rent separately from 1985 to 1992, indicating they treated the property as divided – Defense Estates Office records supported the separate payment of lease rents by both families [Paras 160-167].

Purdah Wall and Physical Partition – Erection and Purpose – The Jain family constructed a purdah wall in 1991, claiming it was within their portion of the property – Gupta family argued the wall was for preventing soil erosion and siltage, but could not provide substantive evidence – Court found that the wall, along with a black line running through the verandahs, served as a partition between the properties as per the ATS – No complaints from the Gupta family regarding the wall were recorded, suggesting acceptance of the division [Paras 185-199].

Registered Sale Deeds – Reconfirmation of Partition – Sale deeds executed in favor of the Jain family reconfirmed the division indicated in the ATS – These deeds described the North East half portion in detail, consistent with the area occupied by the Jain family – The court held that these documents were valid and not barred by the doctrine of "Post Litem Motam," which applies to statements or declarations rather than registered sale deeds [Paras 200-214].

Court’s Findings and Relief Granted – Partition Affirmed – The court held that the suit property was divided at the time of the execution of the ATS and that the Jain family occupied the North East portion, while the Gupta family occupied the South West portion – Jain family's suit for a declaration of ownership of the North East portion and for an injunction was granted – The Gupta family was restrained from creating obstacles and interfering in the Jain family's possession and completion of the purdah wall – Gupta family’s suit claiming the property was incapable of partition was dismissed [Paras 221-234].

Decision – Final Orders – The court decreed in favor of the Jain family and dismissed the suit by the Gupta family – No orders as to costs – The court appreciated the assistance provided by the legal teams in disposing of the long-standing dispute [Paras 239].

Negotiable Instruments Act, Section 138 – Joint Account Holder Liability – Quashing of Complaint – Accused was arraigned merely as a joint account holder, not as the drawer or signatory of the dishonored cheque – The cheque was issued by the petitioner's husband in his personal capacity – The petitioner is not liable under Section 138 of the Act in the absence of compliance with Section 141 – Complaint against the petitioner is quashed [Paras 3-7].

Criminal Procedure Code, Section 482 – Abuse of Process of Law – Quashing Proceedings – High Court’s inherent power under Section 482 can be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of the court – The continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner would cause unnecessary harassment – Complaint against the petitioner is set aside to prevent abuse of legal process [Paras 7-9].

Decision – Petition allowed – The impugned proceedings being Criminal Case No. 49143 of 2018 pending in the Court of learned Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Surat, quashed and set aside qua the present petitioner (Accused No. 2) only [Para 9].

NEET Counseling – Refund of Security Deposit – Procedural Remedy – The petitioner participated in the NEET (UG) counseling for the academic session 2022-23 and deposited a security amount of Rs. 2,00,000/-. Despite not being allocated any institution, the petitioner did not receive the refund – Held: The respondent authorities are directed to decide on the petitioner's representation for a refund of the security deposit within six weeks of receiving the certified copy of this order – No objection from respondents [Paras 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6].

Decision: Writ petition disposed of – Respondent No. 2 (Director General, Medical Education and Training U.P., Lucknow) directed to decide the petitioner's representation for the refund of the security deposit dated 03.08.2023 within six weeks [Para 6].

Writ Jurisdiction – Tender Process – Preferential Policy – Petitioner, a micro enterprise registered under Udyam, challenged the tender terms for excluding it from the benefits under Assam Procurement Preference Policy, 2021, and the Procurement Preferential Order, 2017 – Court found that the petitioner did not meet the eligibility requirement of 10 years of existence as stipulated in the tender – Held: Tender terms, including requirements for bidder existence, fall within the domain of the tendering authority and are not arbitrary or unreasonable – Writ jurisdiction should not be exercised to interfere with commercial decisions unless malafide, arbitrariness, or irrationality is proven [Paras 22-28].

Micro & Small Enterprise – Benefits Under Tender – Registered Micro Enterprise ("Udyam") – Petitioner's registration as Udyam is not disputed, allowing for certain concessions in the tender process – However, to avail these benefits, the petitioner must first fulfill the technical eligibility criteria as laid out in the tender document – As the petitioner did not fulfill the 10-year existence clause, the preferential benefits were not applicable [Paras 23, 29].

Judicial Review in Tender Matters – Limited Scope – Evaluating tenders and awarding contracts are commercial functions, and the judiciary should not interfere unless there is evidence of arbitrariness, irrationality, or favoritism – The clause requiring 10 years of existence for bidders is not found to be arbitrary or unreasonable in this context [Paras 25-28].

Decision – Writ petition dismissed – The Court held that the petitioner did not meet the eligibility requirement of 10 years of existence as stipulated in the tender document – The conditions laid out in the tender were within the prerogative of the authority and not arbitrary or unreasonable – Interim order vacated [Paras 29-30].

Criminal Procedure Code, Section 439 – Bail – Third Application – Offences under Sections 498-A, 406, 323, 326A, 302, and 304-B IPC – Accusation of administering acid to the deceased leading to her death – Second bail applications were dismissed with liberty to file afresh – First bail application dismissed as not pressed – Bail granted due to lack of prima facie evidence in postmortem report [Paras 1-12].

Evidence Act, Section 27 – Recovery of Evidence – Recovery of hydrochloric acid bottle based on information provided by the applicant – Postmortem report does not show external or internal injuries indicative of acid administration – Viscera sent for examination to determine the presence of poison – Bail granted considering lack of direct evidence of acid administration causing death [Paras 5-10].

Postmortem Report – No Indication of Acid Administration – The postmortem report did not reveal injuries consistent with acid administration – No external or internal injuries on face, lips, throat, etc. – Viscera sent to ascertain the presence of poison, suggesting no direct evidence of acid-caused injury or burns [Paras 6-10].

Decision – Bail application allowed – Petitioners granted bail due to the absence of prima facie evidence of acid administration in the postmortem report – Applicants to be released on personal bond and sureties [Paras 12-14].