Negotiable Instruments – Presumption of Validity – Burden of Proof – Second Appeal Dismissed – Suit filed for recovery of ₹37,890/- based on a promissory note (Ex.A1) executed by the deceased borrower, Rasappa Gounder – Defendants, legal heirs of the deceased, denied execution and alleged forgery of the promissory note – Trial Court decreed the suit, holding that the plaintiff had proved execution of the promissory note and that the defendants had failed to rebut the presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act – First Appellate Court upheld the decree – Held: Plaintiff’s evidence, including deposition of the attesting witness, proved execution of the promissory note – The defendants failed to discharge the burden of rebutting the presumption – Concurrent findings not perverse – Appeal dismissed [Paras 7–15].

Evidence – Contradictions in Witness Testimony – Materiality – No Substantial Question of Law – Appellant argued that discrepancies between the testimonies of the plaintiff (PW1) and attesting witness (PW2) rendered the findings unsustainable – Held: Minor inconsistencies in the recollection of events occurring 10 years prior to trial do not discredit testimony if the core facts remain corroborated – Both Courts rightly found PW2 credible and identified the signature of the deceased on the promissory note – Appeal dismissed as no substantial question of law arose [Paras 13–15, 16].

Second Appeal – Scope of Section 100 CPC – Substantial Question of Law – Jurisdictional Limits – Appellant contended that concurrent findings of fact were based on irregular appreciation of evidence – Held: High Court in second appeal cannot interfere with findings of fact unless shown to be perverse, based on no evidence, or contrary to law – Concurrent findings of the Courts below were well-reasoned and based on admissible evidence – No substantial question of law arose – Second appeal dismissed [Paras 16, 17].

Decision: The Second Appeal is dismissed. The decree and judgment dated 21/10/2016 passed in A.S. No. 22 of 2016 on the file of the Sub Court, Avinashi, and the decree and judgment dated 29/02/2008 passed in O.S. No. 19 of 2005 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Avinashi, are upheld. No costs.
 

Suo Motu - Digital Arrest Scams – Modus Operandi – Psychological Manipulation and Technology Exploitation – Scammers posing as law enforcement officials deceive victims into believing they are under "digital arrest" for alleged crimes – Fraudsters employ psychological tactics like fear, urgency, and isolation while exploiting tools such as AI to mimic voices and counterfeit documents – Victims are coerced into paying money under threat of arrest – Held: These scams have no legal standing in India, and comprehensive measures are required to address this menace [Paras 2-7, 26].

International Best Practices – Collaborative Efforts – Legal and Technological Innovations to Combat Cybercrime – Various countries like Singapore, Australia, and the USA have adopted advanced technologies, public awareness campaigns, and legislative measures to combat such scams – Examples include AI-driven call blocking in Singapore and joint operations by INTERPOL and EUROPOL – Held: India must learn from these global practices to adopt robust measures for preventing digital arrest scams [Paras 10, 23].

Role of Government Agencies – Steps Taken and Directions Issued – Agencies such as I4C under the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), Reserve Bank of India (RBI), and State Governments have taken steps to address cybercrimes, including creating cybercrime hotlines, public awareness campaigns, and blocking fraudulent accounts – Directed: MHA and State Governments must submit detailed reports on steps taken to curb digital arrest scams – RBI and financial institutions must develop mechanisms to stop payments to scammers upon complaints [Paras 13-28].

Public Awareness Campaigns – Essential for Prevention – Court emphasized the need for mass awareness campaigns through print, electronic, and social media, as well as radio and television, to educate citizens about the non-existence of digital arrests in Indian law – Directed: Daily public campaigns must highlight that digital arrests are scams, and citizens should report such incidents immediately [Paras 9, 26].

Legal Framework and Financial Safeguards – Strengthening Mechanisms to Combat Fraud – Emphasized the use of Section 63 of BNSS for secure and verified electronic summons – Directed: RBI and National Payment Corporation of India (NPCI) to develop mechanisms to block fraudulent transactions upon receiving complaints – Importance of financial institutions acting promptly to safeguard victims’ funds [Paras 27-28].

Directions and Notices Issued – Multi-Stakeholder Coordination – Suo motu case registered, and notices issued to Union and State Governments, Reserve Bank of India, and other key agencies to file their responses on combating digital arrest scams – Directed: Central and State Governments to coordinate and take necessary steps to address the issue holistically – Matter referred to Hon’ble Chief Justice for listing before an appropriate Bench [Paras 29-33].
 

Criminal Proceedings – Abuse of Process – Delay in Complaint – Section 498A IPC – FIR Quashed – The wife alleged cruelty and harassment but filed the complaint three and a half years after the alleged incidents – No explanation was provided for the delay – Multiple legal proceedings were initiated by the wife after failed settlement talks – Held: FIR lacked essential ingredients of Section 498A IPC and was an abuse of process of law [Paras 12-21].

Matrimonial Dispute – Retaliatory FIR – No Prima Facie Case – FIR Quashed – The husband’s FIR against the wife and her family alleged extortion and cheating based on maintenance claims – Held: Seeking maintenance through legal proceedings cannot be classified as extortion or cheating – No prima facie case was made out under Sections 420, 406, 403, 109, 384, or 34 IPC – FIR quashed [Paras 22-23].

Delay in Filing Criminal Complaint – Malafide Intent – Proceedings Initiated as Counterblast to Matrimonial Dispute – The FIR under Section 498A IPC was lodged years after the alleged acts, only after mediation talks failed – No allegations of demand for dowry were made – Held: Complaint was filed with an ulterior motive to harass the husband – FIR quashed [Paras 17-19].

Judicial Review – Quashing of FIR – Scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C. – High Court can quash proceedings if allegations in FIR do not constitute an offence – Held: The FIRs in both cases were maliciously instituted in a matrimonial dispute and did not disclose any cognizable offence – Quashing justified [Paras 20-22].

Legal Maintenance – Not Extortion – No Criminal Offence in Seeking Maintenance – The husband alleged that the wife obtained maintenance through fraudulent means – Held: Legal maintenance orders cannot be equated with extortion – FIR under Sections 420 and 384 IPC quashed [Paras 22-23].

Decision: Writ Petition No. 28591 of 2023 filed by the husband is allowed, and the FIR in Crime No. 295/2023 registered under Sections 498A and 506 IPC, pending before the 7th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, is quashed. Writ Petition No. 3809 of 2024 filed by the wife is also allowed, and the FIR in Crime No. 176/2023 registered under Sections 420, 406, 403, 109, 384, and 34 IPC, pending before the 6th Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mangalore, is quashed. It is made clear that the observations made in this order are only for the purpose of quashing the FIRs under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and shall not influence any pending civil proceedings between the parties.
 

Criminal Law - Matrimonial Dispute – Quashing of FIR Under Section 498A IPC – Abuse of Process of Law – The wife filed an FIR under Section 498A and 506 IPC against the husband three years after the alleged incidents of cruelty – The complaint lacked specific allegations of dowry harassment or cruelty, and was filed immediately after failed settlement discussions – Held: The FIR was a retaliatory action rather than a genuine case of cruelty – No prima facie offence under Section 498A IPC was made out – Complaint quashed [Paras 12-19].

Retaliatory FIR by Husband – Allegations of Cheating and Extortion – No Criminal Offence Made Out – The husband filed an FIR under Sections 420, 406, 403, 109, 384, and 34 IPC against the wife, alleging that she fraudulently obtained maintenance by filing false affidavits – Held: Seeking maintenance through legal proceedings does not amount to cheating or extortion – No offence made out under IPC – Complaint quashed [Paras 22-23].

Delay in Filing Complaint – Absence of Explanation – FIR Under Section 498A IPC Quashed – The wife alleged that she discovered her husband’s illicit activities on 15-06-2020 but filed the FIR only on 08-10-2023, without providing a reasonable explanation for the delay – The complaint was filed immediately after the failure of divorce settlement talks – Held: The delay raised serious doubts about the bona fides of the allegations – Proceedings quashed [Paras 13-18].

Multiple Legal Proceedings by Wife – Malicious Prosecution – Abuse of Judicial Process – The wife filed seven legal proceedings against the husband, including complaints under Section 498A IPC, Domestic Violence Act, maintenance proceedings under Section 125 CrPC, and a civil suit for judicial separation – Held: Filing multiple cases in quick succession suggests misuse of law for personal vendetta – Courts must prevent criminal law from being used as a weapon in matrimonial disputes – FIR quashed [Paras 20-21].

Legal Maintenance Cannot Be Construed as Extortion – No Offence Under Sections 420, 406 IPC – The husband alleged that the wife extorted money from him through maintenance proceedings and falsely declared her financial status – Held: Court-ordered maintenance payments cannot be considered extortion or cheating – The husband's allegations did not constitute a criminal offence – FIR quashed [Paras 22-23].

Judicial Precedents Against Misuse of Section 498A IPC Applied – The Court relied on Supreme Court judgments in Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana (2024 SCC OnLine SC 759), Abhishek v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2023 SCC OnLine SC 1083), and Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Telangana (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3682) – These judgments emphasized that false and belated complaints under Section 498A IPC should be quashed to prevent the misuse of criminal law – FIR quashed [Paras 18-21].

Decision: Both writ petitions allowed – FIRs quashed – Criminal proceedings terminated.

Service Law – Temporary Employees – Right to Continue Till Work Exists – The petitioners, engaged as temporary employees in various judicial districts of Punjab, sought regularization of their services – The Court noted that while regularization had been rejected in similar cases (Bikramjit Singh v. State of Punjab, 2019), the petitioners had been continuously working without any interim relief – Held: Petitioners to be allowed to continue working till their posts exist, subject to satisfactory performance [Paras 1-5].

Replacement by Another Temporary Employee – Prohibited – The respondents were directed not to replace the petitioners with another set of temporary employees on similar terms – However, the Court clarified that regular employees could be appointed against these posts as per law – Held: Temporary employees cannot be replaced by another set of temporary employees, ensuring continuity of employment [Paras 6-7].

Maternity Leave – Unlawful Termination – Reinstatement Ordered – One of the petitioners, Balvir Kaur, was terminated while on maternity leave – The Court held that curtailing sanctioned maternity leave to terminate service was illegal and violative of employment rights – Held: Petitioner entitled to salary for the entire maternity leave period, and termination would take effect only after completion of maternity leave [Paras 8].

Petitions Disposed Of – The Court refused to grant regularization but allowed continued employment till work exists – Specific relief granted to petitioner Balvir Kaur for wrongful curtailment of maternity leave – Held: Arrears of salary for maternity leave to be paid within eight weeks; no interim relief for others seeking regularization [Paras 10].

Landlord-Tenant Dispute – Recovery of Possession – Arrears of Rent – Suit Allowed – Plaintiff, a registered Sangam, sought recovery of possession of a marriage hall and movables (furniture and utensils) leased to the defendant, along with arrears of rent, damages, and mesne profits – Defendant admitted tenancy but failed to pay fair rent fixed by the Rent Control Tribunal and did not vacate the premises despite termination notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act – Held: Plaintiff proved ownership and entitlement to possession through oral and documentary evidence – Defendant failed to rebut claims of arrears or establish the existence of a valid lease – Civil suit allowed with costs, ordering ejectment and payment of arrears and damages [Paras 18–24].

Fair Rent – Use and Occupation – Damages and Interest Awarded – Plaintiff claimed arrears of ₹2,17,000/- for the period 01/06/2021 to 10/04/2022 and sought damages of ₹1,50,000/- per month for unauthorized use and occupation of immovable and movable properties – Defendant failed to prove payment of rent or justify continued possession – Held: Fair rent of ₹1,00,000/- per month for the building, as fixed by the Rent Control Tribunal in prior proceedings, accepted as damages for unauthorized occupation – Additional rent of ₹25,000/- for movables allowed – Plaintiff entitled to arrears with 6% interest and mesne profits [Paras 23–24].

Lease Agreement – Termination Notice – Applicability of Rent Control Act – Lease initially governed by written agreements, later continued orally after expiry in 2010 – Rent Control proceedings initiated by both parties were nullified on technical grounds as the lease was composite (building and movables) – Plaintiff subsequently issued termination notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act – Held: Termination notice valid, and defendant had no right to continue possession post-expiry of the lease [Paras 20–23].

Procedural Delays – Defendant’s Conduct – Applications to Reopen Evidence Dismissed – Defendant sought to reopen and recall plaintiff's witness after multiple opportunities were granted for cross-examination – Defendant repeatedly delayed proceedings and failed to file evidence or produce documents despite adjournments – Held: Defendant’s conduct amounted to abuse of process, justifying rejection of applications to reopen evidence – Plaintiff’s evidence remained uncontroverted [Paras 17, 19].

Decision: The Civil Suit is allowed with costs - Defendant directed to vacate and deliver possession of the schedule ‘A’ property (immovable property) and return the schedule ‘B’ property (movables) to the plaintiff immediately - Defendant directed to pay ₹2,17,000/- as arrears of rent for the period 01/06/2021 to 10/04/2022, with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the suit till realization - Defendant directed to pay ₹1,50,000/- per month (₹1,25,000/- for the immovable property and ₹25,000/- for the movables) from the date of the suit till delivery of possession.
 

Service Law – Discrimination in Allowances – Parity with Police Personnel – Violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution – Writ Petition Allowed – Petitioners, Warders and Head Warders under the Home (Jail) Department, were initially granted Kit Maintenance Allowance and Ration Money Allowance under the 15th June 2017 notification, similar to police, fire, and forest personnel – However, subsequent enhancement of these allowances for police personnel was not extended to them – The matter was reviewed in a meeting chaired by the Chief Minister on 7th October 2021, wherein uniformity in allowances was recommended – Despite this, the Finance Department, Govt. of Tripura, rejected the proposal without assigning any reason – Held: Such exclusion is illegal, arbitrary, and discriminatory, violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution – Direction issued to extend the revised allowance benefits to all Warders and Head Warders with immediate effect [Paras 8-11] – Writ petition allowed.

Service Law – Retrospective Benefits – Claim for Arrears – Rejected – Petitioners sought arrears of enhanced allowances from 18/01/2020 and 26/04/2022 – Court held that since they approached belatedly, they were not entitled to arrears – However, direction issued for future implementation by February 2025 [Paras 12-14] – Held: No arrears shall be granted, but enhanced benefits to be implemented prospectively – Writ petition partly allowed.

Decision: Writ Petition Allowed with Directions – Government directed to extend revised Kit/Dress Allowances (₹7,500/- per annum) and Ration Money Allowance (₹2,000/- per month) to all Warders and Head Warders by end of February 2025 – No arrears granted as petitioners approached belatedly – Judgment declared as Judgment in rem, ensuring benefits to all similarly situated personnel [Paras 15-16].

Criminal Law – Quashing - Cheating and Money Laundering – Ingredients Not Satisfied – The Applicants challenged the issuance of process under the PMLA and IPC, arguing that no criminal act was involved and the dispute arose solely due to delays in obtaining an Occupation Certificate (OC). The Court held that the contractual obligations between the parties were fulfilled, barring minor unfinished works, and payments were made as per mutual agreement. The dispute was deemed civil, not criminal. – Held: No cheating or money laundering established; process quashed. [Paras 17–38]

Territorial Jurisdiction – Invalid Order by Metropolitan Magistrate, Andheri – The Court found that the Metropolitan Magistrate, Andheri, lacked territorial jurisdiction, as the transactions and subject premises were situated in Malad. The complainant’s alleged meeting at Hotel Orchid, Vile Parle, was an afterthought to bring the case within the jurisdiction of Vile Parle Police Station. – Held: Orders passed by Andheri Magistrate and actions by Vile Parle Police Station null and void. [Paras 42.3–42.7]

Prevention of Money Laundering Act – Absence of Proceeds of Crime – The Enforcement Directorate’s claim of "proceeds of crime" was rejected, as the amounts received by the Applicants were payments under contractual agreements that were substantially fulfilled. The Court criticized the ED for failing to consider evidence of compliance with agreements and acting without due diligence. – Held: No proceeds of crime or money laundering; ED’s attachment order set aside. [Paras 16–39]

Civil Nature of Dispute – Abuse of Process – The Court observed that the dispute was purely contractual, concerning delay in possession due to lack of an OC. The complainant filed civil suits for recovery of amounts, reinforcing the civil nature of the case. Criminal proceedings were deemed a misuse of the legal process. – Held: Criminal proceedings quashed; exemplary costs imposed on complainant and ED. [Paras 36–42.10]

Decision: Criminal proceedings quashed. Process issued under IPC and PMLA is set aside. Attachment of properties by ED is cancelled. Exemplary costs imposed on the complainant and ED.
 

Service Law – Promotion During Punishment Period – Eligibility Criteria – The respondent was awarded a penalty of stoppage of two increments for 30 months ending on 16.12.2017—The appellant bank reverted his promotion on the ground that he was ineligible on the date of initial promotion (14.08.2017)—Held: While an employee cannot be promoted during the currency of a penalty, once the penalty period ends, he is entitled to fresh consideration—The Promotion Committee must reassess his case based on his record as of 17.12.2017—Bank’s action of denying him promotion thereafter was unjustified—Single Judge’s order modified [Paras 25-27].

Promotion Policy – Prospective Application of New Rules – Applicability to Past Cases – The appellant relied on its 2018-19 Promotion Policy, which set 1st April as the cut-off date for eligibility—Held: The said policy was introduced prospectively and was inapplicable to promotions for 2017-18—The eligibility for promotions prior to 2018-19 must be assessed under the policy applicable at that time—Single Judge correctly held that the respondent should have been considered post 17.12.2017 [Paras 22-23].

Sexual Harassment Inquiry – Impact on Promotion – Validity of Reversion – The respondent was penalized based on a sexual harassment inquiry before the merger of his bank with SBI—After promotion, he was reverted on the ground that his punishment period was still active—Held: Though punishment bars promotion during its subsistence, a fresh consideration after its expiry was necessary—The bank’s decision to disregard the respondent’s promotion eligibility for subsequent years was arbitrary and violative of service rules [Paras 4-6, 27].

Judicial Interference in Promotion Matters – Scope of Court’s Power – Courts should not directly grant promotions but can direct reconsideration—Held: The High Court erred in granting promotion w.e.f. 17.12.2017—Instead, the bank must now assess the respondent’s case for promotion from that date, ignoring the expired penalty—Promotion, if granted, will carry only notional benefits without arrears [Paras 28-29].

Decision: Impugned order modified – The respondent's promotion w.e.f. 17.12.2017 is set aside – The appellant bank directed to reconsider his case for promotion from that date, ignoring the penalty – If found fit, promotion shall be granted with notional pay fixation but no arrears – Compliance to be ensured within three months – Appeal disposed of accordingly [Paras 29-31].