Criminal Law – Dowry Death – Appeal Against Acquittal – Deceased wife allegedly harassed for dowry and committed suicide by fire – Trial Court acquitted husband and in-laws under Section 304B IPC citing contradictions between witness statements and dying declaration – High Court held that dying declaration lacked any mention of dowry harassment – Close relatives and neighbours did not support prosecution – No perversity or illegality found in trial court’s reasoning – Appeal dismissed [Paras 3, 17, 24, 27-30, 34]

Dying Declaration – Evidentiary Value – Deceased suffered 95% burns but gave dying declaration recorded by Magistrate – Declaration lacked material allegation of dowry demand – Witnesses gave inconsistent versions – Court held that declaration cannot be sole basis for conviction when not corroborated – Suspicion cannot replace proof in criminal law – Trial Court justified in treating it as inconclusive [Paras 17-20, 25-27]

Criminal Procedure – Section 164 Cr.P.C. Statements – Statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. during investigation are not substantive evidence – Cannot be used as sole basis for conviction – Only usable for corroboration or contradiction – Court rightly held that reliance on such statements without oath-bound testimony in court was impermissible [Paras 21, 24]

Appeal Against Acquittal – Scope of Interference – Principles reaffirmed that appellate court must not interfere with acquittal unless findings are perverse or unreasonable – Presumption of innocence strengthened by acquittal – No compelling evidence warranting reversal – Trial Court’s view found to be reasonable and based on full appreciation of record – Appeal dismissed [Paras 12-14, 29-34]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Order of acquittal passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Srikakulam in Sessions Case No. 38 of 2006 confirmed.

Criminal Law – Quashing - Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – Predicate/Scheduled Offence – Closure Report Accepted – Effect – Continuation of PMLA Proceedings – ECIR registered by ED, Kolkata was admittedly founded on two Kolkata FIRs treated as scheduled offences – Both FIRs culminated in final/closure reports on the ground of mistake of fact and such closure reports were accepted by the jurisdictional Magistrate – Held: Once the scheduled offence stands negated by acceptance of closure report, the very foundation of “proceeds of crime” under Section 2(1)(u) PMLA disappears and PMLA proceedings cannot survive so long as such acceptance is not set aside [Paras 19–21, 30–32, 36–41].

Money Laundering – Proceeds of Crime – Meaning and Scope – Section 2(1)(u) PMLA – Proceeds of crime must be property derived or obtained “as a result of” criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence – Explanation added in 2019 is clarificatory and does not enlarge the scope of the main provision – In absence of a subsisting scheduled offence, attached/freezed properties cannot continue to be treated as proceeds of crime [Paras 21–22, 43–45].

PMLA Proceedings – Dependency on Predicate Offence – Reiterating Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, held that PMLA is not a stand-alone regime divorced from the scheduled offence – Acceptance of closure report stands on the same footing as quashing, discharge or acquittal for the purpose of survival of PMLA proceedings – Liberty to revive proceedings can be granted only if the predicate offence is revived in accordance with law [Paras 30–31, 55].

ECIR – Nature – Internal Document – Limits of ED’s Power – Though ECIR is an internal administrative document and multiple FIRs may be investigated under one ECIR, ED cannot continue or resurrect an ECIR when its sole predicate offences have ceased to exist – Inclusion of a different predicate offence at a later stage, when original scheduled offences stand closed, is impermissible [Paras 32–33, 54].

Multiple PMLA Proceedings – Same Predicate Offence – Bar – Kochi CBI charge-sheet (DV-1/2014) was already the subject-matter of an independent ECIR and prosecution complaint pending before the Special PMLA Court at Kochi – Attempt to rely upon the same CBI charge-sheet to sustain a separate PMLA prosecution in Kolkata amounts to impermissible second cognizance on the same predicate offence – Such dual proceedings are barred in law [Paras 41–47].

Section 66(2) PMLA – Scope – Section 66(2) contemplates sharing of information for registration of a new scheduled offence or further investigation – Mere sharing of information does not crystallize a scheduled offence nor revive a non-existent predicate offence – Unless property qualifies as “proceeds of crime”, Section 66(2) cannot sustain PMLA action [Paras 49–53].

Reason to Believe – Provisional Attachment – Formation of “reason to believe” under Section 5 PMLA must be founded on tangible material and a live nexus with a subsisting scheduled offence – After acceptance of closure report, belief regarding existence of proceeds of crime becomes untenable and cannot be sustained on suspicion or conjecture [Paras 37–39].

Decision – Quashment – ECIR No. KLZO-I/22/2021 and ML Case No. 15 of 2023 quashed – Liberty reserved to ED to seek revival if closure reports in predicate FIRs are set aside or fresh legitimate grounds arise in accordance with law [Para 55].

Criminal Law – Dishonour of Cheque – Directors’ Liability – Quashing of Complaint – Petitioners sought quashing of criminal proceedings initiated under Sections 138/141 of the NI Act on ground that no specific role was attributed to them in the complaint – Held: Mere reproduction of statutory language not sufficient – Complaint must aver how each director was in charge of or responsible for the conduct of business at the relevant time – Failure to do so is fatal – Petitioners Nos. 1 and 4 had resigned prior to the alleged offence and such resignation was accepted as per Form-32 – Continuation of proceedings against them is an abuse of process [Paras 9, 10, 11, 15, 17, 18]

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Reason for Dishonour – ‘Other Reasons’ – Held: Dishonour for “other reasons” does not constitute an offence under Section 138 NI Act, which requires dishonour for insufficiency of funds or exceeding arrangement – Complaint unsustainable on this ground alone [Para 10]

Company Law – Winding Up Order – Effect – Company under liquidation – Order for winding up passed prior to the institution of the complaint – Held: No proceedings can be continued against company once Official Liquidator is appointed – Complaint against company and its directors not maintainable in such scenario [Para 16]

Vicarious Liability – Directors – Specific Averments Mandatory – Multiple Supreme Court precedents reiterated that vicarious liability of directors under Section 141 NI Act cannot arise without clear and specific averments about their role – A director is not deemed liable solely because of designation – Liability must be based on factual assertions [Paras 11–14]

Decision: CRR allowed – Complaint Case No. C-824 of 2011 pending before the Learned 4th Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta is quashed – Proceedings against petitioners under Sections 138/141 NI Act set aside [Paras 20–21]

Arbitration – Jurisdiction – Statutory Arbitration – National Highways Act – Section 3-G(5), Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 42 – Petitioner NHAI contended that Section 34 petition filed by landowners challenging award of arbitrator should lie before District Judge, Mandi, as arbitrator was Divisional Commissioner, Mandi – Held: Notification under Section 3-G(5) merely specifies territorial jurisdiction of arbitrator and does not designate “seat” of arbitration – Office location or venue of hearings at Mandi does not ipso facto constitute seat of arbitration – Neither parties nor arbitrator fixed seat – In absence of designated seat, court where first application under Part I was filed (Bilaspur) would have exclusive jurisdiction under Section 42 – District Judge Bilaspur rightly retained jurisdiction [Paras 11–16, 22–23].

Arbitration – Seat vs Venue – Interpretation of “Place” under Section 20 – Juridical Seat – Mandi not fixed as seat – Mere fact that arbitrator holds office or conducts hearings in Mandi does not confer status of “seat” – Reference made to Bharat Aluminium Co. v. Kaiser Aluminium and BGS SGS SOMA JV v. NHPC – Held: Seat of arbitration is the legal anchor of arbitration, and once chosen, confers exclusive jurisdiction – In present case, no agreement or determination regarding seat made – Thus, “Mandi” was only the venue and not the seat of arbitration [Paras 12–16].

Arbitration – Section 42 – First Application Rule – Exclusive Jurisdiction – Where Section 34 petition filed first – Respondents (landowners) filed Section 34 petitions before District Judge, Bilaspur prior in time to petitions filed by NHAI before District Judge, Mandi – As per Section 42, once an application is made in a “court” under Part I of the Act, that court alone has jurisdiction for all subsequent applications – Held: Bilaspur court has exclusive jurisdiction – Petitions by NHAI seeking transfer to Mandi court are devoid of merit [Paras 17–23].

Arbitration – Court under Section 2(1)(e) – Principal Civil Court of Original Jurisdiction – Applicability of Section 42 – District Judge, Bilaspur is a “court” under Section 2(1)(e) – Once Section 34 application was validly filed there, no subsequent application could be filed before Mandi court – Petitioner’s Section 34 application before Mandi filed after respondents’ application in Bilaspur – Held: District Judge Bilaspur had valid and exclusive jurisdiction [Paras 21–23].

National Highways Act – Section 3-G Arbitration – Applicability of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 3-G(6) expressly applies Arbitration Act, 1996 to arbitrations under National Highways Act – Section 2(4) of Arbitration Act also deems statutory arbitrations under any enactment, including National Highways Act, to be governed by Part I of the Arbitration Act – Hence, Section 34 and Section 42 apply in full to such statutory arbitrations [Paras 2–7].

Decision: All petitions dismissed – Impugned order dated 28.06.2025 passed by District Judge, Bilaspur upheld – District Judge, Bilaspur has exclusive jurisdiction to entertain and decide all applications arising out of the arbitral proceedings – Mandi court has no jurisdiction in view of first application rule under Section 42 – Miscellaneous applications also dismissed. [Para 24]

Criminal Law – Bail – Cancellation – Anticipatory bail granted by Sessions Judge and confirmed by ACJM in serious offence of abduction and murder – Opposite party, a WBCS officer, allegedly masterminded the act using official vehicle and position – High Court held that anticipatory bail was granted without considering gravity of offence and role of accused – Bail cancelled [Paras 12-17]

Criminal Procedure – Section 438 CrPC and Section 483 BNSS – Jurisdiction of Court – Objection raised by accused that the matter was not listed before the correct Bench – Held: Issue of cancellation of bail rightly referred to Court exercising powers under Section 439 CrPC, as anticipatory bail stands exhausted once the accused surrenders and is granted bail – Court competent to adjudicate [Paras 15-16]

Evidentiary Material – Ocular and Electronic Evidence – Case diary revealed multiple eyewitnesses identifying accused in act of abduction, assault, and concealment of body – CCTV footage and post-mortem report corroborate – Affidavit by injured eyewitness recorded under Section 164 CrPC – Role of accused held to be principal and premeditated [Paras 11-13]

Judicial Discretion – Exercise of Bail Jurisdiction – Sessions Court granted anticipatory bail solely on the ground that accused is a government officer – ACJM mechanically followed Sessions order without independent reasoning – Held: Bail orders passed without application of mind and in ignorance of relevant facts are perverse and liable to be set aside [Paras 14, 17]

Court Procedure – Affidavit Irregularity – Affidavit submitted by State was blank in material parts and still affirmed by Commissioner – Court imposed cost of ₹10,000 on Oath Commissioner for gross negligence – Registrar directed to recover the same [Para 18]

Decision: Impugned orders dated 26.11.2025 (Sessions Court) and 29.11.2025 (ACJM) set aside – Bail cancelled – Accused directed to surrender within 72 hours – Cost imposed on Oath Commissioner.

Arbitration Law – Section 37 Appeal – Scope of Appellate Interference – Appeal against order setting aside arbitral award under Section 34 A&C Act – Appellate Court’s jurisdiction confined to examining whether Section 34 Court acted within its limited mandate – No reappreciation of evidence permissible – Interference justified only if arbitral award suffers from patent illegality or perversity [Paras 26–31].

Arbitral Award – Patent Illegality – Test for Interference – Domestic arbitral award can be set aside if findings are perverse, irrational, based on no evidence, or ignore vital evidence – Award cannot be interfered with merely because another view is possible – Courts cannot substitute their own view for that of arbitrator [Paras 28–29].

Partnership Dispute – Retirement of Partner – Burden of Proof – Appellant admitted signatures on Retirement Deed dated 19.01.2010 and Form V filed before Registrar of Firms – Case of appellant founded on allegation of signing blank papers – Arbitrator failed to return categorical finding that blank documents were signed and later fabricated – Absence of such finding fatal to appellant’s claim [Paras 33–37].

Evidence – Signed Documents – Allegation of Fabrication – Retirement Deed executed on stamped paper purchased on same date – Form V being pre-printed statutory form – No finding of manipulation, fabrication, fraud or printing after signatures – Arbitrator misdirected himself by relying on extraneous circumstances instead of deciding core issue [Paras 36–37].

Partnership Deed – Clause on Determination – Misinterpretation by Arbitrator – Clause requiring three months’ notice applicable to dissolution of partnership at will – Not applicable to consensual retirement of partner through Retirement Deed – Arbitrator’s finding treating notice as mandatory for retirement held erroneous and contrary to contract [Paras 49–50].

Arbitration – Reappreciation of Evidence – Limits – Learned Single Judge correctly held that arbitrator ignored admitted documents and proceeded on conjectures – Arbitrator’s approach found patently illegal and perverse – Setting aside of award under Section 34 upheld [Paras 36–38].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Impugned order dated 20.05.2022 setting aside arbitral award sustained – No patent illegality in Section 34 order – No order as to costs.

Motor Accident Compensation – Injury Case – Double Amputation – Enhancement of Compensation – Appellant, a Diploma Mechanical Engineer employed as Foreman, suffered amputation of both legs due to rash and negligent driving of insured tipper truck – Tribunal awarded compensation by treating loss of earning capacity at only 20% – High Court found approach erroneous and contrary to settled law – Held: Double amputation attracts permanent total disablement under Schedule I of Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 [Paras 24–26].

Permanent Disability vs Functional Disability – Assessment – Though medical disability assessed at 100%, functional disability assessed at 60% considering appellant’s educational qualifications, artificial limbs and residual capacity – Tribunal erred in mechanically reducing disability to 20% – Functional disability must be assessed with reference to nature of employment and loss of earning capacity [Paras 19, 25–26].

Loss of Future Earning – Application of Multiplier – Annual income assessed at ₹4,23,612/- without impermissible deduction of professional tax – Addition of 40% towards future prospects applicable even in injury cases – Multiplier of 15 applied as per Sarla Verma – Held: Loss of future earning correctly computed after applying functional disability [Paras 21–28, 34].

Future Prospects – Injury Cases – Applicability – Compensation for future prospects not confined to death cases – Claimant suffering permanent disability also entitled to future prospects – Reliance placed on Pranay Sethi and Pappu Deo Yadav – Tribunal erred in denying such benefit [Paras 27–28].

Employees’ Compensation Act – Relevance in Motor Accident Claims – By virtue of Second Schedule of Motor Vehicles Act, Schedule I of Employees’ Compensation Act applicable to determine percentage of loss of earning capacity – Double amputation treated as 100% loss of earning capacity statutorily [Paras 23–24].

Loss of Income During Treatment – Appellant hospitalised for 73 days – Loss of income during treatment period awarded separately – Tribunal’s computation upheld on this aspect [Paras 21–22].

Attendant Charges – Mode of Computation – Attendant charges need not always be calculated by multiplier method – Where claimant not in vegetative state and has artificial limbs, lump sum compensation justified – Kajal v. Jagdish Chand applied contextually [Paras 29–31].

Cost of Artificial Limbs – Maintenance and Future Expenses – Artificial limbs require periodic replacement and maintenance – Claimant cannot be compelled to initiate future litigation – One-time compensation awarded towards maintenance and future expenses [Paras 32].

Pain and Suffering – Loss of Amenities – Severe permanent disability at young age causes lifelong deprivation of normal enjoyment of life – Compensation must reflect physical, mental and emotional trauma – Substantial amount awarded under pain and suffering, loss of amenities and expectation of life [Paras 33–34].

Just Compensation – Section 168 MV Act – Compensation must be realistic, humane and not illusory – Courts must attempt to restore claimant as far as money can – Tribunal’s award held grossly inadequate and enhanced substantially [Paras 17–18, 35].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Tribunal award modified – Total compensation enhanced to ₹75,23,346/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from date of claim petition – Enhanced amount payable within three months – No order as to costs.

Writ Jurisdiction – Direction for Registration of FIR – Housing Project Dispute – Petitioners sought directions under Article 226 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. for investigation by CVC/CBI and registration of FIR against NBCC and its joint venture partner for alleged violations of statutory directions, poor construction, misappropriation of funds and cheating – Held: High Court in writ jurisdiction does not ordinarily direct registration of FIR, particularly where allegations arise out of contractual and commercial disputes requiring factual adjudication [Paras 1, 31–33].

Criminal Law – Distinction between Civil Disputes and Criminal Offences – Allegations primarily related to delay in construction, quality of construction, lack of amenities, maintenance issues, non-formation of RWA and unilateral levy of charges – Such issues held to be essentially civil in nature arising from contractual obligations between builder and allottees – Criminal colour cannot be imparted merely by alleging cheating or fraud without clear prima facie criminal intent [Paras 28–30].

Writ Jurisdiction – Article 226 – Disputed Questions of Fact – Petition involved disputed factual issues concerning compliance with NOCs, construction standards, environmental norms and maintenance obligations – Held: Such disputed questions cannot be adjudicated in writ proceedings and require evidence – Writ petition not maintainable [Paras 29–30].

Alternate Remedies – Availability under Statutory Law – Court held that Petitioners have efficacious alternate remedies under Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate for alleged cognizable offences and before civil courts, consumer fora or regulatory authorities for grievances relating to construction defects, delay, amenities and maintenance – Writ jurisdiction declined [Para 32].

Direction to Investigating Agencies – Limits of Judicial Review – Prayer for court-monitored investigation by CBI/CVC rejected – Held: Extraordinary writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to bypass statutory remedies or convert civil disputes into criminal proceedings [Paras 31–33].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – No direction for registration of FIR or investigation issued – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 33–34].

Criminal Law – Appeal against Acquittal – Scope of Interference – State challenged acquittal of respondents for offences under Sections 323/427/308/506/34 IPC – High Court reiterated that interference with acquittal is permissible only when findings are perverse or manifestly illegal – Trial Court’s view found to be a plausible view based on evidence – Held: No ground made out to interfere with acquittal [Paras 20, 52, 60–61].

Criminal Trial – Identity of Accused – Doubtful Identification – Incident occurred at night and complainant and eye-witness were under the influence of alcohol – Names of assailants not known immediately and disclosed only subsequently on suggestion of third person – DD entry recorded assault by 4–5 persons whereas FIR named only two accused – Serious doubt regarding identity of assailants – Benefit of doubt rightly extended to accused [Paras 41–52].

Evidence – Testimony of Injured and Eye-witness – Contradictions and Inconsistencies – PW-3 and PW-4 gave inconsistent versions regarding arrest of accused, preparation of documents, and presence at spot – Arrest memos did not bear signatures of eye-witnesses – Site plan not signed by complainant – Prosecution version rendered unreliable on material particulars [Paras 30, 53–55].

Investigation – Non-Examination of Material Witnesses – PCR officials were first to reach the spot and allegedly apprehended one accused – PCR officials neither cited nor examined as prosecution witnesses – Failure to examine best available witnesses caused serious dent in prosecution case [Paras 39–40].

Medical Evidence – MLC – Limited Corroborative Value – MLC recorded history of “assault” without naming assailants or specifying number of attackers – Smell of alcohol noted on injured – Medical evidence did not corroborate prosecution case regarding identity of accused [Paras 47–48, 54].

Recovery of Weapon – Doubtful Seizure – Injured claimed to have kept alleged weapons of offence and handed them over to police next day – No seizure effected from spot despite immediate police presence – Recovery found unnatural and suspicious – Use of alleged weapons not proved beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 56–57].

Investigation Lapses – Seizure and Removal of Vehicle – Damaged vehicle removed from spot without any contemporaneous record – IO unable to explain who drove vehicle to police station or how it was secured – Absence of evidence regarding removal and seizure weakened prosecution case [Paras 58–59].

Effect of Death of Co-Accused – Abatement – During pendency of appeal, Respondent No.1 died – Appeal survived only against Respondent No.2 – Acquittal of surviving respondent upheld on merits [Paras 32–33].

Decision: Leave to Appeal granted – Criminal Appeal dismissed – Judgment of acquittal dated 15.12.2016 upheld – No perversity or illegality found in appreciation of evidence by Trial Court – Appeal dismissed.