Criminal Law – Inherent Powers of High Court – Section 528 BNSS (Section 482 CrPC) – Quashing of Interlocutory Order – Petition filed seeking quashing of trial court order rejecting application under Section 311 CrPC for summoning record of another complaint case – Held: No perversity or illegality found in the impugned order warranting interference under inherent jurisdiction [Paras 1, 12–13].

Criminal Trial – Power to Summon or Recall Witness – Scope of Section 311 CrPC – Discretionary Power – Petitioner sought summoning of record of an entirely different complaint case to rely on alleged admissions – Trial court found that petitioner had ample opportunity earlier and application was filed at belated stage – Held: Power under Section 311 CrPC is to be exercised sparingly, with caution and only when evidence is essential for just decision of the case [Paras 8–10].

Stage of Trial – Final Arguments – Belated Application – Delay as Relevant Consideration – Complaint under Section 138 NI Act pending since 2017 – Defence evidence stage since 2019 – Application under Section 311 CrPC moved only at fag end of trial – Held: Unexplained delay militates against grant of relief and supports inference of attempt to delay proceedings [Paras 11–12].

Evidence – Summoning of Records of Another Case – Relevance and Necessity – Alleged testimony of power of attorney holder in separate proceedings – Trial court noted contradictions between application and submissions and absence of examination of such witness in the other case – Held: Summoning of such record not essential for just decision of present case [Paras 7, 11].

Abuse of Process – Section 311 CrPC – Safeguard Against Misuse – Court reiterated that provision cannot be used to derail proceedings or cause prejudice to opposite party – Held: Application rightly rejected to prevent miscarriage of justice [Paras 10, 13].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Impugned order dated 07.02.2025 upheld – Pending applications also dismissed [Para 14].

Partition Suit – Interim Injunction – Family Property – Plaintiff (Appellant) challenged modification of earlier ex-parte injunction restricting alienation of entire suit property – Learned Single Judge (LSJ) limited restraint only to unalienated 25% share based on plaintiff’s own pleadings – Held: Injunction rightly confined to maximum possible claimable share by plaintiff; no prima facie case made for remaining 75% which had already been alienated [Paras 8, 13, 16–17, 22] –

Doctrine of lis pendens – Section 52 TPA – Plaintiff’s interests adequately protected under doctrine of lis pendens – Any alienation during pendency of suit remains subject to final outcome – No irreparable loss shown – Wider injunction not justified [Paras 15, 18] –

Equitable Discretion – Appellate interference with interim discretionary orders permissible only if shown to be arbitrary or perverse – In present case, exercise of discretion by LSJ found balanced, lawful and in line with settled principles – No reason to interfere [Paras 12, 25–27] –

Third Party Rights – Bonafide Purchaser – Defendant No.4 purchased portion of suit property in 2019 before current suit – Plaintiff failed to demonstrate her involvement in alleged fraud – No injunction warranted against completed sale to bona fide third party [Paras 21, 24] –

Pleadings – Plaintiff bound by own averments – Having pleaded that 25% share of property remains unalienated, cannot now seek restraint over entire property – Court cannot grant relief beyond pleadings [Para 22] –

Conduct – Delay and Knowledge – Plaintiff had knowledge of prior suit and settlement but failed to appear or challenge in time – His conduct relevant while deciding equitable relief – Dispute over 2012 notice and reply to be decided at trial stage, not interim stage [Paras 19–20] –

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Impugned order upheld – Injunction rightly limited to 25% of unalienated property – Plaintiff’s interest adequately secured – No interference warranted at interlocutory stage [Paras 25–27] –

Revenue Law – Private Lease under Section 94 – Locus Standi – Petition Dismissed – Petitioner, who was a rival applicant for IOCL dealership, challenged a private lease deed executed under Section 94 by alleging it was contrary to permitted use under the Code – Held: Petitioner is neither lessor nor lessee, nor owner or co-sharer of the land, and thus has no locus standi to seek cancellation of the lease – Mere participation in dealership process does not confer enforceable legal interest in the land [Paras 3, 9–11, 15].

UP Revenue Code – Section 94 – Scope and Applicability – Lease for IOCL Outlet – Lease executed for retail outlet held to be a private lease under Section 94 – Court rejected contention that such lease was void under Section 104 – Held: Section 105(e) specifically excludes leases under Section 94 from consequences of void transfer – Sections 104, 105 and Rule 103 apply only to transfers in violation of Code by bhumidhar involving State land, not private leases [Paras 4–5, 10].

Declaratory Relief – Section 144 of U.P. Revenue Code – Interpretation – Court held that only persons claiming to be bhumidhar or asami can file declaratory suits, including suits seeking cancellation of lease – Petitioner having no right, title or interest in the land cannot invoke Section 144 or challenge the lease instrument [Paras 6, 12].

Interpretation of Statutes – Harmonious Reading – Sections 94, 104, 105 and Rule 103 – Court harmoniously construed that lease under Section 94 is governed solely by terms agreed between lessor and lessee – Rule 103 procedures for void transfers not applicable due to statutory exclusion under Section 105(e) [Paras 5, 10].

Procedural Law – Rule 186 – Inapplicability without Locus – Court held that invocation of Rule 186 (regarding non-application of Civil Procedure Code) is irrelevant when the petitioner lacks locus to maintain proceedings against a private lease [Para 16].

Alternative Remedy – Challenge to IOCL Dealership – Court clarified that the petitioner is not without remedy – Any grievance regarding dealership allotment, including lease legality, can be raised before competent forum in IOCL process – But such remedy does not justify locus to cancel private lease deed [Para 14].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Impugned orders of Sub-Divisional Officer and Revisional Court upheld – Petitioner found to lack locus standi to challenge private lease deed under Section 94 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 [Paras 17–18].

Constitutional Law – Live-in Relationship – Right to Protection – Petitioners in consensual live-in relationships alleged threats to life from private individuals and sought police protection – Held: Right to cohabit without marriage is protected under Article 21 – Personal autonomy cannot be compromised by societal disapproval – Police directed to grant protection if petitioners are adults and living willingly [Paras 1–3, 22, 45–49, 51–52]

Live-in Relationships – Legality and Social Morality – Court held that live-in relationships, though not widely accepted socially, are not illegal or punishable under law – Such arrangements are not barred by any legislation and are protected by constitutional rights to life, liberty and equality [Paras 6–9, 18–21, 30–33, 45–48]

State Obligation – Protection under Article 21 – Rejected State's contention that police cannot protect non-marital couples – Observed that State is duty-bound to protect life and liberty irrespective of marital status – No justification to deny anticipatory protection where threat is genuine or credible [Paras 12–13, 22, 46]

Personal Autonomy – Right to Choose Partner – Emphasised that major individuals have full autonomy under Article 21 to choose life partners and live together – State or family cannot compel marriage or interfere – Morality cannot override legality [Paras 6–7, 22, 33, 48–49]

Presumption of Marriage – Long-term Cohabitation – As per Section 114 of Indian Evidence Act and Section 119(1) of Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, long-standing cohabitation gives rise to presumption of marriage – Ensures protection of women and children from such relationships [Para 50]

Judicial Precedent – Binding Nature – Court relied upon extensive Supreme Court and High Court rulings recognising live-in relationships and protecting individual choice – Distinguished the contrary view in Kiran Rawat as not binding and factually distinguishable [Paras 18–21, 24–33, 40–44]

Decision: Writ petitions allowed – Petitioners declared free to live together peacefully – Police directed to provide protection upon verification of age and willingness – No coercive action to be taken unless FIR is registered – Petitioners may produce educational documents or undergo ossification test to prove majority if required [Paras 51–53]

Civil Writ - Cooperative Housing Societies – Nomination – Validity of Rule 91 and Form 17 – Petitioner, a single woman and member of a housing society, sought to nominate a non-blood relative – Society rejected nomination based on Rule 91 and Form 17 requiring nominee to be within blood relation – Held: Section 78 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act allows nomination of any person where only one nominee is appointed – Restriction to blood relation applies only to joint or multiple nominations – Rule 91 and Form 17 must be read in conformity with Section 78 – Petitioner entitled to nominate non-blood relative as sole nominee [Paras 64–68, 82].

Interpretation of Statutes – Subordinate Legislation – Rule 91 and Form 17 of DCS Rules – Held: If Rule or Form imposes a restriction not found in the parent Act, it is ultra vires – Rule 91 must be interpreted to mean blood relation requirement applies only when more than one person is nominated – Subordinate legislation must yield to parent statute in case of conflict [Paras 67–68].

Property Rights – Nomination under Cooperative Societies Act – Held: Title or interest in land or dwelling unit under Section 76 is a heritable and transferable immovable property – Restriction on nomination interferes with constitutional right to dispose of property – Any restriction must be narrowly construed and not arbitrary – Right to nominate a non-blood relative (if single nominee) upheld [Paras 60–61, 81].

Wills and Nomination – Legal Effect – Form 17 deems nomination as a ‘Will’ for the purposes of share/interest in society – Held: While nomination facilitates transfer of membership, it does not amount to transfer of title – Society cannot refuse to recognize nominee solely because of absence of blood relation where nomination is of a single person [Paras 72–73].

Judicial Review – Constitutional Validity – Petition limited to challenge of restriction in Rule 91 and Form 17 – Court held that since Act permits nomination of any one person regardless of blood relation, Rule cannot curtail this right – Constitutional challenge upheld to the extent Form 17 or Rule 91 is interpreted otherwise [Paras 64, 82].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 2003 does not restrict a member from nominating a non-blood relative where only one person is nominated – Rule 91 and Form 17 to be read in conformity with the Act – Petitioner entitled to nominate Ms. Gayatri Kumari as sole nominee – Society directed to recognize and process nomination accordingly – Constitutional challenge partially upheld.

Arbitration – Execution of Award – Interest for Period of Deposit in Court – Conflicting Orders – Decree Holders in separate proceedings claimed interest from the date of deposit by Judgment Debtors till actual withdrawal – In one case, interest allowed; in the other, denied – Held: Both appeals relate to execution of awards and do not fall within appealable orders under Order XLIII CPC or Section 37 of the Arbitration Act [Paras 1–18, 31].

Appeal – Maintainability – Section 13 Commercial Courts Act – Scope – Appeals arising out of orders passed in execution proceedings – Held: Section 13(1) read with its proviso restricts appeals only to orders enumerated under Order XLIII CPC or Section 37 of Arbitration Act – Orders not falling within Rule 1(j) or 1(ja) of Order XLIII CPC are not appealable – Present appeals not maintainable under Commercial Courts Act [Paras 24–34].

Interpretation – Effect of Non-Obstante Clause – Sections 13(2) & 21 Commercial Courts Act – Held: These provisions override any contrary remedy or jurisdiction under any other law, including Section 10 of Delhi High Court Act – Even if appeal may lie under Delhi High Court Act, it is barred by Commercial Courts Act unless permitted expressly [Paras 42–47].

Binding Precedents – Supreme Court & Division Bench Judgments – Held: View in Kandla Export Corporation binding – Only those orders in execution which are listed under Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC are appealable – Other Division Bench judgments of Delhi and Bombay High Courts affirm same view – Earlier contrary decisions doubted or distinguished [Paras 32–40].

Statutory Right to Appeal – Nature and Scope – Held: Right of appeal is statutory and not inherent – If the statute does not provide for appeal, remedy cannot be inferred merely because party is aggrieved – Legislative intent of finality and speedy disposal of commercial disputes must be respected [Paras 35, 37, 41].

Decision: Both appeals held not maintainable either under Section 13 of Commercial Courts Act or under Section 10 of Delhi High Court Act – Dismissed with no order as to costs – Pending applications also dismissed [Paras 48–49].

Criminal Law – Negotiable Instruments – Dishonour of Cheques – Legally Enforceable Liability – Appellant convicted under Section 138 NI Act for dishonour of five cheques aggregating Rs.1,41,000/- issued towards commercial dues – Trial Court sentenced appellant to six months RI with fine – Appellant remained untraceable for over two decades – Counsel appointed through DHCLSC and Amicus Curiae for respondent due to non-appearance [Paras 1-4]

Cheque Dishonour – Presumption under Section 139 NI Act – Once cheque issuance and dishonour established, presumption of legal liability arises – Appellant’s defence that cheques were issued blank and no goods were supplied found unsubstantiated – Statement of account and bill proved by complainant – Evidence of bank officials confirmed dishonour due to insufficient funds and stop payment instructions – Appellant’s own Section 313 CrPC statement admitted stop payment and withdrawal of funds – Held: Defence failed to rebut statutory presumption under Section 139 [Paras 5-18]

Sentence – Mitigating Circumstances – Appellant aged over 83 years – Appeal pending for over 20 years – Already undergone 5 months in custody – Held: Conviction under Section 138 NI Act upheld – Sentence modified to period already undergone in light of mitigating factors and Section 138’s allowance of fine or sentence or both – Appeal partly allowed [Paras 20-22]

Decision: Conviction affirmed – Sentence reduced to period already undergone – Bail bonds and sureties discharged – Appeal disposed of [Paras 22-24]

Criminal Law – Dowry Death – Section 304B IPC – Conviction of Husband Affirmed – Appellant Vikas Kumar’s wife committed suicide within seven years of marriage – Consistent evidence from parents and corroborative suicide note established that Vikas repeatedly made dowry demands for a Santro car and ₹3–4 lakhs, tying resumption of cohabitation to fulfilment of such demands – Suicide note and diary entries corroborated emotional abandonment and dowry-linked pressure – Held: Prosecution established cruelty “soon before her death” and foundational facts under Section 304B IPC – Presumption under Section 113B of Evidence Act attracted – Defence failed to rebut the presumption [Paras 16–49]

Criminal Law – Cruelty by Husband – Section 498A IPC – Mental and Physical Cruelty – Marriage described by deceased as “only a label” due to husband’s alleged extramarital affair – Combined with evidence of beatings and economic pressure regarding dowry demands – Held: Pattern of rejection, emotional neglect, and conditional abandonment over time constituted cruelty within meaning of Section 498A – Conviction sustained [Paras 50–53]

Criminal Law – Acquittal of In-Laws – Section 304B/498A IPC – No Specific Role or Evidence – Allegations against husband’s elder brother and sister-in-law were vague, general, and uncorroborated – Visit of 10th June 2005, the only proximate event alleged, found to be a later improvement not mentioned in earliest statements – Suicide note contained only omnibus references to “in-laws” without specific attribution – Held: Prosecution failed to prove foundational facts necessary to attract presumption under Section 113B of Evidence Act – Conviction of Yogesh Kumar and Swati @ Savita under Sections 304B/498A IPC set aside [Paras 54–64]

Criminal Procedure – Presumption under Section 113B Evidence Act – Application Only to Specific Accused – Court reiterated that presumption under Section 113B arises only when cruelty or harassment is proved “soon before death” – Cannot be extended to collateral relatives in absence of specific, proximate evidence – Over-implication of family members cautioned against – Presumption not attracted in case of Yogesh Kumar and Swati @ Savita [Paras 55–59]

Decision: Appeal of Yogesh Kumar and Swati @ Savita allowed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 304B/498A/34 IPC set aside – Acquitted of all charges – Appeal of Vikas Kumar dismissed – Conviction under Sections 304B and 498A IPC affirmed – Directed to surrender forthwith [Paras 65–67]

Negotiable Instruments Act – Dishonour of Cheque – “Account Blocked” – Cheques issued by petitioners after Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) had commenced and company accounts taken over by IRP – Cheques returned with remark “ACCOUNT BLOCKED” – Held: Dishonour due to account block caused by statutory moratorium under IBC does not amount to dishonour for insufficiency of funds – Essential ingredients under Section 138 NI Act not met – Offence not made out [Paras 70, 74–79, 81].

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code – Moratorium – Effect on Prosecution – Moratorium declared under Section 14 IBC in April 2019 – Liquidator appointed in December 2019 – Cheques dated September 2020 dishonoured in October 2020 – Held: Directors had lost control over company accounts – No valid authority to issue cheques – Vicarious liability under Section 141 NI Act cannot be imposed where principal offence under Section 138 is not made out [Paras 66–68, 71].

Criminal Procedure – Quashing of Proceedings – Continuation of proceedings against directors where company is under liquidation – Held: Cheques issued post-moratorium and account dishonour due to statutory prohibition – Complaint and summoning order not sustainable – Proceedings quashed to prevent abuse of process of law [Paras 72–73, 82].

Decision: All three complaints under Section 138 NI Act and summoning orders dated 19.01.2021 (CC No. 90/2021), 21.01.2021 (CC No. 113/2021), and 22.01.2021 (CC No. 117/2021) are quashed – Proceedings against petitioners are untenable as offence under Section 138 is not made out due to “Account Blocked” status caused by CIRP and liquidation process – Petitions allowed.