Writ Petition – Quashing of Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) and Related Proceedings – Petitioner's plea for quashing of proceedings initiated through ECIR/09/HIU/2019 following compounding and quashing of predicate FIRs – Partly allowed, with continuation of ECIR based on a subsequent FIR. [Paras 1-3, 36-37]

Predicate Offences – Compounding and Quashing of FIRs – Impact on PMLA Proceedings – FIRs No. 16/2018 and 49/2021 compounded and quashed, leading to cessation of proceedings under PMLA in connection with these FIRs against the petitioner – Continuation of ECIR/09/HIU/2019 valid due to existence of subsequent FIR No. 55/2023. [Paras 3, 25, 36]

Money Laundering – Independent Nature of Offence under PMLA – Clarification that offence under Section 3 of the PMLA is independent and continues despite quashing of predicate offences, subject to the existence of subsequent related FIRs. [Paras 32, 34-36]

Jurisdictional Facts – Requirement for Continuation of PMLA Proceedings – Emphasis on the existence of a predicate offence as a jurisdictional fact for PMLA proceedings – Quashing of initial FIRs renders related PMLA proceedings unsustainable, while subsequent FIRs can sustain ongoing ECIR. [Paras 20-21, 34]

Criminal Procedure – ECIR and its Relation with FIRs – ECIR, an internal document for administrative purposes under PMLA, distinguished from FIR under CrPC – ECIR's continuation based on subsequent FIRs held valid despite quashing of initial FIRs. [Paras 28-32, 36]

Decision – Partly allowing the writ petition – Proceedings under ECIR/09/HIU/2019 in relation to FIRs No. 16/2018 and 49/2021 quashed due to their compounding and quashing – Continuation of ECIR based on FIR No. 55/2023 held legitimate. [Paras 36-37]

Infringement of Trade Mark – Conflicting Trade Marks in Different Classes – Plaintiff holding registered trade marks in Class 5 for pharmaceutical and medicinal preparations, aggrieved by defendants' use of similar marks in different classes and subsequent usage in Class 5 for whey protein without valid registration – Prima facie case established against defendants for infringement of plaintiff's trade marks. [Para 1-5, 17-27]

Registration and Use of Trade Marks – Defendants' registration of similar marks in Classes 29 and 30, irrelevant to their use for whey protein in Class 5 – Plaintiff's registration in Class 5 being properly used, whereas defendants' use in Class 5 unauthorized, demonstrating prima facie infringement. [Para 5-6, 28]

Deceptive Similarity and Likelihood of Confusion – Marks "ABZORB" and "ABBZORB" phonetically identical, leading to likelihood of consumer confusion – Phonetic identity sufficient for prima facie finding of infringement, irrespective of visual or price differences between products. [Para 10, 22-24]

Defendants' Awareness of Plaintiff's Prior Mark – Defendants, after being made aware of plaintiff's similar mark in Class 5 through a First Examination Report, proceeded to use a deceptively similar mark for whey protein, indicating mala fide intent and disregard for plaintiff's registered mark. [Para 34-35]

Interim Injunction Granted – Defendants restrained from manufacturing, selling, or dealing in products under infringing marks "ABBZORB," "ABBZORB NUTRITION," or any deceptively similar mark to plaintiff’s "ABZORB" in related goods, pending final disposal of suit. [Para 37]

Plea of Non-entitlement to Registration Rejected – Defendants' contention that plaintiff’s mark "ABZORB" was not entitled to registration due to being a common English word held unavailing, as mark not descriptive of the goods and defendants themselves applied for similar mark registration. [Para 29-33]

Quashing of FIR – Section 482 of Cr.P.C. – Serious Allegations of Extortion and Assault: The High Court declined to quash FIR No. 384/2021 - involving offences under Sections 323/341/384/506/34 IPC - in a case where the accused allegedly assaulted and extorted the complainant. Despite a compromise between parties, the Court found the allegations too serious - emphasizing the societal impact of such offences. [Para 1, 7, 16]

Settlement Between Parties – Insufficient for Quashing FIR in Serious Offences: The petitioners sought quashing of the FIR citing a compromise with the complainant. However, the Court held that allegations of extortion and assault - against the society at large - cannot be quashed merely based on a private settlement. [Para 3, 7]

Nature of Allegations – Criteria for Quashing of FIR: Analyzing the case's merits, the Court applied guidelines from the Supreme Court's Bhajan Lal case. It concluded that the allegations of extortion and assault in the FIR warranted further investigation - not fitting the criteria for quashing. [Para 8, 9, 11]

Supreme Court Guidelines on Quashing FIR – Application in Present Case: The Court, referring to Supreme Court precedents, underscored the careful exercise of power in quashing FIRs, especially in cases with serious allegations like the present one - where prima facie a cognizable offence is disclosed. [Para 10, 12-14]

Investigation Continuance – Importance in Serious Allegations: Emphasizing the importance of completing investigations in serious cases, the Court decided against quashing the FIR at the current stage - allowing the police to continue their inquiry into the serious charges alleged. [Para 15, 16]

Dismissal of Petition – Observations for Investigative Purposes Only: The petition for quashing the FIR was dismissed, with the Court clarifying that its observations were prima facie for the petition's purpose and should not influence the case's merits. [Para 17, 18]

Cheque Dishonour – Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act – Conviction of the revision petitioner under Section 138 upheld by Sessions Court – Revision petitioner’s appeal against conviction and sentence. [Para 1, 4-5]

Legal Competence of Power of Attorney Holder to File Complaint – Challenge to the competence of PW1 to file the complaint on behalf of the complainant company – Held, the power of attorney holder can file a complaint and depose for offences under Section 138 of the NI Act. [Para 9-13]

Vicarious Liability of Managing Partner – Revision petitioner, as the managing partner of the convicted firm, held vicariously liable under Section 138 of the NI Act – Managing partner cannot have a defense distinct from that of the firm. [Para 14-17]

Existence of Legally Enforceable Debt – Contention of revision petitioner regarding the absence of a legally enforceable debt – Dismissed based on evidence and admission in Ext.D4 letter by the first accused firm. [Para 18]

Conclusion and Direction – Revision petition devoid of merit and dismissed – Revision petitioner directed to appear before trial court for sentence execution. [Para 19]

Civil Revision – Rejection of Plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC – Petitioners challenging trial court’s order rejecting application for dismissal of plaint based on unregistered contract for sale. The trial court’s decision to proceed with the suit is upheld.

Specific Performance – Unregistered Agreement to Sell – Examination of Section 17(1A) of the Registration Act, 1908. An unregistered agreement to sell, while admissible as evidence in specific performance suits, does not offer the protection of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act.

Scope of Order VII Rule 11 CPC – The court’s authority to dismiss a suit at its initiation stage. Conditions under which a plaint can be rejected, focusing on whether it discloses a cause of action or is barred by any law.

Evidence in Specific Performance Suits – The admissibility of unregistered documents in suits for specific performance. Such documents can be considered for relief, although not providing protection under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act.

Decision – Upholding the trial court’s decision against dismissing the suit at the preliminary stage. The case to be tried based on its individual merits in the trial court.

Plaint Rejection Application – Defendants No.3 and 4 (Petitioners) – Request for Rejection of Plaint Against Them – Petitioners filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of plaint, arguing they are not concerned with defendant No.1’s business and are wrongly implicated. [Paras 1, 4]

Suit Details – Recovery of `18,91,005/- and Permanent Injunction – Respondent No.1 (Plaintiff) filed a suit for recovery of dues and permanent injunction against defendants, alleging involvement of defendants No.3 and 4 (petitioners) in business transactions. [Para 2]

Plaintiffs’ Allegations – Petitioners’ Involvement – Allegations against petitioners as Managing Incharge and Manager of defendant No.1, responsible for receiving and acknowledging goods, thus liable for part of due payment. [Para 2, 11]

Petitioners’ Argument – No Personal Transaction with Plaintiff – Petitioners contended they have no direct dealings or transactions with the plaintiff and are not liable for the alleged debt. [Paras 8, 11-12]

Respondents’ Contention – Pleadings in Plaint as Basis for Decision – Counsel for respondents argued that decision on Order 7 Rule 11 CPC application should be based on plaint averments, which implicate petitioners. [Para 9]

Court’s Analysis – No Personal Liability of Petitioners – No direct transaction or contract between petitioners and plaintiff; no assertion of petitioners as guarantors or responsible for payment. [Paras 11-12]

Decision – Plaint Rejected Qua Petitioners – Court set aside trial court’s order and allowed application to reject plaint against petitioners, finding no cause of action against them. Trial to proceed against defendants No.1 and 2. [Paras 13-14]

Petition for Summoning Records at Time of Charge - Challenging the dismissal of application for summoning records and directing authorities to report on drug issuance - Petitioner alleged wrongful implication in recovery of drugs under NDPS Act, asserting that drugs were delivered to others and not recovered from his premises. [Para 1, 4, 6]

Sting Operation & Allegations - Sting operation conducted under PNDT Act at Patiala Hospital, Patran - Petitioner and wife accused of conducting sex determination tests, with recovery of narcotic drugs and illegal abortion equipment. [Para 2]

Charges Under NDPS and IPC - Initially charged under PNDT Act, later provisions of NDPS Act and Section 120-B IPC also invoked - Challans submitted under these sections. [Para 3]

Trial Court's Order and Petitioner's Argument - Trial Court dismissed petitioner's application for record summoning - Petitioner argued for his right to invoke Section 91 Cr.P.C. at the stage of framing charges, citing cases Nitya Dharmananda alias K. Lenin and Brijesh Kumar & 3 others. [Para 6-7]

Supreme Court & High Court Precedents - Reference to Supreme Court and Allahabad High Court judgments emphasizing the court's power to summon material with crucial bearing on framing of charge, even if not part of the charge sheet. [Para 9]

Quashing of Impugned Order & Remand for Fresh Adjudication - High Court found merit in the petition, quashed the impugned order, and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication on merits. [Para 11]

Bail Petition and Criminal Background – Petitioner seeking bail under Section 439 CrPC – Involved in a corruption case with FIR No. 22 dated 26.05.2023 – Accused of embezzlement and fund transfers for personal gain – Previous criminal antecedents include FIR Nos. 23 and 29, both dated 2023, under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. [Paras 1-2, 9]

Case Facts and Investigation Details – Allegations of transferring funds from ICDP, Rewari to personal accounts and purchasing property – Co-accused involved in the case – All accused admitted involvement during interrogation. [Paras 3, 5-7]

Legal Precedents and Bail Considerations – Reference to various Supreme Court judgments on bail criteria – Consideration of criminal history, nature of allegations, and potential for reform – Bail granted with stringent conditions. [Paras 6-10, 12-14, 17-19]

Bail Conditions – Personal bond of Rs. 10,000 and surety of Rs. 25,000 or alternative financial arrangements – Strict compliance with investigation and court appearances – Restrictions on communication tools and conditions against influencing witnesses or committing further offenses. [Paras 11, 13-17, 19-20]

Rights of the Petitioner and Investigation – Rights to modify bail conditions if found violating fundamental rights – Continuation of investigation rights for police – Applicability of bail order to any additional sections added to the FIR. [Paras 21-24]

Challenge to Trial Court's Decision – Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India – Impugning order dated 14.10.2023 by ADJ-05, South West District, Dwarka Courts in CS No. 673/2019 – Dismissal of application under Section 151 CPC seeking dismissal of partition suit for concealment by plaintiff. [Paras 1-1.4]

Contention of Petitioner – Petitioner (defendant no.3) contends Trial Court failed to appreciate multiple orders by DV Court, restraining respondents from dispossessing or visiting the suit property – Argued that the partition suit is not maintainable as the plaintiff is not in actual or constructive possession of the property. [Paras 2-2.7]

Reliance on Judicial Precedents – Petitioner cites various High Court decisions to support the argument that a plaintiff must be in actual or constructive possession of property for partition suit to be maintainable. [Para 2.4]

Trial Court's Analysis – Dismissal of Section 151 CPC application by Trial Court – Considered defendant no.3's admission of plaintiff’s title to the property, ongoing EMI payments for the mortgage, and the nature of DV Court orders as interim protective measures. [Paras 5-7.5]

High Court's Observation – High Court unable to accept defendant no.3’s contention – Finds no infirmity in the Trial Court’s order – References Supreme Court decision in Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja, holding that DV Act proceedings do not impede civil proceedings. [Paras 8-11]

Conclusion and Dismissal – High Court dismisses petition, upholding Trial Court’s decision – Pending applications disposed of. [Para 13]