Quashing of FIR and Charge-sheet – Criminal Misc. Application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. – Applicant seeks to quash cognizance order and charge sheet for offenses under Sections 376, 313 IPC and Sections 3, 4 POCSO Act – Compromise entered between applicant and victim subsequent to lodging of FIR and summoning by trial court – Applicant contends for quashing based on compromise – Held, power under Section 482 is to be sparingly exercised; objective to secure ends of justice or prevent abuse of court process – Power not to be exercised in heinous and serious offenses or offenses under special statutes like POCSO Act – POCSO Act is a special statute and offenses under it cannot be quashed solely on the basis of compromise – Age of victim, consent immaterial in offenses under POCSO Act – Principles laid down by Supreme Court in Narinder Singh case followed – Compromise arrived after alleged commission of offense, investigation stage, or infancy of evidence may be considered for quashing – However, compromise cannot be a ground for quashing when prosecution evidence is complete or conviction already recorded – Sections charged against applicant not compoundable, hence application for quashing dismissed.

Jurisdiction of Civil Court – Regular Second Appeal – Analysis of Jurisdiction Issue – Held – Civil Court had jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit. Evidence of jurisdiction not contested by the defendant-appellant at Trial Court, and not pressed at the First Appellate Court, thereby affirming Trial Court’s decision on jurisdiction. [Para 8]

Loan Waiver and Penal Interest – Bank’s Claim for Penal Interest – Findings – Held – Payment of Rs. 13,000/- by plaintiff-respondent considered full settlement as per Bank’s statements (Ex.D-2 and Ex.D-3) showing ‘nil’ balance. Penal interest claim by defendant-appellant Bank not substantiated with valid documentation or evidence. [Para 9]

Decision – Dismissal of Regular Second Appeal – Conclusion – Court finds no merit in the appeal, and no substantial question of law arises. Regular second appeal dismissed, and any pending applications, if any, are also disposed off. [Para 10]

LBan on Cross-Gender Massages in Spas/Massage Centers - Public Interest Petition - Direction sought to ban cross-gender massages in spas/massage centers and share recordings with Delhi Commission for Women - Alleged violation of guidelines issued by GNCTD - Petitioner contends that such massages lead to illegal prostitution - No response received to complaints/representations to authorities - Validity of guidelines challenged in pending matter before learned Single Judge - Stay granted on operation of certain clauses of guidelines - Directions issued for inspections and necessary steps by concerned authorities - Petition dismissed in view of pending matter before learned Single Judge. [Paras 1-5]

Dismissal of the Petition – The Court declines to entertain the public interest litigation as the matter is already under consideration by a learned Single Judge [Para 5].

Matrimonial Discord & Divorce – Marriage solemnized on 25.01.2011, parties separated since 06.09.2011 – Appellant's plea for divorce on grounds of mental cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, previously dismissed by Family Court along with respondent's plea for Restitution of Conjugal Rights under Section 9 of the same Act – High Court revisits facts, evidence, and accusations of cruelty from both parties, including alleged neglect, harassment for dowry, extramarital affairs, and threats. [Paras 1-17].

Evidence & Counter Allegations – Inability of Appellant to provide concrete evidence for various allegations including threats with a knife, and vulgar messages – Family Court's skepticism regarding appellant's claims, and absence of concrete evidence or witnesses to support them – Respondent refuting cruelty claims, making counter-allegations against appellant including harassment for dowry and extramarital affairs. [Paras 18-33].

Mental Cruelty & Impact of Litigation – High Court recognizes respondent's derogatory language towards appellant’s father, complaints to appellant’s employer, and involvement in multiple litigations as mental cruelty – Acknowledgment of appellant's mental suffering due to prolonged legal disputes and defamatory allegations – Extended legal battles over 10 years between the parties viewed as adding to the cruelty [Paras 34-43, 46].

Decision – Granting of Divorce – High Court allows appellant's appeal – Divorce granted to appellant under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 based on mental cruelty by respondent [Paras 50-51].

Patent Refusal - Managing Instant Messaging Sessions - Refusal by Controller on grounds of lack of novelty, inventive step, and non-patentability under Section 3(k) - Key features: Concurrent Sign-on and Session Transfer, User Preference for Non-Mirroring, Selective Transfer and Visibility of Sessions, Ceasing Message Visibility Based on Preference [Paras 25-27, 44-45, 51-52].

Prior Art D1 (US2003101343) - Detailed analysis comparing the patent application and prior art - Found significant overlap in functionalities, especially regarding session data transfer and user preferences - Court held that additional features in the subject patent were obvious extensions and lacked inventive step [Paras 28-34, 36-38, 40-41, 47-49].

Inventive Step Analysis - Application of established tests and considerations - Concluded that the subject patent application's features were obvious to a person skilled in the art [Paras 42-43, 51-52].

Misrepresentation by Appellant - Incorrect submission regarding status of corresponding European patent application - Rejection of both parent and divisional applications by EPO for lack of inventive step - Imposition of costs for presenting incorrect facts [Paras 53-55, 56-57].

Decision - Patent application by Google LLC for managing instant messaging sessions found lacking in inventive step and novelty - Claims considered obvious extensions of prior art D1: US2003101343 - High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the decision of the Controller of Patents to refuse the patent application.

Recovery of Arrears of Maintenance – Enforcement against Deceased's Estate – Criminal Revision Petition challenging the first appellate court's decision to allow recovery of maintenance arrears from deceased's assets – Trial court dismissed maintenance enforcement against deceased – Appellate court allowed recovery from deceased’s assets, including service benefits – High Court upholds recovery right, but sets aside interest awarded on arrears. [Paras 1-19]

Enforcement of Interim Maintenance Order Against Deceased's Estate – Legal Position – Held – Interim maintenance order can be enforced against deceased’s estate – Entitlement of the widow to recover arrears of maintenance from husband's assets reaffirmed – Maintenance arrears deemed recoverable from husband’s service benefits or assets inherited from him. [Paras 13-14, 17]

Interest on Maintenance Arrears – Legal Consideration – High Court sets aside 12% interest on arrears of maintenance awarded by the appellate court – Considered the financial position and circumstances of the mother-in-law (respondent No.3), who has not received any service benefits and is at an advanced age – Interest deemed not legally sustainable. [Paras 18-19]

Final Decision – Partial Allowance of Revision Petition – High Court partially allows revision petition – Confirms entitlement of petitioner for maintenance arrears but sets aside grant of interest – Judgment and order of first appellate court modified accordingly.

Arbitration Agreement - Referral to Arbitration - Interpretation of Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Petitioner sought reference to arbitration pursuant to an arbitration clause in the agreement governing their relationship - Trial Court rejected the application, citing failure to produce original or duly certified copy of the agreement - Petitioner contended that a duly certified copy of the agreement, attested by a Notary Public, was provided, fulfilling the statutory requirement - Held, Trial Court's refusal to refer the dispute to arbitration was erroneous - Section 8 mandates referral to arbitration upon satisfaction of specified conditions, including existence of an arbitration agreement and timely application by a party - Once prerequisites are met, Court has no discretion but to refer the parties to arbitration - Court must not delve into detailed analysis of agreement's terms, but ensure prima facie validity of arbitration clause - Compliance with Section 8(2) satisfied, rendering Court empowered to refer the matter to arbitration - Trial Court directed to refer the matter to arbitrator within specified timeframe - Revisional application allowed.

Bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. – Petition for grant of regular bail – Offences under Sections 21/61/85 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Petitioner found in possession of 950 intoxicating capsules – Allegation of Tramadol Hydrochloride weighing 608 grams – Petitioner contends discrepancies in signature language on notice under Section 50 NDPS Act and FIR – Respondent asserts typographical error – Court refrains from delving into veracity of notice but acknowledges signature mismatch – Petitioner's first-time offender status and concluded investigation considered – Bail granted with stringent conditions. [Paras 1-11]

Interpretation of Notice under Section 50 NDPS Act – Mismatch in language of petitioner's signature – Respondent explains typographical error by investigating officer – Court refrains from adjudicating on notice's authenticity but notes discrepancy – Signature language inconsistency observed. [Paras 4-7]

Grant of Bail – Considerations – Petitioner's incarceration period, first-time offender status, and concluded investigation weighed – Bail granted with stringent conditions to prevent misuse and ensure trial attendance – No expression of opinion on case merits. [Paras 8-11]

Live-in Relationship - Protection of Life and Liberty - Article 21 of the Constitution of India - Entitlement to Protection: The petitioners, involved in a live-in relationship, seek protection of their life and liberty. The court acknowledges the right to life and liberty as enshrined in the Constitution, including the freedom to choose a partner, whether through marriage or a live-in relationship. Live-in relationships, though not universally accepted, are recognized by law and individuals involved are entitled to equal protection under the law. The court emphasizes that no citizen can take the law into their own hands. [Paras 10-11]

Protection Granted Regardless of Legal Status of Relationship: Despite the legal status of the relationship being questioned and criminal cases registered against the parties, the court emphasizes the paramount consideration of protecting life and liberty. Protection is granted by the court without delving into the legality of the relationship, ensuring that individuals fearing harm receive necessary safeguards. [Paras 12-14]

Directions to Authorities: The court directs respondent no. 2 to consider the petitioners' representation regarding threat perception and to take appropriate action in accordance with the law. However, the order does not preclude the initiation of legal proceedings against the petitioners if warranted. [Paras 15-17]