Abuse of Process of Law – Misuse of legal proceedings to achieve something for which no cause exists – Unjust continuation or initiation of criminal prosecution – Abuse of process amounts to unfairness and injustice to the complainant or prosecution – Examination of facts and circumstances in each case. (Para 110-112)

Fair Trial – Adjudicative functions of criminal courts must be cautiously exercised – Unfairness to accused or proposed accused can affect their reputation and life – Institution of criminal case must be examined in the context of validity of the order challenged before the court. (Para 112)

Sufficiency or Insufficiency of Incriminating Material – Distinction between inadequacy and absence of material – Improper use of criminal legal process – Duty of the Magistrate to consider sufficiency or insufficiency of material before ordering registration of an FIR. (Para 113-116)

Balancing Interests – Magistrates must exercise discretion under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. judiciously – Personal liberty and reputation of the accused or proposed accused must be considered – Orders regarding registration of FIRs should be passed with caution and after application of judicial mind. (Para 118-120)

Conclusion of the Court – Detailed examination of the complaint, application, police inquiry, and impugned order – No allegation against the petitioner in the complaint – Allegations do not constitute any offence against the petitioner – No incriminating material against the petitioner – Initiation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner would be an abuse of process of law – Lack of application of judicial mind by the Magistrate – Courts should pass reasoned orders based on law and material. (Para 121-133)

Maintaining Communal Harmony – No place for hatred or communal disharmony in a civilized society – Protection of citizens from malicious prosecution – Courts should be cautious and circumspect while ordering registration of FIRs in sensitive cases – Non-discrimination and tolerance of cultural and religious values are key to nation-building. (Para 124-126)

Exercise of Magisterial Powers – Magisterial power must be used with utmost caution, vigilance, and circumspection – Careful consideration of complaint and Action Taken Report by the police – Invoking powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the order directing registration of FIR when no material or allegations exist against the accused – Abuse of process of law and miscarriage of justice if continuation of criminal proceedings is allowed. (Para 127-132)

Disposal of the Petition – Impugned order set aside – Judgment to be circulated to the concerned authorities – Original record to be sent back to the Trial Court – The judgment to be uploaded on the website. (Para 133-136)

Criminal Law – Bail – Petitioner charged under NDPS Act for possession of intoxicant tablets – Seeking bail under Section 439 CrPC – Petitioner in custody for over 2 years and 7 months – No criminal antecedents – Co-accused already granted bail – Willing to comply with stringent conditions – State opposes bail due to the commercial quantity of contraband involved – Court applies the principles of Dheeraj Kumar Shukla v. The State of Uttar Pradesh [SLP (Crl) 6690-2022] – Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2020:INSC:106 [Para 92] – Madhu Tanwar and Anr. V. State of Punjab, 2023:PHHC:077618 [Para 10, 21] – Mohammed Zubair v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2022:INSC:735 [Para 28] – Court imposes bail conditions for securing bail – Bail granted subject to specific terms and conditions to ensure the safety of society.

Criminal Law – Bail – Bail conditions must have a nexus to the purpose they seek to serve and be proportional to the purpose of imposing them – Courts can impose restrictive conditions subject to evidence produced – Bail conditions should minimize reliance on sureties and consider alternative options – Bail can be canceled if the accused commits an offense with a sentence of more than seven years or violates bail conditions – Petitioner granted bail on fulfilling conditions under Dheeraj Kumar Shukla v. The State of Uttar Pradesh [SLP (Crl) 6690-2022] – Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2020:INSC:106 [Para 92] – Madhu Tanwar and Anr. V. State of Punjab, 2023:PHHC:077618 [Para 10, 21] – Mohammed Zubair v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2022:INSC:735  – Court emphasizes balancing the liberty of the accused and the necessity of a fair trial when imposing bail conditions.

Defamation – Comments in Transcripts – False and Defamatory – [Para 37 to 39, 52 to 61] – Suit for defamation filed by plaintiff against Defendants No. 1 to 4 alleging false and defamatory comments inserted by Defendant No. 3 in the transcript of the interview titled “Operation West End” – Plaintiff holding the position of Major General in the Army – Allegations of corruption and bribery – Defamatory comments causing harm to the plaintiff’s reputation and character – Held, comments were indeed defamatory to the plaintiff and caused injury to his reputation.

Defamation – Permissible Defenses – Truth, Fair Comment, and Privilege – [Para 95 to 108] – Defendants failed to establish truthfulness of comments or good faith in making them – Defense of good faith rejected due to lack of evidence supporting authenticity of comments – Defendants unable to justify comments in the public domain – Held, no valid defense of defamation established.

Defamation – Telecasting of Program – Defendants No. 5 to 7 – [Para 122 to 126] – Suit against Defendants No. 5 to 7 (Zee Telefilm and others) for defamation – Defendants No. 5 to 7 merely telecasted program without inserting defamatory comments – Plaintiff failed to prove any act of defamation by Defendants No. 5 to 7 – Suit against Defendants No. 5 to 7 dismissed.

Damages – Award of – Compensation for Injury to Reputation – [Para 133] – Defamatory comments causing serious harm to plaintiff’s reputation – Plaintiff awarded damages of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- to be paid by Defendants No. 1 to 4 – Apology deemed inadequate and meaningless – Plaintiff suffered ill fame for over 23 years – Damages awarded to compensate for injury to plaintiff’s reputation and honor.

Purpose of granting interlocutory injunction – To protect the appellant against any injury by violation of his/her rights for which he/she could not be adequately compensated in damages recoverable in action if the uncertainty were resolved in his/her favor at the trial – Court must weigh the needs of the parties and determine the “balance of convenience” – Interlocutory remedy intended to preserve the status quo, based on a prima facie case. (Para 11, Para 12, Para 13)

Suit barred by law – Injunction sought in respect of actions taken or to be taken under the SARFAESI Act – Suit not maintainable as per Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act – Remedy lies under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act for any aggrieved person. (Para 25, Para 26, Para 28)

Equitable Relief – Equitable relief to be denied to a party who approaches the court with unclean hands – One who seeks equitable relief must do equity and demonstrate bonafides – A person guilty of suppression of material facts is not entitled to relief under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code. (Para 27)

Court’s Discretion in Granting Temporary Injunction – The grant of an interlocutory injunction during the pendency of legal proceedings is a matter requiring the exercise of discretion by the court – Tests for granting interlocutory injunction: (i) existence of a prima facie case, (ii) balance of convenience in favor of the plaintiff, and (iii) likelihood of irreparable injury if the injunction is disallowed – Court must decide at a time when the legal right and its alleged violation are uncertain – Relief granted to mitigate the risk of injustice to the plaintiff during this period. (Para 14)

Bar on granting injunction in respect of actions taken under the SARFAESI Act – Section 34 creates a bar on the jurisdiction of civil courts to entertain suits or proceedings in respect of matters falling under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act – Remedy for any aggrieved person against actions under Section 13(4) is to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) or the Appellate Tribunal, not the civil court. (Para 28)

Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (FERA) – Sections 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(d) – Violation of – Seizure of cash from petitioner’s cloth store – Show Cause Notices issued alleging contravention of FERA provisions – First Show Cause Notice set aside in appeal – Second Show Cause Notice issued after the first one was set aside – No substantial evidence to prove petitioner guilty – Appellate Tribunal’s judgment and order dated 24^th March 2004 set aside by High Court.

Fair opportunity to defend – Impugned order passed in petitioner’s absence – Petitioner unable to attend hearing due to financial constraints – Unjust approach by Enforcement Directorate (E.D.) in issuing a second Show Cause Notice after the first one was set aside.

Refund of seized amount – High Court directs respondent to refund Rs.1,48,000/- seized on 12^th May 1988 – Simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of seizure to be paid to the petitioner.

(Para No. 2, 5, 21, 25, 28, 32)

Mutation of Names – Property Law – Jurisdiction of Revenue Authorities – Declaration of Title – Permissibility of Mutation based on Will – Mutation entries in revenue records do not confer ownership – Mutation entries relevant only for land revenue purposes – Competent civil court required for declaration of title.

Article 227 of the Constitution of India – Petition filed against order of Additional Commissioner, Revenue Division, Rewa – Appeal for mutation of names based on a Will – Partial allowance of application by Tehsildar – Appeal allowed by SDO Huzur, District Bhopal – Petitioners filed appeal before Commissioner for modification – Respondents filed application for impleadment in pending appeal – Application allowed by Additional Commissioner.

Supreme Court Decisions – Mutation entries not conferring or extinguishing title – Entries relevant only for the purpose of land revenue collection – Title to property can only be decided by competent civil court – Mutation on the basis of Will held per se illegal.

Jurisdictional Error – Petition filed against interim order – No jurisdictional error found – Petition dismissed.

Property Rights – Will-based mutation impermissible – Petitioners advised to seek declaration of title through competent civil court.

Importance of Civil Court – Mutation entries not creating or extinguishing title – Title to property to be determined by competent civil court.

Impermissibility of Mutation on the Basis of Will – Mutation entries not conferring ownership rights – Legal position established by series of Supreme Court decisions. Proper Approach to Establish Title – Petitioners to seek a declaration of title through a competent civil court – Mutation not a valid means to establish ownership based on a Will.

Mutation Entries – Fiscal Purpose Only – Mutation entries relevant for land revenue collection – No ownership conferred based on such entries. Dismissal of Petition – Petition seeking mutation on the basis of Will dismissed – Mutation based on Will held to be per se illegal.

Mental Health Act, 1987 – Section 76 – Appeal against order allowing appointment of psychiatrist to ascertain mental capacity of plaintiff – Disputed alienation of property – Plaintiff represented by next friend claiming unsound mind and mental disorder – Application filed under Section 50(1) and (4) of Mental Health Act, 1987 read with Section 151 of CPC – Trial Court considering NIMHANS report and previous psychologist assessment – Expert report sought for – Compliance with Section 50 of Act evident – Procedure followed – Appellant’s argument of relief under Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 rejected – Appeal dismissed – Trial Court directed to dispose of matter within one year. (Para 1-8)

Contempt Case – Respondents/contemnors wilfully disobeyed court orders dated 06.09.2022 and 22.12.2022 – Failure to implement the court’s orders in WP No.28407 of 2022 – Court finds respondents guilty of contempt – Sentences respondents No.2 and 3 to one month of simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000 each – In default of payment of fine, respondents to undergo one week of simple imprisonment – Directed to surrender before the Registrar (Judicial) by 27.07.2023.(Para No. 4-7)

Question of Law – The Court re-framed the issue as to whether the ITAT was justified in finding the assessment under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, bad, when no assessment proceedings were pending at the time of initiation under Section 153A. [Para 2]

Factual Background – The original assessment of the respondent for the year 2002-03 was completed under Section 143(3) and subsequently set aside by the 1st Appellate Authority under Section 263. A search under Section 132 led to initiation of Section 153A proceedings. [Para 3-4]

Legal Framework – The Tribunal relied on the High Court of Delhi's ruling in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Kabul Chawla, summarized the legal position on assessment and re-assessment under Section 153A, stressing the significance of 'pending assessments' and 'completed assessments'. [Para 6]

Assessing Officer's Jurisdiction – The Assessing Officer is empowered to proceed with assessments under Section 153A only when some incriminating material is disclosed during the search or when an assessment is pending. [Para 7]

Decision – Affirming the Tribunal's findings, the Court held that the assessment for the year 2002-03 had been completed prior to the search and Section 153A proceedings. The Court answered the re-framed question in favor of the assessee and rejected the appeal filed by the Revenue. [Para 8]