Maintenance – Section 125 CrPC – Wife Residing Separately – Sufficient Cause Established – Wife ousted from matrimonial home due to cruelty and dowry harassment – Trial Court erred in holding she left without cause – Allegations substantiated by her continued attempts at reconciliation and absence of effort by husband to resume cohabitation – Held: Findings of Family Court contrary to evidence – Wife had sufficient cause to live separately [Paras 5, 10].

Maintenance – Quantum – Financial Capacity of Parties – Petitioner a qualified homeopathic doctor pursuing postgraduate education, temporarily engaged during COVID-19 with stipend, but currently unemployed – Respondent working as Technician (Mechanical) at ONGC earning ₹74,000/month – Held: Wife entitled to ₹15,000/month maintenance excluding period she received stipend – Subject to modification under Section 127 CrPC in case of change in circumstances [Paras 9, 11].

Marital Obligations – Gender Equality – Marital relationship does not negate wife’s right to develop herself – Husband’s duty extends to supporting wife’s educational and professional growth – Allegations of wife's desire to live separately from in-laws not supported by evidence – Court stresses on equality and mutual support in marriage [Para 11].

Decision: Criminal revision partly allowed – Order of Family Court rejecting maintenance set aside – Maintenance of ₹15,000/month awarded to wife from date of application, excluding period of COVID-19 stipend – Subject to future modification under law [Para 12].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Dishonour of Cheque – Statutory Presumption – Section 139 – Execution of cheque admitted by accused – Held: Presumption arises that cheque was issued in discharge of debt or liability – However, such presumption is rebuttable on preponderance of probabilities – Accused not required to prove defence beyond reasonable doubt – M.S. Narayana Menon v. State of Kerala, (2006) 6 SCC 39; Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa, (2019) 5 SCC 418, followed [Paras 11–13].

Evidence – Rebuttal of Presumption – Financial Capacity of Complainant – Complainant failed to disclose date of issuance or execution of cheque either in complaint or affidavit – admitted contradictions in cross-examination regarding promissory note and cheque return – failed to produce partnership deed or authority to represent firm “Poornima Finance” – Absence of proof of financial capacity and contradictions in testimony sufficient to raise probable defence – Presumption under Section 139 held rebutted [Paras 8–10, 16].

Defence Evidence – Probable Case – Accused’s father (DW1) proved that cheque was issued blank towards balance payment for gold ornaments purchased from complainant’s jewellery on 15.04.2005, supported by Ext.D1 estimate and Ext.D2 account slip in complainant’s handwriting – Circumstances corroborate defence and cast doubt on existence of legally enforceable debt – Trial Court’s reliance on DW1’s evidence upheld [Paras 9–10, 18].

Burden of Proof – Standard – Accused only required to establish a probable defence by preponderance of probabilities – May rely on complainant’s own materials to raise doubt – Failure to establish source of funds or exact transaction date fatal to prosecution – ANSS Rajashekar v. Augustus Jeba Ananth, 2019 (1) KLD 492 and APS Forex Services (P) Ltd. v. Shakti International Fashion Linkers, 2020 (1) KLD 313, followed [Paras 14–15].

Non-reply to Statutory Notice – Effect – Though non-reply can be an adverse circumstance, not conclusive of guilt – Court must consider totality of evidence to determine whether presumption stands rebutted – Sanjabij Tari v. Kishore S. Borcar, 2025 (6) KHC 250 (SC), and M.M.T.C. Ltd. v. Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd., 2002 KHC 241, referred [Paras 17–18].

Appellate Review – Acquittal – Findings of trial court based on proper appreciation of evidence and supported by material record – No perversity or illegality shown – High Court declines to interfere with acquittal under Section 138 NI Act [Paras 18–19].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Acquittal of accused confirmed – Held: Complainant failed to establish legally enforceable debt or authority to represent firm; accused successfully raised probable defence supported by documentary evidence – No interference warranted [Para 19].

Criminal Law – Murder – Rape – House Trespass – Robbery – Circumstantial Evidence – Accused No.1 sentenced to death and Accused No.2 to life imprisonment by trial court for brutal murder of husband and vegetative-state causing injuries to wife following home invasion – Both accused allegedly fled with valuables – Death sentence reference made for confirmation – Held: Circumstantial evidence including recovery of stolen items, forensic evidence linking both accused, eyewitness testimony (PW11) and CCTV footage established guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction confirmed [Paras 1–25].

Circumstantial Evidence – Validity – Forensic and medical evidence supported theory of joint commission of offence – Recovery of stolen jewellery from accused and CCTV footage of gold exchange soon after crime supported robbery and presence at scene – DNA evidence linked accused No.1 to rape – Statements under Section 313 CrPC corroborated prosecution’s case – Chain of circumstances complete and consistent only with guilt of accused [Paras 10–18, 25].

Eyewitness Testimony – No Test Identification Parade – PW11 (milkman) saw both accused near scene at relevant time under streetlight – Identified them in court – Prior acquaintance with A1 established – Court held that failure to hold TIP not fatal in light of credible, consistent in-court identification – No motive for false implication – Testimony accepted [Paras 13–16].

Recovery under Section 27 Evidence Act – Accused-led recoveries of bloodstained clothes, weapons, and stolen items proved by Investigating Officer – Objections to recording language and translation process not raised in cross-examination – Even assuming irregularity, conduct of accused in leading to recovery admissible under Section 8 Evidence Act – Recovery held valid [Paras 20–24].

Sentencing – Death Penalty – Principles – Although trial court awarded death to A1, High Court considered mitigating factors including background of poverty, abuse, mental illness, and potential for reformation – Reports from jail authorities, probation officer, and NALSAR mitigation study considered – Applied principles from Manoj v. State of M.P. and Swamy Shraddananda (2) – Held: Case not “rarest of rare” – Death penalty commuted to life imprisonment without remission for 30 years [Paras 26–31].

Decision:

Crl.A. No. 79 of 2020 (A1): Conviction confirmed – Death sentence modified to life imprisonment for 30 years without remission for offences under Sections 302 and 376A IPC – Sentences to run concurrently – Appeal partly allowed

Crl.A. No. 401 of 2021 (A2): Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence upheld

D.S.R. No. 3 of 2019: Reference answered in negative – Death sentence not confirmed

Civil Procedure – Appointment of Local Commissioner – Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC – Discretion Misapplied – Petitioner filed suit seeking permanent injunction against obstruction of passage and requested appointment of Local Commissioner to inspect and report factual position – Trial Court rejected request stating it was an attempt to collect evidence – Held: Commissioner’s role is not to determine possession but to assist Court by recording physical features – Where factual controversy involves obstruction or alterations on ground, such appointment is not only proper but necessary – Refusal by trial Court without cogent reasoning is unsustainable [Paras 6–8]

Evidence – Nature of Commissioner’s Report – Clarificatory Not Conclusive – Court reiterated that Local Commissioner’s report is not substantive evidence but an aid to adjudication – In disputes involving pathways, encroachments, or boundaries, physical inspection helps clarify material facts – Such action does not prejudice parties but promotes fair adjudication [Paras 6–8]

Supervisory Jurisdiction – Article 227 – Interference Justified – Trial Court failed to exercise discretion judiciously and disregarded relevant factors – Petitioner's claim that passage was blocked not examined properly – Held: Refusal hindered effective adjudication of real issue – High Court set aside order and directed appointment of competent Local Commissioner [Paras 7–9]

Decision: Revision petition allowed – Order dated 11.09.2025 rejecting application for appointment of Local Commissioner set aside – Trial Court directed to appoint Revenue Officer or other suitable person to inspect and report on existing condition of property and passage

Loan Recovery – Partnership Liability – Implied Authority – Plaintiff claimed loan of ₹2,33,800 was advanced to partnership firm through partner Avtar Singh – Trial Court found no evidence of implied authority or benefit to firm – Partnership deed not proved, and receipt not shown to be on behalf of firm – Held: Receipt Ex.P3 executed solely by defendant No.2; loan not binding on firm or other partners – Decree rightly confined to defendant No.2 personally [Paras 11, 14–15].

Forgery – Expert Opinion – Disputed Signature – Defendant denied signatures of deceased partner Avtar Singh on loan receipt – Handwriting expert DW2 confirmed forgery – Plaintiff failed to rebut expert evidence or examine own expert – Held: Signature of Avtar Singh on Ex.P3 found to be forged – Loan not proved against deceased partner or his legal heirs [Paras 11–12].

Foreign Loan – NRI Plaintiff – Admissibility of Oral Evidence – Plaintiff residing in USA did not appear as witness – Evidence led through attorney/son-in-law with no personal knowledge of transaction – No documentation shown for mode of remittance – Held: Plaintiff failed to prove source, transmission, or legality of funds – No permission under FEMA or RBI norms produced [Para 13].

Second Appeal – Scope of Interference – Concurrent Findings – Findings on authority, forgery, and lack of proof of partnership debt are factual – Held: High Court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact in second appeal unless substantial error shown – No such error made out – Appeal dismissed [Paras 16–17].

Decision: Regular Second Appeal dismissed – Decree against defendant No.2 personally for ₹2,33,800 with 12% interest upheld – Suit rightly dismissed against firm and other defendants [Paras 17–18].

Preventive Detention – Subjective Satisfaction – Validity – Detention order passed under Section 3(2) of MPDA Act against petitioner for causing public disorder and terror – Petitioner challenged order on grounds that prior offences were stale and relied upon improperly – Held: Detention based solely on two recent FIRs and two in-camera statements demonstrating habitual conduct prejudicial to public order – Past offences only referred, not relied – Subjective satisfaction properly arrived at – Detention Order valid [Paras 17–19, 24].

Public Order vs. Law and Order – Distinction – Petitioner contended incidents at most involved law and order issues between individuals – Court held that the petitioner’s repeated public assaults with deadly weapons, extortion, and terrorizing of shopkeepers and vendors created widespread fear – Such conduct disturbs public order and affects even tempo of society – Justifies preventive detention [Paras 16, 22–23].

Eyewitness and In-Camera Statements – Reliance and Admissibility – In-camera statements of two witnesses narrated specific extortion incidents involving threats with weapons and violence in public places – Witnesses feared reprisal and public disorder was evident – Held: Statements credible and material validly relied upon for subjective satisfaction [Paras 13–15, 22–23].

Past Offences – Reference vs. Reliance – Detaining Authority merely referred to past offences to illustrate criminal background – Clearly stated in detention grounds that subjective satisfaction was based solely on recent FIRs and witness accounts – Held: Reference without reliance does not vitiate order – No legal infirmity [Paras 17–21].

Binding Precedents – Coordinate Bench Decision Held Per Incuriam – Judgment relied upon by petitioner in Raju @ Shendi Bhishan Tak (WP No. 311/2025) not considered binding – Held: Decision failed to apply binding precedents including Khaja Bilal Ahmed (2020) 13 SCC 632 – Hence not applicable [Para 21].

Severability – Section 5A MPDA – Even if one ground fails, others sufficient to sustain detention – Court noted each ground independently valid – Detention justified even under severability clause [Para 24].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Detention Order upheld – Rule discharged – No interference warranted [Para 25].

Money Laundering – Predicate Offence – Requirement of Scheduled Offence – Validity of Arrest under Section 19 PMLA – Petitioner challenged the arrest of her husband (MLA, Chitradurga Constituency) by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) pursuant to ECIR/BGZO/19/2025, contending absence of a valid predicate scheduled offence – ED relied on multiple FIRs (2011–2024) alleging illegal online betting and gambling networks linked to the accused – Petitioner argued all FIRs except FIR No.218/2022 (Harohalli P.S.) were quashed or closed, and even in that case, a ‘B’ report was filed – Held: existence of a predicate offence is foundational for ECIR registration under PMLA, but respondent’s investigation revealed large-scale betting and laundering operations connected to accused through entities like FonePaisa, Simtech IT Solutions, and foreign casinos – Sufficient material existed for “reason to believe” under Section 19 PMLA – Custodial interrogation justified – Arrest upheld [Paras 10–26].

PMLA – Reason to Believe – Nature of Satisfaction Required – Court reiterated that “reason to believe” under Section 19 PMLA must be based on material indicating involvement in the process or activity connected with proceeds of crime – Preliminary investigation and statements of witnesses revealed direct control and benefit by accused from online betting apps (King567, Raja567) and foreign casino operations – Such material constituted adequate foundation for arrest – Mere filing of ‘B’ report in predicate FIR does not nullify ECIR unless accepted by court [Paras 14–18, 25].

Online Betting Racket – Linking of Predicate FIR with Larger Laundering Operation – Though FIR No.218/2022 involved only ₹30,000 alleged fraud, ED established nexus between the accused’s network and larger fraudulent gaming operations involving hundreds of crores laundered through multiple entities – Court held that “proceeds of crime” include property derived from any criminal activity relatable to the scheduled offence and not confined to amount mentioned in predicate FIR [Paras 21–23].

Constitutional Challenge – Fundamental Rights – Articles 19 and 21 – Arrest not found arbitrary or violative of fundamental rights – ED acted within statutory powers under Section 19 PMLA – Compliance with D.K. Basu guidelines for arrest and communication to family was noted [Paras 3, 4, 25].

Decision: Petition dismissed – ECIR and arrest under Section 19 of the PMLA, 2002 upheld – Observations confined to writ proceedings – Liberty reserved to accused to seek bail or other reliefs if the ‘B’ report in predicate FIR is accepted by the jurisdictional court [Paras 27–28].

Service Law – Recruitment – Eligibility Criteria – AICTE Regulations, 2019 – Application to Ongoing Process – Recruitment Notice Issued on 25.02.2020 Without Mention of AICTE Norms – Government Adopted 2019 Regulations Before Last Date of Application – Clause 1.4(g) Mandates Corrigendum Where Interviews Not Held – Held: Regulations Framed Under Statutory Authority – Appointments Must Comply – Corrigendum Directed Valid – Appeal Dismissed [Paras 1–6, 20–27, 35–37].

Subordinate Legislation – Mandatory Compliance – AICTE Regulations Binding on State and Aided Institutions – Government Order Explicitly Adopted Qualifications Under 2019 AICTE Norms – Recruitment Advertisement Silent on Eligibility – Held: Statutory Rules Prevail Over Earlier Norms – Non-Compliance Inadmissible [Paras 19–25, 35].

Recruitment Process – No Vested Right to Appointment – Select List Not Conclusive – Advertisement Can Be Amended if Statutory Norms Apply – Appellant’s Position in Merit List Irrelevant If Prepared Under Invalid Criteria – Held: Selection Must Follow Existing Law at Time of Cut-off Date – Mere Placement in List Does Not Confer Enforceable Right [Paras 8–10, 26–27, 34].

Tej Prakash Pathak & K. Manjusree – Interpretation – Applicability – Supreme Court Clarified Rules Can’t Be Changed Midway Unless Rules So Permit – Karnataka High Court Held AICTE 2019 Regulations Form Part of Binding Subordinate Legislation – Present Case Falls Within Exceptions Recognized by SC – Held: No Contravention of Article 14 or Administrative Arbitrariness [Paras 28–31].

Education Law – Appointment in Technical Institutions – Standards in Higher Education – Qualification for Associate Professors – AICTE Regulations Prevail Over Institutional Discretion – Government’s Direction for Corrigendum Within Jurisdiction – Held: Ensures Uniformity and Standards in National Technical Education System [Paras 23–24, 36–37].

Decision: Writ Appeal Dismissed – State Government’s direction to amend advertisement to incorporate AICTE Regulations, 2019 upheld – No right to appointment merely on inclusion in merit list prepared contrary to binding regulations – All pending applications disposed of.

Criminal Law – Appeal Against Acquittal – Dishonour of Cheque – Maintainability – Applicant filed for leave to appeal under Section 378(4) CrPC against acquittal in complaint under Section 138 of N.I. Act – Held: In view of the Supreme Court decision in M/s. Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, complainant in a cheque dishonour case is a "victim" under Section 2(wa) CrPC – Such victim has an unconditional right to appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC without needing leave of the High Court – Application to be treated as an appeal under Section 372 CrPC and transferred to Sessions Court for disposal on merits [Paras 1–5].

Victim’s Right to Appeal – Section 372 CrPC – Supreme Court clarified that a complainant in a Section 138 N.I. Act case qualifies as a "victim" and thus can file appeal under proviso to Section 372 CrPC – Requirement of special leave under Section 378(4) does not apply – Reiterated by High Court in Satish Kumar v. Jugal Kishore, Ajmer Kundu (deceased) through LRs v. Pardeep Sharma, and Raj Kumar v. Rajender [Paras 2–4].

Criminal Procedure – Jurisdiction – Appeal Transferred – Application treated as appeal under Section 372 CrPC and directed to be placed before Sessions Judge, Ambala – Registry directed to transmit record and paper-book – Applicant directed to appear before Sessions Court on specified date – No opinion expressed on merits [Paras 5–7].

Decision: Application disposed of – Treated as an appeal under Section 372 CrPC – Ordered to be transferred to Sessions Judge, Ambala for adjudication in accordance with law – Applicant directed to appear on 14.11.2025 – Registry to transmit complete record.