Criminal Law – Quashing of Proceedings – Petition for quashing criminal proceedings arising out of contractual disputes concerning commission payments in marketing agreements – Allegations of cheating and criminal breach of trust under Sections 406, 418, and 420 IPC – Held that disputes were essentially of a civil nature and did not constitute criminal offenses – All criminal proceedings against the petitioners quashed due to absence of criminal intent and for being a misuse of judicial process [Para 1-31].

Contracts and Criminal Liability – Analysis – Held that mere non-payment or dispute over commission rates in business agreements does not amount to cheating or criminal breach of trust – Intent to defraud not established – Emphasized the distinction between civil disputes and criminal liability [Para 20-31].

Decision – Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Court quashed the criminal proceedings, emphasizing that criminal courts should not be used for settling commercial disputes – Found proceedings to be an abuse of process, not fitting the criteria of criminal prosecution under relevant sections of IPC [Para 32-33].

Criminal Law – Dishonor of Cheque – Cheques issued as security under employment contracts – Petitioners sought quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, arguing no subsisting legal debt or liability at the time of the cheque issuance – High Court held proceedings should continue as the question of the validity of contracts and enforceability of debt on the date of cheque presentation to be determined at trial – Petitions dismissed. [Paras 1-22]

Contract Law – Security Cheques and Legally Enforceable Liabilities – Analysis focused on whether the cheques issued as security without a specific date could establish a legally enforceable debt under Section 138 when no such debt existed at the time of contract formation. The court referenced Supreme Court judgments clarifying the need for a legally enforceable debt or liability at the time of the cheque's presentation, not just at issuance, to sustain a criminal complaint under Section 138 [Paras 10-19].

Judicial Procedure – Role of Trial Court in Determining Contract Validity and Enforcement – The High Court emphasized that the validity of contracts and the existence of enforceable liabilities should be adjudicated at the trial level where evidence can be fully examined. The decision highlighted the trial court's responsibility to assess whether the terms of the employment contracts and the subsequent issuance and dishonour of cheques constituted a breach under the stipulated conditions [Paras 11-12, 20].

Decision – Dismissal of Petitions to Quash Proceedings – The High Court dismissed the petitions, ruling that issues concerning the enforcement of contracts and the applicability of Section 138 N.I. Act are matters for trial consideration. The court instructed the trial court to expedite proceedings given the long duration since the filing of the original complaints [Paras 21-22].

Constitutional Law – Challenge to Telangana State Judicial Services Rules, 2023 – High Court upholds constitutionality of Rule (5.2) (A) prescribing age and marks criteria for selection of judicial officers – Challenge to maximum age limit of 26 years and marks criteria for open category (60%) and reserved categories (55%) – Court follows previous decisions and Supreme Court precedents to uphold rules [Paras 1-13].

Age and Marks Criteria – Petitioners challenged maximum age limit of 26 years and marks criteria for judicial service recruitment – Court held age and marks criteria valid, finding them consistent with objectives of ensuring quality in judicial appointments – Court referred to previous judgments and Supreme Court rulings supporting such criteria to maintain high standards in judicial services [Paras 3-10].

Provincialism and Bar Association Certificate – Rule restricting eligibility to advocates practicing in Telangana and requiring Bar Association Certificate – Challenge on grounds of provincialism and procedural unfairness – Court upheld rules, citing administrative policies and objectives of maintaining local relevance and ensuring proper certification of candidates [Paras 4-5].

Evidence from Previous Judgments – Court heavily relied on principles and precedents set in earlier judgments, including Devanch Kaushik v. State of Madhya Pradesh and All India Judges’ Association v. Union of India – Emphasized judicial discretion in setting eligibility criteria and maintaining high standards for judicial appointments [Paras 10-11].

Decision – Dismissal of Petitions – Held – The writ petitions are dismissed – Court affirmed validity of Telangana State Judicial Services Rules, 2023, upholding the age and marks criteria, and eligibility conditions for judicial appointments in Telangana [Para 13].

Companies Act Offense Jurisdiction – Cognizance of offenses under Section 447 of the Companies Act, 2013, can only be taken based on a complaint made by the Director, Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO), or an authorized Central Government officer, not on a private complaint – Complaint under Section 447 by a shareholder held not maintainable on jurisdictional grounds. [Paras 22-29]

Limitation Period Application – For offense under Section 185 of the Companies Act, punishable by up to six months or fine, the limitation period under Section 468(2)(b) Cr.P.C. is one year – Complaint filed in 2017 for alleged offenses during 2002-2008 deemed time-barred. [Paras 30-34]

Continuing Offense Consideration – Section 452 of the Companies Act treated as a continuing offense, where wrongful withholding of company property continues to be an offense as long as the act persists – Not barred by limitation as each day’s continuation of wrongful act resets the limitation period. [Paras 36-41]

Conspiracy and Joint Trial Impact on Limitation – Cognizance for offenses under Sections 185 and 452 along with Section 120B IPC is permissible, but separate consideration of limitation periods for each offense necessary – Conspiracy under Section 120B not independently chargeable from the corporate offenses without specific SFIO or authorized complaint. [Paras 42-53]

Decision: Orders summoning petitioners for offenses under Sections 185/447 of the Companies Act read with Section 120B of the IPC set aside due to lack of jurisdiction and lapse of limitation period.

Order under Section 452 of the Companies Act upheld as a continuing offense not barred by limitation.

Liberty granted to respondent no.2 to move an application under Section 473 of the Cr.P.C. before the trial court to seek an extension of the period of limitation for offense under Section 185, if permissible by law. [Paras 55-58]

Criminal Procedure – Quashing of Proceedings – Alleged involvement in stolen vehicle case – Petitioner named Avishek Singhal implicated on basis of co-accused’s statement in Mirik Police Station Case No. 58/09 dated 08.08.2009 under Sections 411, 413, 414, 468, 471 IPC – High Court finds no substantive evidence corroborating the co-accused’s statement or connecting petitioner to the crime – Proceedings quashed against the petitioner due to insufficiency of evidence. [Paras 1-16]

Evidentiary Value of Co-Accused’s Statement – Held – Statements of a co-accused are not sufficient to frame charge unless corroborated by other substantial evidence – Reliance placed on Supreme Court judgments in Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel v. State of Gujarat and others [(2019) 16 SCC 547] and Suresh Budharmal Kalani v. State of Maharashtra [(1998) 7 SCC 337], which clarify that confessions or statements to police are inadmissible under Sections 24, 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. [Paras 5, 7, 12-13]

Decision – Application for quashing of proceedings granted – Based on principles laid down by the Supreme Court, lack of recovery from petitioner’s residence and absence of corroborative evidence led to quashing of criminal proceedings against the petitioner in connection with the alleged stolen vehicle case. [Paras 14-16]

Bail – Criminal Law – Bail Jurisprudence – Petitioners accused of offences under Sections 420, 406, and 120-B IPC, sought bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. Contended that offences are triable by a Court of Magistrate, no case made out against them, and their incarceration is unwarranted. Argued that co-accused had already been granted bail and petitioners' cases are not distinguishable.

Grant of Bail – Judicial Discretion – Court reiterated bail jurisprudence, emphasizing discretion vested in Magistrates for offences triable by them. Highlighted that prolonged detention without trial completion infringes on rights and goes against reformative justice principles. Court found no legal impediment to grant bail to petitioners, given no significant adverse factors against them. [Paras 1-28]

Decision – Bail Granted – Petitions allowed. Petitioners ordered to be enlarged on bail on furnishing personal bonds and sureties as stipulated. Court underscored parity with co-accused and judicial consistency as grounds for decision. [Paras 5-6]

Corporate Law – Transfer of Winding-Up Proceedings –  Application for transfer of winding-up petition to NCLT under Section 434(1)© of the Companies Act, 2013 – Official Liquidator had taken possession of the company’s registered office but had not invited any claims from creditors or workers – Supreme Court precedents (A. Navinchandra Steels, Kaledonia Jute & Fibres, and Action Ispat) emphasize discretion of Company Court to transfer proceedings to NCLT as long as no irreversible actions have been taken in the winding-up process – Bombay High Court exercises discretion to transfer petition to NCLT for efficient resolution under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. [Paras 1-14]

Transfer of Proceedings – Discretionary Power of Court - Held – Court may transfer winding-up proceedings to NCLT unless irreversible steps have been taken – Irreversibility determined by whether assets have been sold or significant actions preclude setting the process back – Present case does not reach such stage – Transfer ordered subject to deposit of Rs. 3 lakhs towards liquidation costs. [Para 8-11]

Decision: Company Petition No. 317 of 2012 transferred to NCLT, Mumbai, subject to Applicant depositing Rs. 3 lakhs with Official Liquidator for liquidation costs – Admission order dated 28^th September 2017 recalled/revoked – NCLT to treat the petition as an application for Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process under IBC, 2016. [Para 10-13

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) – Allotment of Premises in High Court Campus – Challenge to Allotment Procedure – High Court's Decision on Lack of Transparency and Legal Entity Recognition – Examination of Procedural Compliance and Discretionary Power

Public Interest Litigation – Maintainability – Writ Petition filed by Advocate challenging allotment of premises to unrecognized Bar Association – High Court held petition maintainable as PIL – Found absence of transparent and objective criteria in allotment process – Consideration of discrimination and violation of Article 14 [Paras 1, 113].

Administrative Discretion – Allotment of Public Property – Chief Justice's Prerogative – Examination of Discretionary Power in Absence of Policy or Procedure – High Court held lack of transparency and fairness in allotment to Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Bar Association – Cancellation of Allotment – Requirement of adherence to principles of justice and equity in administrative decisions [Paras 13, 63, 83, 107, 112].

Recognition of Bar Associations – Legal Entity Status under Advocates Act, 1961 – High Court upheld State Bar Council's decision to deny recognition to Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Bar Association – No entitlement to claim facilities without recognition – Affirmation of the principle 'One Bar One Vote' – Implications on legal status and entitlements of Bar Associations [Paras 2, 6, 11, 61, 112].

Judicial Review – Examination of Administrative Decisions – Application of Wednesbury Test – High Court found absence of objective criteria, transparency, and fairness in decision-making process – Emphasized the need for rules and procedures in allotment of public property to ensure non-arbitrariness and equality [Paras 66, 92, 106, 111].

Decision – Revocation of Allotment – Held – Allotment of space to Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Bar Association was arbitrary, lacked transparency and violated principles of natural justice – Allotment cancelled and premises directed to be made available to recognized Bar Associations in compliance with established procedures and equitable principles [Paras 112-114].

Property Dispute & Identification – Appellants and 1^st respondent contest over 1 acre and 19 cents of land, part of larger land acquisition for Kannur Airport – Respondents claim land based on purchases from 1986 onward, while appellants claim based on a 1947 partition decree and subsequent sales – Neither party able to conclusively prove title over disputed land leading to deposition of compensation by authorities.

Judicial Process & Mismanagement – Reference Court failed to adequately address discrepancies and procedural errors surrounding the Advocate Commissioner’s report – High Court critiques reliance on insufficiently substantiated Commission Report and Plan (Exts.X1 and X2) – High Court finds the Reference Court neglected directives to re-evaluate the Commissioner’s findings, resulting in flawed judgment favoring the 1^st respondent.

High Court Directions – Judgment and decree of the Reference Court set aside – Case remanded for fresh disposal with directions to re-evaluate the Commission Report and plan accurately using the proper records and land boundaries defined in relevant title deeds and the final decree of a 1947 partition suit.