PMLA – Discharge – Predicate offences – Proceeds of crime – Scope of S.3 PMLA – Accused not named in scheduled offence – Maintainability of prosecution – Prima facie case – Revisional interference – Held: Where investigation disclosed subsisting scheduled offences and prima facie generation and layering of proceeds of crime through illegal activities, rejection of discharge application by Special Court justified – Money laundering a continuing offence and persons assisting concealment or use of proceeds of crime liable even if not named in predicate FIR – Revisional court cannot conduct mini trial or re-appreciate evidence – Criminal Revision dismissed [Paras 41-49, 71-78, 95-106, 112-121].

Prevention of Money Laundering Act – Discharge Application – Rejection by Special Court – Petitioners challenged rejection contending absence of subsisting predicate offences – Allegations that FIRs forming basis of ECIR had been quashed, closed or ended in acquittal – Held: Record reveals existence of four active predicate FIRs relating to land fraud, illegal sand mining and liquor smuggling – Pending protest petitions and remand proceedings indicate scheduled offences are still legally subsisting – Hence PMLA prosecution cannot be said to be without foundation – Discharge rightly rejected [Paras 100-106, 112].

Money Laundering – Meaning of “Proceeds of Crime” – Section 2(1)(u) PMLA – Includes property derived directly or indirectly from criminal activity relating to scheduled offence – Explanation inserted by 2019 amendment expands scope to property derived from criminal activity relatable to scheduled offence – Investigation disclosed proceeds of crime of Rs.13,29,92,620 generated through land grabbing, illegal sand mining and liquor trade – Funds allegedly layered through several entities controlled by main accused – Prima facie ingredients of offence under Section 3 PMLA disclosed [Paras 41-49, 88-92].

PMLA – Predicate Offence – Whether accused must be named in scheduled offence – Held: Liability under Section 3 PMLA not confined to persons named in predicate FIR – Even persons who knowingly assist concealment, possession or use of proceeds of crime may be prosecuted – Offence of money laundering is independent and continuing so long as proceeds of crime are possessed, used or projected as untainted property [Paras 95-98].

Criminal Procedure – Scope of Discharge – Court to determine existence of prima facie case and not conduct mini trial – Materials produced by prosecution to be presumed true at this stage – Strong suspicion based on record sufficient to frame charge – Defence of accused or evaluation of evidentiary value cannot be undertaken at stage of discharge [Paras 71-78].

Economic Offences – Money Laundering – Courts should be slow in interfering at threshold stage – Serious financial crimes involving complex financial transactions require full trial to ascertain culpability – Premature discharge would defeat legislative object of PMLA aimed at combating laundering of proceeds of crime [Paras 113-114].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Interference with order rejecting discharge – Revisional Court cannot undertake detailed appreciation of evidence or act as appellate court – Interference permissible only where there is patent illegality or absence of prima facie case – Where Special Court passed reasoned order based on material on record, High Court should not interdict trial [Paras 116-121].

Decision: All Criminal Revision Petitions dismissed – Order dated 21.08.2025 passed by Special Judge (PMLA), Ranchi rejecting discharge applications upheld – Trial directed to proceed in accordance with law [Paras 123-124].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Post-Conviction Compromise – Quashing of Conviction – Petitioner convicted by Trial Court and conviction upheld by Sessions Court – During pendency of revision, parties entered into compromise and complainant stated nothing remained due – Held: Since the offence under Section 138 NI Act is compoundable and object of statute is recovery of legally enforceable debt, continuation of proceedings would serve no fruitful purpose – Conviction and sentence set aside and petitioner acquitted subject to payment of compounding costs [Paras 1, 4, 7, 9, 15].

Compounding of Offence – Scope of Section 482 CrPC – Inherent Powers – High Court empowered to quash proceedings even after conviction in appropriate cases to secure ends of justice – No statutory embargo against exercising inherent jurisdiction post-conviction when parties have amicably settled – Reliance placed on judicial precedents permitting post-conviction compounding – Held: Inherent powers rightly invoked to disrupt prosecution in view of compromise [Paras 6, 9].

Economic Offence – Legislative Intent – Penal Provision as Recovery Mechanism – Jurisprudence behind NI Act is to ensure credibility of commercial transactions and recovery of cheque amount rather than incarceration – When entire liability satisfied, punitive element can yield to settlement – Continuation of proceedings after full settlement amounts to abuse of process [Paras 5, 7, 8].

Compounding Costs – Damodar S. Prabhu Guidelines – 15% of Cheque Amount – Cheque amount Rs. 8,75,000/- – 15% calculated as Rs. 1,31,250/- – Compounding made subject to deposit with High Court Legal Services Authority on or before stipulated date – Failure to deposit to result in automatic recall of order under Sections 403 and 528 BNSS 2023 and listing for hearing on merits – Provision made for seeking reduction/dispensation upon disclosure of financial capacity – Bail bonds discharged subject to compliance [Paras 10–14].

Decision: Petition allowed – Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 02.02.2015 set aside – Petitioner acquitted subject to deposit of Rs. 1,31,250/- as compounding costs – Non-compliance to entail automatic recall of order – All pending applications closed.

Civil Law – Execution – Section 47 CPC – Cryptic Ex Parte Decree – Inexecutability – Suit filed in 1986 for declaration and recovery of possession – Ex parte decree passed on 12.09.2002 – Decree consisted of two lines without any discussion of plaint, written statement, documents produced or issues framed – Held: A cryptic judgment not satisfying the requirements of Order 20 Rules 4, 5 and 6 CPC cannot be considered a judgment in the eye of law – Decree set aside [Paras 19–20, 25–26].

Ex Parte Judgment – Requirements – Order 20 Rules 4, 5 and 6 CPC – An ex parte judgment must contain a concise statement of the case, points for determination, decision thereon and reasons for such decision – Court must discuss the plaint, written statement, documents produced and issues for determination – A judgment that fails to satisfy these requirements is a cryptic judgment contrary to law and is inexecutable [Para 20].

Decree – Executability Against Legal Heirs – Prayer Not Amended – Relief in original suit sought only against second defendant for recovery of possession – Second defendant died during pendency of suit and legal heirs were impleaded – Plaintiffs did not amend the prayer to seek relief against legal heirs – Application to amend decree filed in I.A. No. 462 of 2016 and application to amend execution petition schedule in E.A. No. 3 of 2024 both withdrawn by plaintiffs – Held: Prayer cannot be enlarged against other defendants; decree is inexecutable as against legal heirs [Paras 6–8, 24].

Section 47 CPC – Scope – Section 47 CPC contemplates adjudication of limited issues relating to execution, discharge or satisfaction of a decree – Executing Court cannot go beyond the decree – However, where the decree is void ab initio, a nullity or inexecutable in law, objections under Section 47 can be entertained – Misuse of execution proceedings to obstruct justice deprecated [Paras 20–21].

Article 227 – Supervisory Jurisdiction – High Court empowered to set aside a decree contrary to law even in collateral proceedings where the decree is found to be ex facie illegal – Powers under Article 227 are in addition to and wider than powers under Section 115 CPC [Para 11, referred cases].

Decision: Civil Revision Petitions allowed – Order dated 06.10.2025 of Principal District Munsif, Sankarankovil set aside – Ex parte judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 470 of 1986 dated 12.09.2002 set aside – No costs – Connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

Cinema – Freedom of Expression – Interim Injunction Against Release – Film titled “The Kerala Story 2 Goes Beyond” certified by CBFC – Learned Single Judge stayed release for 15 days on ground that teaser indicated potential communal disharmony and lack of application of mind by CBFC – Held: Once CBFC grants certification after viewing film in entirety, presumption arises that statutory guidelines under Section 5B of the Cinematograph Act have been duly considered – Stay of release based merely on teaser clips without viewing full film unsustainable – Interim order interdicted and stayed [Paras 4–6].

Cinematograph Act, 1952 – Section 5B – Presumption of Due Application of Mind – Appellant had carried out insertions/excisions/modifications as directed by CBFC – Reinforces due application of mind by expert statutory body – Court cannot lightly assume non-application of mind solely on basis of selective clippings [Paras 5–6].

Article 19(1)(a) – Creative Content as Protected Expression – Creative content of cinema inseparable from freedom of speech and expression – Though subject to regulatory measures, once statutory Board certifies film, non-exhibition would infringe fundamental rights unless exceptional grounds exist – Reliance placed on Viacom 18 Media Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, (2018) 1 SCC 761 and Atul Mishra v. Union of India (W.P.(C) No.181 of 2026, SC) [Para 5].

Law and Order – Duty of State – Possibility of public disorder not ground to restrain exhibition of certified film – It is duty of State to maintain law and order – Courts should not prevent exhibition merely on apprehension of disturbance [Paras 5–6].

Judicial Review – Scope at Interim Stage – Writ petitioners had not viewed film in full and relied only on teaser – In absence of full consideration of film, conclusion that CBFC ignored statutory guidelines cannot be countenanced – Interim restraint on release not justified [Paras 5–6].

Decision: Interim order dated 26.02.2026 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) Nos. 6574 & 6854 of 2026 staying release of film set aside/stayed – Release of the movie permitted pending disposal of writ petitions – Writ Appeals admitted.

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Economic Offences – FIR lodged against company, unknown directors, unknown bank officials and unknown private persons – Preliminary Enquiry conducted for 18 months – No specific individual identified – No material indicating fraudulent intention at inception – Held: Registration of FIR for roving and fishing inquiry impermissible – Investigation cannot continue in hope of identifying offender at a later stage [Paras 11, 20, 23].

Cheating – Section 420 r/w Section 415 IPC – Essential ingredients – Deception and dishonest intention at inception mandatory – Mere commercial failure or breach of contractual obligations does not constitute cheating – No allegation of false representation or forged documents – Consortium of banks took conscious commercial decisions after forensic audit and deliberations – Ingredients of offence not made out [Paras 21, 22].

Prevention of Corruption Act – Section 17A – Allegation against unknown bank officials – Prior approval mandatory before inquiry/investigation relating to decisions taken in discharge of official duties – No specific public servant identified – No allegation of violation of statutory guidelines with dishonest intention – Protective umbrella under Section 17A attracted – FIR unsustainable [Para 11].

Economic Offences – Commercial Wisdom of Banks – Decisions of consortium and Joint Lender Forum taken after forensic audit and RBI oversight – Account not classified as fraud – Red Flag status removed – Ministry of Finance and RBI informed – Criminal process cannot substitute commercial assessment of financial institutions – Dissent by few banks does not impute criminality [Paras 13, 14, 18, 21].

Preliminary Enquiry – Scope and Effect – CBI collected 52 documents and examined witnesses – Earlier closure communicated by CBI in 2018 – No conclusive material of fraud or diversion in forensic audit – FIR based on selective reading of documents – Continuation of investigation would amount to abuse of process of law [Paras 9, 12, 16, 19].

Inherent and Writ Jurisdiction – Power to Quash – High Court can interfere at preliminary stage where continuation of criminal proceedings would result in miscarriage of justice – Unimpeachable documents can be considered – FIR substantially wiped out by record – Interference warranted [Para 16].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – FIR bearing RC2192023E0003 dated 21/01/2023 registered by CBI quashed – Investigation directed to be closed.

Civil Law – Amendment of Pleadings – Order VI Rule 17 CPC – Plaintiff filed suit for declaration of title on the basis of a Will – During pendency of suit alleged forcible dispossession by defendants – Plaintiff sought amendment to incorporate relief of possession – Trial Court and Revisional Court rejected amendment citing delay and commencement of trial – Held: Amendment based on subsequent cause of action and within limitation – Once a separate suit for possession was permissible, the same relief could be incorporated by amendment in pending suit to avoid multiplicity of proceedings [Paras 6-7].

Subsequent Cause of Action – Amendment to Claim Additional Relief – Plaintiff alleged that defendants forcibly took possession in June 2019 during pendency of suit – Amendment application filed in May 2022 within limitation for filing suit for possession – Held: Amendment only sought consequential relief based on subsequent event and did not alter basic structure of the suit – Such amendment should ordinarily be allowed [Paras 6-7].

Order VI Rule 17 Proviso – Commencement of Trial – Respondents contended amendment barred as issues had already been framed – Court held that trial ordinarily commences when evidence begins and not merely upon framing of issues – Since no evidence had been led at the time of filing amendment application, the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC was not attracted [Paras 10-11].

Delay in Filing Amendment – Effect – Courts below rejected amendment citing delay of nearly three years – Held: Mere delay cannot be a ground to reject amendment application – Determination should depend on stage of proceedings and prejudice to the opposite party – Pre-trial amendments should be liberally allowed to determine real controversy between parties [Paras 8, 12].

Supervisory Jurisdiction – Article 227 – High Court found that courts below committed error in rejecting amendment and prejudged merits of the amendment – In exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, High Court quashed orders of trial court and revisional court and allowed amendment application directly considering pendency of suit since 2019 [Paras 9, 13-14].

Decision: Petition allowed – Orders dated 23.02.2024 and 03.07.2024 rejecting amendment application set aside – Amendment application allowed – Petitioner directed to carry out amendment within three weeks from production of certified copy before the trial court.

Criminal Law – Appeal against Acquittal – Limited Scope of Interference – Trial Court acquitted accused of offence under Section 3(1)(x) SC/ST Act – High Court held that judgment was well-reasoned, based on appreciation of evidence and not perverse or illegal – In absence of perversity or patent illegality, no interference warranted in appeal against acquittal – Appeal dismissed at threshold [Paras 7-8].

Electronic Evidence – CD Recording – Mandatory Compliance of Section 65-B Evidence Act – Prosecution relied on CD containing alleged casteist remarks – No certificate under Section 65-B produced – In view of settled law in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar, electronic evidence inadmissible without mandatory certificate – Trial Court rightly discarded CD evidence [Paras 4, 6].

SC/ST Act – Public View – Proof of Caste-based Insult – Allegations of hurling casteist abuses – Material contradictions between complaint to National Commission and deposition in Court regarding date and frequency of incident – Independent witnesses unreliable due to contradictions and admitted hostility/litigation – Evidence insufficient to establish insult in public view – Acquittal upheld [Paras 4, 6-7].

Contradictions and Delay – Appreciation of Evidence – Witnesses made improvements over original complaint – Complainant confined allegations to specific date in deposition though complaint alleged repeated incidents – Physical disability of accused and other inconsistencies considered by Trial Court – Findings not shown to be perverse [Paras 6-7].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment of acquittal dated 30.07.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge upheld – No interference called for – Pending applications disposed of.

Summoning order under Section 138 NI Act quashed for non-compliance of mandatory proviso to Section 202 Cr.P.C. – Accused residing in District Nainital summoned by Magistrate at Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar without conducting any enquiry or investigation – Respondent’s liberty to pursue remedy afresh in accordance with law preserved.

“Summoning Without Safeguards” – Quashing of Summoning Order – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 202 Cr.P.C. – Respondent filed complaint alleging dishonour of two cheques of Rs. 10 lakhs each issued by the Applicant towards construction of a residential house – Applicant is a resident of District Nainital whereas the complaint was filed and entertained at Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar – Magistrate summoned the Applicant without conducting any enquiry or investigation under Section 202 Cr.P.C. – Held: The proviso to Section 202 Cr.P.C. mandates that before issuance of process against an accused residing outside the territorial jurisdiction, the Magistrate “shall” postpone issuance of process and conduct an enquiry or direct investigation – This is a substantive safeguard and not an empty formality – Summoning order quashed [Paras 3, 5, 12, 13].

“Mechanical Order Without Judicial Mind” – Non-Application of Mind by Magistrate – Summoning order dated 29.07.2022 does not advert to Section 202 Cr.P.C. at all – Order merely notices the allegations and proceeds to summon the Applicant without reflecting any application of judicial mind to the statutory requirement or to the necessity of preliminary verification – Held: Such omission goes to the root of the matter and renders the summoning order legally unsustainable [Para 13].

“Procedural Defect, Not Factual Defence” – Distinction Between Procedural and Factual Defects – While the complaint discloses formal ingredients of Section 138 NI Act and disputed questions regarding misuse of cheques or civil disputes fall within the domain of trial – The defect in the present case is not factual but procedural and jurisdictional – Continuation of proceedings founded upon non-fulfilment of a mandatory condition precedent would amount to permitting prosecution based on an invalid exercise of jurisdiction [Para 14].

Decision: Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. allowed – Summoning order dated 29.07.2022 and consequential proceedings in Complaint Case No. 1012 of 2022 quashed – Respondent not precluded from pursuing remedy in accordance with law – Magistrate at liberty to proceed afresh after due compliance of Section 202 Cr.P.C.

Criminal Law – Dowry Death – Section 304B IPC – Conviction based solely on dying declaration – Deceased sustained 85–90% burn injuries – Doctor admitted no written certificate issued regarding fitness of deceased to give statement – Evidence discloses administration of painkillers, sedatives, analgesics and IV fluids – Hospital case sheet and treatment records not produced – Material witnesses including parents and relatives turned hostile – Held: Prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that deceased was in a fit state of mind and that cruelty in connection with dowry demand was inflicted soon before death – Conviction unsustainable [Paras 17, 23, 24].

Evidence – Dying Declaration – Section 32(1) Evidence Act – Though medical certification is rule of prudence and not mandatory, Court must be satisfied about voluntariness and mental fitness – Absence of written certification coupled with 90% burn injuries and administration of sedatives creates serious doubt – MLC (Ex.P37) mentions history as “suicidal attempt” and does not name accused – Failure to produce best evidence vitiates reliance solely on dying declaration [Paras 17–22].

Dowry Death – Essential Ingredients – Requirement of proof of cruelty or harassment in connection with dowry demand soon before death – No independent corroboration – Majority of prosecution witnesses turned hostile – Inconsistencies regarding time of admission and recording of dying declaration – Prosecution failed to collect call details of alleged phone call made by deceased – Ingredients of Section 304B IPC not established [Paras 19–22].

Criminal Jurisprudence – Best Evidence Rule – Accused presumed innocent until guilt proved beyond reasonable doubt – Prosecution bound to adduce best available evidence – Withholding hospital records and material inconsistencies create reasonable doubt – Benefit of doubt to accused [Paras 22–23].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17/18.08.2012 in SC No.27/2011 set aside – Appellant acquitted of offence under Section 304B IPC – District Legal Services Authority directed to award compensation to minor sons of deceased within three months.