Criminal Law – Dishonour of Cheques – Quashing of Proceedings – Appellant filed complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against a Partnership Firm and its partners, including Respondent, for dishonour of cheques aggregating ₹6 crores – High Court quashed proceedings against Respondent under Section 482 CrPC on ground that he had retired from partnership before issuance of cheques – Held: Retirement not duly notified under Sections 32, 62, 63, and 72 of Partnership Act – No public notice published – Respondent continued to be liable as partner – Order of High Court set aside – Trial to proceed [Paras 1–6, 9–14].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 141 – Vicarious Liability – Cheques signed by another partner (Accused No.2), but complaint contained specific averments of involvement of Respondent in day-to-day affairs and assurance of repayment – Held: Sufficient prima facie material to attract Section 141 NI Act – Signing of cheques by one partner does not absolve others where firm liability is pleaded and substantiated [Paras 11–12].

Criminal Procedure – Section 482 CrPC – Scope and Limits – High Court quashed criminal proceedings without trial based on disputed factual claims of retirement – Held: Disputed questions of fact and law cannot be adjudicated under Section 482 CrPC – Requires trial and evidence – High Court exceeded jurisdiction [Paras 13–14].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court's quashing order dated 23.09.2023 set aside – Criminal complaint proceedings restored for trial – No observation to affect merits of trial [Paras 14–15].

Family Law – Criminal Proceedings – Domestic Violence – Maintainability of Section 482 CrPC – Appellants challenged proceedings initiated under Section 12(1) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) – High Court held that since the DV proceedings are civil in nature, they could not be quashed under Section 482 CrPC – Supreme Court held: Even though proceedings are civil in nature, they are entertained by criminal courts (Magistrates) and governed by CrPC – Hence, High Courts can invoke inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC or Section 528 BNSS to quash such proceedings in appropriate cases [Paras 1–2, 29–33, 39].

Criminal Procedure – Inherent Power – Section 482 CrPC – Scope clarified – Court held that while proceedings under Section 12(1) of the DV Act are not criminal prosecutions in the strict sense, they are initiated in criminal courts and CrPC provisions apply – Section 482 CrPC empowers High Court to quash such proceedings to prevent abuse of process or to secure ends of justice – However, courts should be slow to interfere, and only in cases of gross illegality or abuse [Paras 32–35, 39].

Domestic Violence – Civil vs Criminal Nature – Though reliefs under Sections 18–22 of DV Act (residence orders, protection, monetary relief, compensation) are civil in substance, they are enforced via criminal courts under CrPC – DV Act is a welfare statute aimed at protecting women from domestic abuse – Proceedings under Section 12(1) are not equated with criminal complaints under Section 200 CrPC [Paras 12–22, 27–29].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Order of Madhya Pradesh High Court dated 09.05.2024 set aside – Petitions under Section 482 CrPC restored to file for fresh adjudication on merits – High Courts directed to be cautious and restrained in quashing DV Act proceedings [Paras 40–41].

Service Law - Constitutional Law – Pension Rights of High Court Judges – Suo motu writ petition initiated to address anomalies in pension, gratuity, and post-retirement benefits for High Court Judges including Additional Judges – Clubbed with multiple writ petitions involving retired Judges from district judiciary and bar – Held: All retired High Court Judges, irrespective of source of entry (Bar or Judiciary), tenure, or status (Permanent or Additional), entitled to uniform pension of ₹13,50,000 per annum – Retired Chief Justices entitled to ₹15,00,000 per annum – Principle of ‘One Rank One Pension’ affirmed for constitutional office holders [Paras 1–11, 55–59, 76(i)-(iv)]

Service Law – Break-in-Service and NPS Implications – Full pension not to be denied due to break between District Judge retirement and High Court Judge appointment – Judges joining service post-NPS implementation also entitled to full pension – State must refund NPS contributions made by Judges with interest – State contributions to be retained by States [Paras 60–65, 76(v)-(vi)]

Service Law – Additional Judges – Family Pension and Gratuity – Retired Additional Judges of High Court included in definition of ‘Judge’ under Section 2(g) of the HCJ Act – Entitled to same pension as Permanent Judges – Widow/family of Additional Judge who dies in harness entitled to family pension and gratuity – Ten-year service addition to be applied for gratuity eligibility [Paras 66–72, 76(vii)-(viii)]

Constitutional Interpretation – Judicial Independence – Article 221(2) mandates equality in pension and benefits – Held: Any discrimination post-retirement on basis of service source violates Articles 14 and 16 – Emphasized that once appointed, Judges of High Courts form a homogenous constitutional class – Salaries and pensions charged respectively to Consolidated Funds of States and Union to ensure independence [Paras 52–54]

Statutory Interpretation – Harmonious Construction – Sections 14, 15, 17A of High Court Judges Act, 1954 to be read consistently to ensure non-discrimination – Cap on pension as per Schedule I (₹13.5L/₹15L) applies uniformly regardless of past service – Held: Family pension and gratuity provisions under HCJ Act to be interpreted liberally in light of constitutional mandate [Paras 56–59, 71–72, 74–75, 76(ix)]

Decision: All petitions disposed of – Full pension, gratuity, and benefits granted as per uniform scale – Directions issued for refund of NPS contributions and universal application of benefits – Appreciation recorded for counsels including Amicus Curiae and Attorney General [Paras 76–78]

Criminal Procedure – Transfer and Clubbing of FIRs – Multiple FIRs lodged against petitioner across 10 States for offences under IPC and local deposit protection laws – Petitioner initially sought transfer of all FIRs to Panchkula, Haryana – Court noted similar relief was denied in 2020 – Alternative prayer for consolidation within respective States allowed due to non-objection by respondent States – Held: Clubbing of FIRs within each State directed, with the earliest FIR to act as the principal FIR and subsequent FIRs to be treated as statements under Section 161 CrPC – Supplementary charge-sheets may be filed accordingly [Paras 1-3, 9-13, 19-22]

Criminal Law – Offences under IPC and Special Laws – FIRs allege offences under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 IPC read with Sections 120B, 34, 263, 114 IPC and various State Acts such as the Gujarat Police Act, Haryana Depositors Act, and others – Petitioner accused of collecting deposits fraudulently via land allotment schemes – SEBI declined registration as Collective Investment Scheme citing pre-launch requirement – CBI preliminary inquiry reported KIDL lacked capacity to repay investors – Held: Trials must be held under Special Acts if any clubbed FIR invokes such legislation, even if principal FIR was under general law [Paras 4-8, 10]

Criminal Procedure – Bail Implications on Clubbed FIRs – Petitioner in custody since 11.10.2018 – Court directed that bail granted in the principal FIR would extend to clubbed FIRs unless they relate to special enactments or distinct IPC offences – In such cases, fresh bail applications must be moved and considered on merits – Direction issued under Article 32 read with Article 142 of the Constitution [Paras 20-21]

Legal Precedents and Jurisdiction – Reliance on Radhey Shyam v. State of Haryana and Abhishek Singh Chauhan v. Union of India – Court reaffirmed that multiplicity of proceedings not in public interest – Clubbing required to avoid conflict and ensure coherent prosecution – Clarified that if special laws are involved in subsequent FIRs, Special Courts shall retain jurisdiction [Para 10]

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – FIRs in Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Punjab, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, and Uttarakhand to be merged within each State respectively – Chhattisgarh and Delhi FIRs to proceed independently as only one FIR is pending in each – Proceedings to continue in line with directions under Article 142 of the Constitution [Paras 19, 22]

Criminal Law - Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2), and Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Corruption Charges – Demand and Acceptance of Bribe – Proof Required – Acquittal Upheld – Respondent was accused of demanding and receiving ₹1,500 as bribe for submitting a spot inspection report – Trial Court convicted him based on recovery of tainted money – High Court acquitted him citing lack of credible evidence of demand – Supreme Court upheld acquittal, holding demand was not proven beyond reasonable doubt, and testimony of complainant lacked reliability [Paras 1, 6–7, 23–26].

Presumption under Section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act – Applicability Conditional on Proof of Demand – Rebuttable Presumption Not Triggered – The Court clarified that presumption under Section 20 arises only upon proof of demand – In absence of credible evidence on demand, recovery alone does not sustain conviction – Cited decisions in Paritala Sudhakar and Om Parkash for proposition that presumption cannot substitute proof of demand [Paras 10, 24–25].

Credibility of Complainant – Contradictions and Admissions – Testimony Deemed Unreliable – Complainant denied prior spot inspection, then admitted the same upon confrontation with signed report – Such conduct considered sufficient to reject his testimony as unreliable – Benefit of doubt extended to accused [Paras 24–26].

Final Relief – Acquittal Not Interfered – Appeal Dismissed – Though High Court gave limited reasons for overturning conviction, Supreme Court independently examined the material and found no perversity in acquittal – Held: Chain of demand, acceptance, and recovery was incomplete – Appeal dismissed [Paras 27–29].

Criminal Law – Dishonour of Cheques – Quashing of Proceedings – Appellant filed complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against a Partnership Firm and its partners, including Respondent, for dishonour of cheques aggregating ₹6 crores – High Court quashed proceedings against Respondent under Section 482 CrPC on ground that he had retired from partnership before issuance of cheques – Held: Retirement not duly notified under Sections 32, 62, 63, and 72 of Partnership Act – No public notice published – Respondent continued to be liable as partner – Order of High Court set aside – Trial to proceed [Paras 1–6, 9–14].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 141 – Vicarious Liability – Cheques signed by another partner (Accused No.2), but complaint contained specific averments of involvement of Respondent in day-to-day affairs and assurance of repayment – Held: Sufficient prima facie material to attract Section 141 NI Act – Signing of cheques by one partner does not absolve others where firm liability is pleaded and substantiated [Paras 11–12].

Criminal Procedure – Section 482 CrPC – Scope and Limits – High Court quashed criminal proceedings without trial based on disputed factual claims of retirement – Held: Disputed questions of fact and law cannot be adjudicated under Section 482 CrPC – Requires trial and evidence – High Court exceeded jurisdiction [Paras 13–14].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court's quashing order dated 23.09.2023 set aside – Criminal complaint proceedings restored for trial – No observation to affect merits of trial [Paras 14–15].

Customs Law – Section 14(1), 14(2), 27, 142 of the Customs Act  - Refund of Duty – Encashment of Bank Guarantee Not ‘Payment’ – Refund Allowed – Appellant furnished bank guarantees for differential customs duty under High Court orders—Upon High Court’s dismissal, department encashed guarantees—Supreme Court held: Bank guarantee encashment not “payment” under Section 27 of the Customs Act—Doctrine of unjust enrichment not applicable—Appellant entitled to refund [Paras 22–27, 30–34].

Doctrine of Unjust Enrichment – Not Applicable Where Payment Not Voluntary – Encashment of bank guarantees done unilaterally by the revenue without final adjudication—Court held: Unjust enrichment doctrine applies only to duty “paid” and passed on—Security through bank guarantee is not duty payment—Refund cannot be denied under Section 27 [Paras 19–21, 26–27].

Binding Precedents – Oswal Agro Mills and Somaiya Organics Applied – Supreme Court reaffirmed law laid down in Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. and Somaiya Organics—Held: Encashed bank guarantees are not “paid duty” under Customs or Excise Acts—Decision in DCW Ltd. distinguished on facts as encashment there was court-directed after default [Paras 25–30].

Judicial Review – High Court’s Application of Section 27 Quashed – High Court held refund subject to proof of unjust enrichment under Section 27—Supreme Court reversed—Held: Encashment of security before SC’s ruling in favour of appellant was unjust—Respondents had no legal right to retain funds post decision in Param Industries Ltd. [Paras 28–31].

Decision – Appeals allowed – High Court order dated 28.04.2016 set aside – Department directed to refund full amounts with 6% interest from date of encashment – Refund to be completed within four months – No order as to costs [Paras 31–32].

Civil Law - Foreigners Act – Declaration of Appellant as a Foreigner -  Burden of Proof – Section 9 – Failure to Establish Citizenship – Appellant declared foreigner for entering India after 25.03.1971—Tribunal and High Court found documentary evidence inconsistent and untrustworthy—Held: Burden under Section 9 not discharged—No error in concurrent findings [Paras 13–17].

Documentary Evidence – School Certificate, Voter Lists – Disbelieved – School certificate found unproved; issued after 10 years, headmaster not examined—Voter list entries of alleged grandfather inconsistent with appellant’s residence—Appellant failed to establish linkage or migration—Held: Evidence rightly rejected [Paras 4–6, 14–15].

Nationality Determination – Draft NRC Inclusion Irrelevant After Tribunal Declaration – Appellant claimed inclusion in 2018 draft NRC invalidated foreigner declaration—Court held: As per Rule 4A(3) of 2003 Rules, persons already declared foreigners by competent authority (Tribunal) cannot be included—NRC list has no overriding effect [Paras 19–28].

Precedent – Abdul Kuddus Case Applied – Tribunal is Competent Authority – Court reaffirmed that Tribunal’s declaration is final and binding under Rule 4A—Draft NRC cannot annul such declaration—Held: Appellant continues to be a declared foreigner despite NRC entry [Paras 25–27].

Constitutional Law – Article 136 – No Ground to Interfere – Supreme Court found no legal infirmity, perversity, or procedural irregularity in lower court findings—Petition under Article 136 dismissed—Interim release order discharged [Paras 16, 30].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Appellant to be treated as foreigner – Interim release order withdrawn – Pending applications also disposed [Para 30].

Insurance Law – Section 23 of the Consumer Protection Act - Flood Damage – Repudiation Based on Seepage – Held Invalid – Appellant’s premises suffered damage due to heavy rainfall between 25–31 August 2016—First surveyor attributed damage to flooding from rainwater—Insurer rejected claim citing “seepage,” based on a second survey—Held: Second survey arbitrary and unsupported—First survey and expert reports confirmed flood damage—Repudiation unjustified [Paras 3–9, 27–30].

Survey Report – Preference for First Survey Conducted Promptly – First survey conducted on 03.09.2016 concluded rainwater entered through flooring—No flaws cited—Second survey conducted after delay without justification contradicted earlier findings—Held: First report valid and reliable—Second report set aside [Paras 27–30].

Expert Evidence – Structural Engineer Reports Confirmed Flooding – Reports from M/s International Consultants & Technocrats and M/s Chordia Engineering Consultancy confirmed flooding due to rainfall—Unique Consulting Engineers’ report referred to unrelated seepage in structural elements—Held: No basis to infer seepage caused basement damage—NCDRC erred in relying on irrelevant structural data [Paras 14–17, 27–28].

Consumer Protection – Wrongful Repudiation – Arbitrary Conduct by Insurer – Insurer failed to address first survey or trace water source—Multiple surveys used to evade liability—Court found insurer’s approach mala fide and unfair—Set aside repudiation and remanded for quantum determination [Paras 19, 30–31].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Repudiation of claim set aside – Matter remanded to NCDRC for computation of compensation as per policy – Second survey report dated 18.10.2016 quashed – No costs [Paras 31–32].