Criminal Law – Quashing of Proceedings – Section 482 CrPC – The appellants challenged the High Court's order quashing the criminal proceedings against the second respondent for offenses under Sections 420, 406, and 34 IPC. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in its decision, as the allegations in the complaint/FIR/charge-sheet disclosed the commission of offenses. The ingredients of the offenses under Sections 406 and 420 IPC were present, and whether the allegations were correct was a matter to be decided during the trial [Paras 1-24].

Inherent Jurisdiction – Exercise with Care and Circumspection – The Supreme Court reiterated that the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC is an extraordinary power to be exercised with great care and circumspection. The High Court should not quash criminal proceedings at the inception unless it is a rarest of rare case. The Court emphasized that the High Court must prima facie consider the complaint, charge-sheet, and witness statements to decide if a cognizable offense is made out [Paras 12-13, 28].

Civil and Criminal Proceedings – Coexistence – The Court observed that the existence of a civil remedy or arbitration proceedings does not preclude the initiation of criminal proceedings if the ingredients of the alleged offense are present. The High Court's view that civil disputes should not be converted into criminal cases was incorrect, as many offenses, including cheating, often occur in the course of commercial transactions [Paras 32-33].

Decision: Appeal allowed – The High Court's order quashing the criminal proceedings was set aside. The trial Court was directed to proceed with the trial expeditiously without being influenced by the observations made in this judgment [Paras 38-39].

Contempt of Court – Non-Compliance with Court Orders – Refund of Lease Rent – The petitioners alleged that NOIDA did not comply with the Supreme Court's directions to refund the lease rent for the remainder period after the plot is sold. The Supreme Court held that the one-time lease rent paid by the petitioners represents the entirety of the lease period, and thus, the component representing the remainder period after the plot is sold should be refunded without interest [Paras 1-20].

Lease Agreement – Terms and Conditions – Execution of Supplementary Lease Deed – The Supreme Court directed NOIDA to execute a supplementary lease deed upon payment of all dues by the petitioners. In case of default, the plots should be auctioned, and the proceeds used to refund the petitioners with an interest rate of 7% per annum on the amounts deposited towards premium [Paras 22-25].

Auction of Plots – Refund and Interest Calculation – The Court provided a detailed mechanism for calculating refunds and interest based on the auction price of the plots, ensuring NOIDA receives a minimum base rate. The petitioners were given options to either pay dues and continue with the lease or opt for auction and refund [Paras 19-28].

Decision: Contempt petitions disposed of – The Court modified its previous directions to ensure both parties' interests are addressed. NOIDA is directed to auction the plots if the petitioners choose not to continue with the lease, refunding the amounts with interest calculated up to April 30, 2021. If petitioners opt to continue, they must clear dues by the stipulated time [Paras 20-29].

Criminal Procedure – Place of Inquiry and Trial – Section 117 CrPC – The Supreme Court considered the place of inquiry and trial under Section 117 of CrPC, which states that every offense shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. The cause of action as per the FIR arose in New Delhi where the matrimonial home of the petitioner is situated. Hence, the trial should ordinarily be held in New Delhi [Paras 14-15].

Transfer of Criminal Case – Convenience of Parties and Witnesses – Sections 117 and 406 CrPC – The petitioners sought the transfer of the case to Allahabad, arguing financial burden and inconvenience. However, the Court noted that most of the prosecution witnesses, including 12 official witnesses, are based in New Delhi. Transferring the case to Allahabad would cause significant inconvenience to these witnesses and hinder their official duties. The apprehension of the petitioners did not constitute exceptional circumstances for transferring the criminal case [Paras 16-17].

Judicial Precedents – Transfer of Criminal Cases – The Court referred to several precedents emphasizing that a criminal case should be inquired into and tried where the cause of action arose unless exceptional circumstances justify otherwise. Convenience for transfer means the convenience of the prosecution, other accused, the witnesses, and the larger interest of society [Para 17].

Decision: Transfer petition dismissed – The proceedings arising out of FIR No. 39 of 2016, which were transferred to the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate at Allahabad (Prayagraj), Uttar Pradesh, were directed to be transferred back to the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Rohini Courts, New Delhi. The petitioners were given the liberty to seek interim relief from the appropriate court in New Delhi [Paras 18-20].

Customs Law – Recovery Proceedings – Proper Officer under Section 28(4) – The Supreme Court examined whether the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) had the authority to issue a show cause notice under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962, for recovery of duties not paid. The Court held that the power of recovery under Section 28(4) must be exercised by "the proper officer" who initially assessed and cleared the goods or his successor, not by any other officer. The Additional Director General of DRI was not "the proper officer" to exercise the power under Section 28(4) in the present case. The initiation of recovery proceedings by the DRI was thus without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside [Paras 1-23].

Statutory Interpretation – Use of Definite Article "The" – The Court emphasized that the definite article "the" before "proper officer" in Section 28(4) signifies a specific officer who initially assessed the goods. The term does not refer to any officer of the same rank but to the specific officer or his successor within the same office [Paras 10-13].

Entrustment of Functions – Validity of Notification – The Court noted that the notification conferring functions under Section 28 on officers of the DRI was invalid as it was issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, which had no such power under Section 2(34) of the Customs Act. The proper entrustment should have been done under Section 6 of the Customs Act by the Central Government [Paras 16-21].

Limitation for Recovery Proceedings – Extended Period – The Court also addressed the limitation for issuing a show cause notice under Section 28(4). It held that the extended period of five years for recovery due to suppression of facts was not applicable in this case, as the importer had disclosed all relevant information to the Customs officers at the time of assessment and clearance [Paras 24-29].

Decision: Appeals allowed – The Supreme Court set aside the common order dated 19.12.2017 passed by the CESTAT and the ensuing demands. The Additional Director General of DRI was not authorized to issue the show cause notices under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act [Paras 23, 31].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Dishonour of Cheque – Presumption under Section 139 – The appellant challenged the High Court's judgment convicting her under Section 138 of the Act. The Supreme Court emphasized that the appellant failed to rebut the presumption under Section 139 that the cheques were issued for consideration. The complainant provided sufficient evidence that the cheques were issued in discharge of a debt, which the appellant could not disprove [Paras 1-24].

Quasi-Criminal Nature of Proceedings – Burden of Proof – The Court reiterated that proceedings under Section 138 of the Act are quasi-criminal and the principles of preponderance of probabilities apply. The burden of proof shifts to the accused to rebut the presumption, which can be done by bringing forward compelling evidence or circumstances [Paras 13-17].

Issuance and Dishonour of Cheques – Legal Notice and Complaint – The complainant established that the appellant issued cheques which were dishonoured due to insufficient funds. Legal notices were sent to the appellant, who failed to respond or make payment. The trial court's acquittal was overturned by the High Court on reappraisal of evidence, leading to the appellant's conviction [Paras 18-22].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's judgment convicting the appellant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The appellant's failure to rebut the presumption and the evidence provided by the complainant justified the conviction. The bail bonds were cancelled, and the appellant was directed to pay the fine or serve the sentence [Paras 24-26].

Employee State Insurance Act – Wages – Section 2(22) ESI Act – Travelling Allowance – Conveyance Allowance – Definition of wages excludes travelling allowance – Conveyance Allowance is akin to travelling allowance – High Court and ESI Court rightly excluded Conveyance Allowance from wages [Paras 11-30].

Service and Labour Laws – Definition of Wages – Conveyance Allowance – Travelling Allowance – ESI Act – Conveyance Allowance intended to cover costs incurred on travel from residence to workplace – Payment of Conveyance Allowance excluded from definition of wages [Paras 12-15].

Judicial Interpretation – ESI Act – Conveyance Allowance and Travelling Allowance – Interpretation in favour of employees – Inclusive interpretation of travelling allowance to cover conveyance allowance [Paras 26-28].

Decision – Special Leave Petition dismissed – High Court and ESI Court's concurrent findings upheld – Conveyance Allowance excluded from wages under Section 2(22) of ESI Act [Para 30].

Criminal Law – Bail – IPC Sections 302, 307 – Arms Act – High Court granted bail to accused on the basis of parity – Co-accused's bail subsequently canceled by Supreme Court – Orders granting bail to respondents set aside – Respondents to surrender and may apply for fresh bail [Paras 1-19].

Bail – Judicial Discretion – High Court granted bail without proper application of judicial mind – Seriousness of offense and nature of allegations not considered – Parity with co-accused not justified as co-accused's bail was canceled by Supreme Court [Paras 11-18].

Decision – Appeals allowed – High Court's orders granting bail to respondents canceled – Respondents to surrender within 24 hours – Liberty granted to apply afresh for bail [Paras 18-19].

Central Excise – Classification – Electrical Relays – Chapter 85 vs. Chapter 86 – Relays manufactured by the appellant solely for railway signaling equipment – Approved classification list reclassified under Chapter 86 – Revenue's invocation of Note 2(f) of Section XVII unjustified – 'Sole or principal use' test under Note 3 overlooked – Appeal allowed [Paras 15-39].

Limitation – Section 11-A Central Excise Act – Show Cause Notices – Period of limitation – Notices issued after approved reclassification – No fraud, collusion, or willful misstatement – Invocation of Section 11-A time-barred – Appeal allowed [Paras 40-47].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Orders of the Original Authority, Appellate Authority, and CESTAT set aside – Show cause-cum-demand notices set aside [Para 47].

Penal Code – Voluntarily Causing Hurt – Summoning Order – Quashing – The delay in filing the private complaint and material improvements from the earlier NCR No. 158/2012 noted – Trial courts have a duty to prevent frivolous litigation at the initial stage – Summoning order quashed [Paras 1-20].

Evidence Act – Judge's Power – Section 165 – Empowering judges to order production of material and put forth questions marks the influence of inquisitorial processes in Indian legal system – Important for uncovering truth and preventing misuse of judicial process [Paras 13-15].

Criminal Procedure – Summoning Order – Importance – Magistrate must exercise caution and judicial mind in issuing summoning orders – Orders should reflect thorough examination of allegations and evidence [Paras 12-14].

Criminal Procedure – Quashing of Proceedings – Inherent Powers – High Courts and Supreme Court have inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC and Article 142 of the Constitution to quash proceedings instituted with malafide intentions or after undue delay [Paras 22-23].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Summoning order dated 04.04.2019 and subsequent proceedings quashed – All criminal proceedings between parties related to the incident quashed to prevent further misuse of judicial process [Paras 24-28].