A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Sections 138 and 147—Compounding of Offence After Conviction—Held: An offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can be compounded at any stage of the proceedings, including after conviction by the trial court and affirmation thereof in appeal—Where the parties have amicably settled the dispute and the complainant has received the entire cheque amount or compensation agreed upon, the Court may exercise its power under Section 147 to compound the offence, set aside the judgments of conviction and sentence, and acquit the accused. (Paras 5–9). B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Section 147—Compromise Between Parties—Litigation Costs and Compounding Fee—Held: While permitting compounding of an offence under Section 138 of the Act on...

A. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985—Sections 21(c), 27-A, 29 and 37—Bail in Commercial Quantity Cases—Prolonged Incarceration and Delay in Trial—Held: Though the rigours of Section 37 NDPS Act ordinarily govern grant of bail in cases involving commercial quantity, prolonged incarceration and undue delay in conclusion of trial constitute significant factors warranting relaxation of the statutory embargo—Where the accused had remained in custody for more than one year, investigation stood completed, no prosecution witness had been examined and the trial was not likely to conclude in the near future, continued detention would infringe the fundamental right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution—Bail was therefore granted. (Paras 9–17, 20–22). B. Constitution...

A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Section 138—Statutory Notice—Limitation—Cause of Action—Held: Service of a demand notice within the prescribed period from the date of receipt of information regarding dishonour of the cheque is a mandatory condition precedent for prosecution under Section 138—Where the complainant's own evidence established that the cheque was dishonoured and the return memo was received on 03.01.2018, but the statutory notice was issued only on 27.03.2018, beyond the prescribed period, no valid cause of action arose under Section 138—Acquittal of the accused was therefore justified. (Paras 12–18). B. Criminal Appeal Against Acquittal—Scope of Interference—Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Section 138—Held: An appellate court should not inter...

A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Sections 118(a), 138 and 139—Presumption of Legally Enforceable Debt—Rebuttal of Presumption—Held: Once the accused admits issuance of the cheque and his signatures thereon, statutory presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 arise that the cheque was issued for consideration and in discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability—The burden then shifts upon the accused to rebut such presumption by raising a probable defence through cogent evidence—A mere plea that the cheque was issued as a blank security cheque, unsupported by reliable evidence, is insufficient to rebut the statutory presumption—Conviction under Section 138 was rightly upheld where the accused failed to establish repayment of the loan or otherwise dislodge the presumption. (Paras 18&ndash...

A. Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005—Sections 2(s) and 17—Shared Household—Right of Residence of Daughter-in-Law—Held: A daughter-in-law cannot claim an indefeasible right of residence in the self-acquired property of her mother-in-law merely by virtue of marriage—Where the property was purchased by the mother-in-law long after the marriage, she never resided therein with the daughter-in-law, and the premises were occupied only by permission granted to the son and his family, the property does not constitute a “shared household” within the meaning of the Domestic Violence Act—The daughter-in-law's right of residence is enforceable primarily against her husband and not against the self-acquired property of the mother-in-law. (Paras 34, 38–40, 43). B. Property L...

A. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955—Section 13(1)(ia)—Mental Cruelty—False Allegations Against Spouse and Complaints to Employer—Held: Making repeated allegations of illicit relationships against a spouse and communicating such allegations to his employer or superior authorities, without substantiating the same, amounts to mental cruelty—Such conduct has the propensity to damage the spouse’s reputation, dignity and professional standing and constitutes a valid ground for dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act. (Paras 17–19). B. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955—Section 13(1)(ia)—Mental Cruelty—Long Separation and Breakdown of Matrimonial Relationship—Held: Where spouses have lived separately for decades, have ceased cohabitation, made no genuine effort ...

A. Special Marriage Act, 1954—Sections 28 and 29—Mutual Consent Divorce—Waiver of Statutory Waiting Period—Held: The statutory bar against presentation of a divorce petition within one year of marriage under Section 29 of the Special Marriage Act is not absolute and may be waived in exceptional circumstances—Where the marriage remained purely notional, with no cohabitation, no consummation, no social or familial acceptance and both parties mutually sought dissolution, insistence on the statutory waiting period would serve no meaningful purpose and would only prolong hardship—The Court is empowered to exercise its discretion to waive the one-year period and permit the petition for divorce by mutual consent to be entertained. (Paras 16–20). B. Special Marriage Act, 1954—Section 29—Exc...

A. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955—Sections 5(i) and 11—Void Marriage—Prior Subsisting Marriage—Customary Divorce—Held: A marriage solemnized during the subsistence of an earlier valid marriage is void ab initio under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act—A plea of dissolution of the earlier marriage by custom can succeed only upon strict proof of a valid custom having the force of law—The burden of proving such custom lies upon the party asserting it and the custom must be shown to be ancient, certain, reasonable and continuously observed—Mere knowledge of the respondent regarding the appellant's previous marriage does not validate a marriage otherwise void in law. (Paras 4, 6, 13–18, 22). B. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955—Sections 24 and 25—Maintenance Pendente Lite and Permanen...

A. Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021—Sections 1(3), 4, 9 and 38(1)—Jurisdiction of Civil Court—Maintainability of SCC Suit—Held: Where the plaint itself admits the applicability of the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 to the premises in question, acknowledges the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship, and invokes Sections 4 and 9 of the Act for enforcement of tenancy obligations and recovery of enhanced rent, the dispute is governed exclusively by the statutory mechanism under the Act. In view of the express bar contained in Section 38(1), the jurisdiction of the civil court, including the SCC Court, stands excluded and the plaint is liable to be rejected as barred by law. (Paras 14–18). B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908—Order VII Rule 11&md...

A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Section 138—Statutory Demand Notice—Essential Requirements—Held: A valid notice under proviso (b) to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act must specifically demand payment of the cheque amount dishonoured by the bank—Mere mention of the cheque number, date or information regarding dishonour is insufficient—The expression “the said amount of money” occurring in provisos (b) and (c) mandates a clear and specific demand of the actual amount covered by the cheque, enabling the drawer to make payment and avoid penal consequences. (Paras 9–11). B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Section 138—Defective Demand Notice—Effect on Prosecution—Held: Where the statutory notice fails to mention the specific amount demanded, there ...