Section 304-A IPC – Death by Negligence – Compromise – Quashing Impermissible – FIR registered regarding death of two workmen in factory accident – Petitioners sought quashing on basis of compromise with complainant and payment of compensation – Held: Offence under Section 304-A IPC is not a private dispute but a crime against society – Primary victim being deceased cannot consent to compromise – FIR cannot be quashed solely on settlement between accused and complainant [Paras 7, 8, 13, 15].

Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Scope and Limits – Inherent powers to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection – Distinction between compounding under Section 320 Cr.P.C. and quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. reiterated – While High Court can quash non-compoundable offences in appropriate cases, grave offences affecting society at large cannot be quashed merely on compromise – Judicial restraint mandated [Paras 7, 11, 9].

Victimology – Primary Victim in Case of Death – In offence under Section 304-A IPC, deceased is real and primary victim – Legal heirs or informant cannot assume mantle of primary victim for purpose of compromise – Settlement by relatives does not extinguish societal interest in prosecution – Silence of deceased cannot be substituted by compromise deed of heirs [Paras 12, 13, 8.1].

Crime Against Society – Public Safety – Workplace accident resulting in death has direct nexus with public safety – Acceptance of compromise in such matters would erode deterrent effect of criminal law and undermine rule of law – Criminal justice system cannot be commodified by pecuniary settlement [Paras 13.2, 9, 10].

Defence on Merits – To Be Tested at Trial – Plea that petitioners were contractual employees without supervisory role and that accident was purely accidental involves appreciation of evidence – Such defences cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Placement of other accused in Column No.II does not entitle petitioners to quashing [Paras 9, 10].

Compensation – Not Ground for Quashing – Payment of financial assistance to families of deceased does not absolve criminal liability under Section 304-A IPC – Criminal proceedings cannot be terminated on basis of monetary settlement [Para 10].

Decision: Petition seeking quashing of FIR No.0392 of 2021 dated 07.10.2021 under Section 304-A IPC and consequential proceedings on basis of compromise dated 09.05.2023 dismissed – Observations made not to influence trial on merits – Pending applications disposed of.

Electronic Evidence – Right to Cloned Copy – Hash Value – Fair Trial – Accused in a Prevention of Corruption Act case sought supply of a cloned copy of the original digital voice recording with hash value and production of the original recording device, alleging that only a CD without hash value was furnished, which was not an authenticated copy – Trial Court rejected the applications – Held: Electronic records constitute "documents" within Section 3 of the Evidence Act – Contents of memory card/digital recording device must be furnished to the accused in the form of a cloned copy – Supply of an uncertified CD not prepared through hash-value authentication does not fulfill the statutory mandate under Section 207 CrPC – Denial of cloned copy with hash value impinges upon the accused's right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India – Impugned order quashed to the extent of refusing supply of clone copy – Trial Court directed to provide cloned copy of the original digital recording with hash value to the petitioner.

Section 207 CrPC – Disclosure of Electronic Records – Section 207 CrPC places an obligation on the prosecution to furnish all documents forming part of the investigation record to enable the accused to effectively defend the case – Section 207 does not empower the Court to withhold any document submitted with the police report except where voluminous – For electronic records, the ground of being voluminous ordinarily cannot be invoked – Accused is entitled as of right to a cloned copy of the electronic evidence relied upon by the prosecution [Para throughout].

Electronic Evidence – Forensic Attributes – Authenticity and Integrity – Electronic records possess inherent forensic attributes essential for examining integrity and authenticity – Cloned copy with hash value is necessary to authenticate the chain of electronic record – Without such safeguards it cannot be concluded that electronic material has been preserved and produced in authenticated manner – Denial of cloned copies causes prejudice to accused's right to effective defence [Para throughout].

Decision: Criminal Misc. Petition partly allowed – Impugned order dated 01.09.2025 passed by the Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act Court), Chittorgarh in Criminal Case No. 02/2025 quashed and set aside to the extent of refusing supply of clone copy of the recording – Trial Court directed to provide cloned copy of the original digital recording with hash value to the petitioner – Questions regarding production of original DVR, other documents and manipulation in the CD tendered to be decided at the appropriate stage during trial.

Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Suit for Mandatory and Permanent Injunction – Eviction of Son and Daughter-in-law from Self-acquired Property of Mother – Concurrent Findings of Courts Below – Dismissal of Second Appeal

Hindu Law – Self-acquired property of female Hindu – Section 14, Hindu Succession Act – Property purchased under registered sale deed in name of mother and recorded exclusively in her name – Plea that property was purchased from joint family income rejected – Held: When property stands in name of female Hindu, she becomes full owner by virtue of Section 14 – Claim of joint family right by sons untenable in absence of proof – Suit property held exclusive property of Plaintiff [Paras 16, 17].

Benami/Jt. Family Plea – Burden of proof – Defendants alleged purchase out of joint family fund and contribution by sons – No documentary evidence adduced – Mere assertion insufficient to dislodge registered title deed and R.O.R. entries – Concurrent findings upheld [Paras 8, 16, 17].

Shared Household – Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – Whether daughter-in-law can claim right of residence in self-acquired property of mother-in-law – Held: Where property exclusively belongs to mother-in-law and is not joint family property, it cannot be treated as “shared household” against her wishes – Provisions of D.V. Act do not create proprietary rights in self-acquired property of senior citizen – Defendants not entitled to resist eviction on that ground [Paras 13(iii), 17, 19].

Senior Citizens – Eviction of son and daughter-in-law – Right of aged parents to peaceful possession of self-acquired property – Plaintiff aged more than 75 years alleged mental and physical torture – Held: Son, whether married or unmarried, has no legal right to reside in self-acquired property of parents against their wishes – Courts must adopt purposive approach in favour of senior citizens – Decree for eviction and permanent injunction justified [Paras 18, 19].

Mandatory and Permanent Injunction – Eviction from residential house – Plaintiff proved exclusive ownership and unlawful interference – Defendants failed to establish any legal right to remain – Decree directing Defendants to vacate within one month and restraining re-entry upheld [Paras 9, 19].

Decision: Second Appeal dismissed on contest without cost – Judgments and decrees passed in C.S. No.20 of 2019 and R.F.A. No.16 of 2023 confirmed – Eviction decree and permanent injunction in favour of Plaintiff upheld [Paras 19, 20].

Limitation – Condonation of Delay – 710 Days – Petitioner sought condonation under Section 5 of Limitation Act to set aside ex parte decree passed on 19.01.2017 – Application filed on 19.12.2018 – Held: Inordinate delay not properly explained – No sufficient cause shown – Dismissal of application justified [Paras 1, 6-7].

Ex Parte Decree – Order IX Rule 13 CPC – Allegation that counsel failed to inform about progress of case – Petitioner failed to disclose name of counsel allegedly engaged – No evidence adduced to substantiate plea – Petitioner admitted receipt of summons in suit – Held: Bald allegation of counsel’s omission without proof insufficient to set aside ex parte decree [Paras 3, 7].

Sufficient Cause – Meaning and Scope – ‘Sufficient cause’ implies absence of negligence and existence of bona fides – Defendant must show he was not negligent or lacking diligence – Petitioner remained inactive until receipt of execution notice – Held: Petitioner not diligent or vigilant – No bona fide explanation established [Para 7].

Burden of Proof – Party seeking condonation must adduce evidence to prove truth and bona fides of reasons stated – Petitioner failed to step into witness box or adduce supporting evidence – Held: Failure to prove cause fatal to application [Para 7].

Revisional Jurisdiction – No Interference – Concurrent findings of Munsiff and District Court that sufficient cause not made out – No perversity or illegality shown – Held: No ground to interfere in revision [Paras 3-4, 7].

Parallel Proceedings – Existence of subsequent suit (O.S. No.93 of 2019) noted by Appellate Court – Even if ex parte decree set aside, decree subject to outcome of later suit – Observation not decisive but reinforces absence of prejudice warranting interference [Para 4].

Decision: Civil Revision Petition dismissed – Orders of Munsiff dismissing I.A. Nos. 2899/2018 and 2900/2018 and judgment in C.M.A. No.45/2022 affirmed [Para 7].

Criminal Law – Bail – Illegal Detention – Applicant allegedly detained by police from 14/15.09.2025 but formal arrest shown on 17.09.2025 – Sister of applicant filed application before CJM complaining of illegal custody – Police failed to produce CCTV footage of police station despite repeated judicial directions – Held: Detention of applicant prior to formal arrest amounted to illegal detention and violation of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution – State directed to pay compensation of ₹1 lakh to applicant with liberty to recover the amount from erring officers [Paras 31-32].

Contempt of Court – Disobedience of Orders of Subordinate Court – SHO and Investigating Officer failed to comply with repeated orders of CJM directing production of CCTV footage of police station – Officers admitted non-compliance and tendered unconditional apology – Held: Deliberate non-compliance of orders of the Chief Judicial Magistrate constitutes contempt of subordinate court – High Court exercising powers under Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act held both officers guilty of contempt and sentenced them to custody till rising of the Court [Paras 23-24].

Arrest and Personal Liberty – Constitutional Safeguards – Violation of D.K. Basu Guidelines – Court reiterated that arrest procedures must comply with constitutional protections under Articles 21 and 22 and statutory provisions incorporated in Cr.P.C./BNSS – Failure to inform family members and failure to maintain proper arrest records violate safeguards laid down in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal – Such violations amount to infringement of personal liberty [Paras 13-16, 31].

Police Accountability – CCTV Cameras in Police Stations – Compliance with Supreme Court Directions – Court emphasized mandatory installation and preservation of CCTV footage in police stations as directed in Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh – Practice of maintaining footage only for 2-2½ months contrary to Supreme Court mandate requiring longer storage – SHO responsible for maintenance and production of footage – Non-maintenance undermines protection against custodial abuse and illegal detention [Paras 18-20].

Judicial Authority – Status of Judicial Officers – High Court observed that judicial officers while discharging judicial functions exercise sovereign functions and their orders must be respected by administrative and executive authorities – Disobedience of orders of a Judicial Magistrate undermines rule of law and authority of courts and is punishable as contempt [Paras 21-22].

Judicial Oversight – Monitoring of CCTV Compliance – High Court directed that Chief Judicial Magistrates or jurisdictional Magistrates may randomly inspect police stations after court hours to verify functioning of CCTV cameras in compliance with the directions of the Supreme Court in Paramvir Singh Saini – Such inspection shall be treated as part of official duty and police officials must cooperate [Para 27].

Bail – Grant of Bail in Financial Fraud Case – Considering illegal detention of applicant, nature of allegations, overcrowding of jails and undertaking of applicant to deposit ₹15 lakh with the finance company – Held: Applicant entitled to bail subject to conditions including cooperation in trial and payment of amount as undertaken [Paras 33-35].

Decision: Bail allowed – Applicant directed to be released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties – State directed to pay compensation of ₹1 lakh for illegal detention – SHO and Investigating Officer held guilty of contempt and sentenced to custody till rising of the Court – Directions issued to DGP, U.P. regarding compliance with CCTV guidelines and accountability of police officers.

Criminal Law – Private Complaint – Return of Complaint – Postal Address of Accused – Complaint alleging cyber defamation and online harassment returned by Magistrate for non-furnishing of accused’s postal address – Held: BNSS does not mandate furnishing of postal address as condition precedent for entertaining complaint – Complaint may be filed even against known or unknown persons – Returning complaint solely for want of postal address is ex facie erroneous and unsustainable [Paras 8–11, 15, 30].

BNSS – Definition of “Complaint” – Section 2(1)(h) – Statute expressly recognises complaint against “known or unknown” person – If accused can be unknown, furnishing postal address cannot be elevated to jurisdictional prerequisite at threshold stage [Paras 8–9].

Process to Compel Appearance – Sections 63 & 64 BNSS – Electronic Service – BNSS permits issuance and service of summons through electronic communication bearing digital signature/seal – Furnishing name or postal address not condition precedent for presentation or acceptance of complaint – Courts empowered to utilise electronic identifiers [Paras 12–13, 15].

Cognizance under Section 223 BNSS – Transformative Procedural Shift – Proviso mandates opportunity of hearing to accused before taking cognizance – However, this does not imply that complaint cannot be received in absence of postal address – Magistrate may examine complainant and adopt procedure under Sections 223 and 225 BNSS [Paras 16–18].

Postponement of Process – Section 225 BNSS – Magistrate may inquire or direct investigation for ascertaining identity of accused – In cyber offences, identity may be traced through lawful investigation and technical assistance – Practical difficulties in execution cannot justify rejection at filing stage [Paras 14, 29–30].

Intermediaries – Statutory Obligation to Preserve Data – IT Act and Rules – Sections 67C, 69, 69A, 69B IT Act and Intermediary Guidelines, 2021 cast duty on intermediaries to preserve subscriber data and disclose upon lawful direction – Courts not powerless to compel production of documents under Section 94 BNSS – Non-compliance punishable under Section 210 BNS [Paras 19–23, 28].

Cyber Offences – Anonymous Digital Identities – Access to Justice – In cyberspace offences such as cyberbullying, impersonation and online defamation, accused often operate under pseudonymous identities – Complainant may only possess electronic identifiers – Insisting on postal address at threshold would render victims remediless and subordinate substantive justice to procedural rigidity – Processual rules are handmaid of justice [Para 30].

Kerala Electronic Processes (Issuance, Service and Execution) Rules, 2025 – Enable service through disclosed electronic communication – Criminal Rules of Practice do not bar electronic process – Absence of specific rule cannot justify return of complaint [Paras 29–30].

Inherent Powers – Section 528 BNSS – Exercised to set aside Magistrate’s order returning complaint – Magistrate directed to accept complaint on file and issue process through disclosed electronic communication addresses – Registrar (District Judiciary) directed to examine need for amendments to Criminal Rules of Practice in context of cyber offences [Final Paras].

Decision: Criminal Miscellaneous Case allowed – Order dated 14.08.2025 returning complaint set aside – Magistrate directed to accept complaint on file and issue process to accused through disclosed electronic communication – Further steps to be taken in accordance with BNSS and applicable Rules – Registrar (District Judiciary) directed to place matter before competent authority to consider suitable amendments to Criminal Rules of Practice.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 9 – Maintainability – Court must first prima facie ascertain existence of arbitration agreement before granting interim relief – Scope of enquiry under Section 9 analogous to Section 11 – Court to conduct only prima facie scrutiny of existence of arbitration agreement – Detailed adjudication reserved for Arbitral Tribunal – Held: In absence of prima facie arbitration agreement, petition not maintainable [Paras 54-60, 95-96].

Arbitration Agreement – Incorporation by Reference – Petitioners contended arbitration clause in original Loan Agreements stood incorporated into Draft Restructuring Agreement – Clause 7(i) of draft only made general reference to earlier documents – No specific reference to arbitration clause – Exclusive jurisdiction clause in draft conferred jurisdiction on courts at New Delhi – Held: Mere general reference insufficient – No conscious acceptance of arbitration clause – Arbitration clause not incorporated by reference [Paras 65-75].

Novation – Section 62 Contract Act – Petitioners’ stand inconsistent – At one stage alleged novation, at another relied on original arbitration clause – If original contract novated, arbitration clause therein would also perish – Draft restructuring agreement not finalised – Held: No prima facie novation established – Foundational inconsistency undermines case [Paras 61-64].

Concluded Contract – Settlement – Essential Terms – Petitioners relied on email dated 30.12.2024 and court-recorded statements as concluded settlement – Record showed continuous negotiations, exchange of drafts, open issues and blanks in material clauses – Essential terms including settlement amount, repayment schedule, interest and securities left blank – Email dated 16.07.2025 rejected proposal – Held: No consensus ad idem – No concluded and binding contract came into existence [Paras 77-84, 87-90].

Specific Performance – Interim Relief – Petition sought stay of email rejecting restructuring and restraint on coercive steps – Grant of relief would amount to enforcing draft restructuring proposal – Court cannot create or enforce contract where none exists – Under Section 9, Court’s power limited to preservation of subject matter and not specific performance – Held: Relief sought impermissible in Section 9 proceedings [Paras 89-93].

IBC Proceedings – Anti-suit/Anti-tribunal Injunction – Since no prima facie arbitration agreement or concluded settlement found, question of staying Section 7 IBC proceedings or restraining statutory remedies under SARFAESI does not arise – Issues regarding bar under IBC left open [Paras 95-96].

Decision: Interim order dated 26.09.2025 vacated – O.M.P. (I) (COMM) 330/2025 dismissed – O.M.P. (I) (COMM) 367/2025 dismissed as covered by same reasoning – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 97-101].

Education Law – Amendment of Examination Bye-Laws – Requirement of Publication – CBSE Governing Body resolved on 26.12.2024 to discontinue “additional subject” category for private candidates – Approval granted by Controlling Authority on 22.01.2025 – Minutes uploaded under “Governing Body Minutes” tab on 27.02.2025 – No distinct notification or publication of amendment under Examination Bye-Laws – Held mere uploading of minutes not reasonable mode of publication – Amendment cannot be said to have come into force without proper promulgation – Subordinate legislation must be published in reasonable manner to bind affected persons [Paras 13-18].

Subordinate Legislation – Promulgation – Effectiveness – Relying on B.K. Srinivasan v. State of Karnataka, (1987) 1 SCC 658 – Law must be made known to those governed by it – Where parent statute or rules are silent, publication must be through reasonable and recognised mode – Posting minutes under obscure website tab not sufficient – Amendment held effective only from 15.09.2025 when formally notified [Paras 16-19].

Legitimate Expectation – Substantive Right – Clause 43(i) of unamended Bye-Laws permitted additional subject within two years of passing – Students of 2024 and 2025 batches prepared for additional subject examination in 2026 – Right founded on existing Bye-Law and consistent past practice – Denial without proper publication arbitrary – Doctrine invoked not on mere hope but on enforceable right – Action violative of Article 14 [Paras 21-24].

Policy Decision – Judicial Review – Though educational policy changes ordinarily left to experts – Court can intervene where implementation is arbitrary and violates principles of fairness – Amendment not struck down – Only held inapplicable to students who passed prior to valid publication – No necessity to challenge amendment itself [Paras 20, 25-26].

Arbitrariness – Educational Career – Insistence on applying unpublicised amendment to students who had already invested one or two years in preparation held unreasonable – Grave prejudice caused – State instrumentality under Article 12 bound by fairness and non-arbitrariness [Paras 1, 15, 26].

Decision: Letters Patent Appeal dismissed – Judgment of learned Single Judge directing CBSE to permit registration of students (who passed Class XII in 2024 and 2025) for “additional subject” examination upheld – Amendment to Bye-Laws held effective only from date of proper publication – CBSE directed to make necessary arrangements within three working days – No order as to costs.

Criminal Law – Rape and Murder of Minor Girls – Conviction Based on Circumstantial Evidence – Appellant convicted under Sections 302, 376, 363 IPC and Sections 4 and 6 POCSO Act – Prosecution case based primarily on testimonies of three child witnesses and alleged confessional statement leading to recovery – High Court found material contradictions in testimonies of PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 – Failure to establish complete chain of circumstances – Confessional statement recorded in violation of settled law – Held: Prosecution failed to prove case beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellant acquitted [Paras 27-29, 38-43].

Child Witness – Competency and Reliability – Trial court recorded only general satisfaction regarding competence without recording preliminary questions – Statements of PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 inconsistent and mutually contradictory regarding manner of occurrence – Witnesses failed to disclose name of appellant at earliest opportunity despite being co-villager – Statements not recorded under Section 164 CrPC – Evidence found to be tutored and unreliable – Benefit of doubt extended [Paras 27-29].

Circumstantial Evidence – Requirement of Complete Chain – Case resting entirely on circumstantial evidence – Inquest reports not brought on record – Contradictions regarding time of recovery of dead body and delay in FIR – Alleged sketch of accused neither produced nor proved – Suppression of initial Sanha entry – Chain of circumstances incomplete and incapable of sustaining conviction – Principles in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda applied [Paras 35-39, 41].

Confessional Statement to Police – Admissibility – Alleged confession recorded at police station without presence of Magistrate – Entire statement recorded instead of limited disclosure – Recovery allegedly made pursuant to confession not duly proved – Recording contrary to law laid down in Venkatesh @ Chandra – Confession hit by Evidence Act – Cannot form basis of conviction [Paras 35, 37, 40].

Investigation – Lapses – Non-production of inquest report – Non-examination of sketch artist – Failure to medically examine accused after arrest – Unexplained custody for eight days – Serious infirmities in investigation undermining prosecution case – Presumption of innocence remains intact [Paras 35-38, 42].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned judgment of conviction dated 27.01.2023 and order of sentence dated 03.02.2023 set aside – Appellant acquitted of all charges – Appellant to be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case.