Religious Rights – State-sponsored Hindu festival – Invitation to non-Hindu public figure upheld – No violation of Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution – Writ Petitions dismissed.

Freedom of Religion – Participation of Non-Hindu in State-sponsored Dasara Festival – Petition challenging invitation to Muslim public figure to inaugurate Hindu festival dismissed – Held: No violation of Articles 25 and 26 as the event is organized by the State and not a religious denomination – Constitutional protections not offended [Paras 1, 5, 8–9, 15].

Constitutional Law – Articles 25 and 26 – No Fundamental Right Infringed – Petitioners failed to establish that they represented a religious denomination whose rights under Article 26(b) were infringed – Participation of respondent No.4 in inauguration does not impede any religious practice – State has right to invite any citizen irrespective of religion [Paras 5, 8–9, 11].

Religious Endowments – Applicability of Precedents – Cited Supreme Court rulings (Shirur Mutt, Adi Saiva Sivachariyargal, Venkataramana Devaru) found inapplicable – Petitioners lacked locus to claim religious injury or violation of agamic traditions – State function cannot be equated to temple administration or ritual exclusivity [Paras 10–14].

Secularism – Equality and Non-discrimination – State’s invitation to accomplished author and social activist upheld – Past precedence of non-Hindu invitees recognized – Invitation does not indicate participation in exclusive religious rites – Inclusive gesture by State does not breach constitutional or religious boundaries [Paras 4–6, 15].

Final Decision – No merit found in any of the writ petitions – No violation of constitutional or religious rights – Petitions dismissed [Para 16].

Criminal Law - Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act – Demand and Acceptance of Illegal Gratification – Proof Essential – Conviction Set Aside – Accused, then Secretary of Alagappanagar Grama Panchayat, was convicted for accepting ₹250 as bribe in trap proceedings – Complainant (PW2) turned hostile, denying demand and acceptance – Other witnesses (PW3, PW4, PW5) spoke only to trap formalities and recovery but not to demand – Held: Proof of demand is sine qua non for conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) – Mere recovery insufficient – Conviction unsustainable. Acquittal. [Paras 5-11, 15-17, 19].

Hostile Complainant – Evidentiary Impact – Circumstantial Evidence Insufficient – Though complainant turned hostile, Court reiterated that demand may be proved by circumstantial evidence or other testimony – In present case, circumstances did not establish demand – Prosecution failed to prove foundational fact – No presumption under Section 20 could be raised [Paras 16-18].

Case Law Applied – Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), AIR 2023 SC 330 – Demand and acceptance must be proved directly or circumstantially – Aman Bhatia v. State (GNCT of Delhi), 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1013 – Presumption under Section 20 limited to Section 7 offences – State v. C.B. Nagaraj, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1175 – Reinforced same ratio [Paras 14-18].

Final Decision – Appeal Allowed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) PC Act set aside – Accused acquitted – Bail bond cancelled – Liberty restored [Para 19].

Declaration, Possession And Injunction - Benami – Fiduciary Capacity Exception – Sections 4(1) & 4(3)(b) of the 1988 Act – Exception Not Attracted – Appellant (niece) claimed that her paternal uncle held the allotted/leased/sold house benami for her benefit because she funded part of the price and reposed trust – Held: Mere relationship and past financial dealings do not establish a fiduciary capacity; the parties lived separately, the uncle was financially independent, in possession, and obtained lease/sale deed in his own name; exception under Section 4(3) not made out [Paras 35-39].

Benami – Tests & Burden – Six Indicia Reiterated – Appeal Evaluated on Source of Funds, Possession, Motive, Relationship, Custody of Title, Conduct – Appellant contributed ≈25% (₹8.45 lakhs) while respondent paid the balance (≈₹25 lakhs); respondent remained in possession; no credible motive for benami made out; custody of title with respondent; conduct consistent with respondent’s ownership – Held: Transaction not benami; plaintiff failed to discharge strict burden [Paras 29-30, 38-39].

Civil Procedure – First Appeal under Section 96 CPC – Scope – Reappreciation of evidence leads to same conclusion as trial court – Trial court’s partial decree for refund with interest upheld; no illegality in rejecting declaration/possession claims [Paras 39-40].

Relief – Money Claim – Interest – Refund of ₹8,46,865/- with interest @6% p.a. from dates of payment till realization – Trial court’s direction affirmed; parties to bear their own costs [Paras 39-43].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Impugned judgment and decree dated 06.04.2013 affirmed; interim order vacated; office to prepare decree [Paras 40-44].

Criminal Law – Cheque Bounce - Power of Attorney – Locus Standi and Knowledge of Transaction – Section 138 of NIA – Complaint Filed by Power of Attorney Holder – Not Maintainable - The complainant’s Power of Attorney Holder neither witnessed the transaction nor had sufficient knowledge of the facts as required under law – The Supreme Court mandates specific assertions about the POA holder’s knowledge in the complaint and evidence – Held: The complaint and evidence did not meet the legal threshold; hence, POA holder's testimony was insufficient [Paras 13-16, 25].

Legally Enforceable Debt – Presumption Not Rebutted – Insufficient Proof – Dishonour of Cheque – Complainant Failed to Prove Debt – No Documentary Evidence – The applicant failed to establish that the cheque was issued towards a legally enforceable debt – No agreement to sale or transaction document was produced – Held: In absence of such documents, presumption under Section 139 stands rebutted, and Section 138 is not attracted [Paras 17-23].

Rebuttal of Presumption – Standard of Proof – Preponderance of Probability – Accused Not Required to Prove Beyond Reasonable Doubt – Held: Accused can rebut presumption under Section 139 of NIA through cross-examination and circumstantial evidence – Burden discharged adequately [Paras 24-25].

Decision – Criminal Revision Dismissed – Acquittal Upheld – The Appellate Court’s finding that there was no legal and enforceable liability was correct – No illegality or perversity found in judgment – Revision dismissed as devoid of merit [Paras 25-26].

Service Law – Pension Recovery – Excess Payment – Recovery Barred – Petitioner, a widow, subjected to deduction of family pension for alleged excess payment between 2008 and 2019 – No fraud, misrepresentation, or connivance on her part; excess caused by systemic lapse – Held: Recovery from retired employees or widows impermissible as per Supreme Court ruling in Rafiq Masih; recovery quashed [Paras 3, 5, 7-8].

Precedent – Applicability of Rafiq Masih – Excess Payment Recovery – Court reiterated five categories where recovery cannot be effected, including retired employees, payments beyond 5 years, and cases of undue hardship – Petitioner’s case squarely covered; recovery unjust and inequitable [Paras 5-6].

Decision – Petition Allowed – Respondents restrained from effecting further recovery from petitioner’s pension – Writ petition disposed of in favour of petitioner [Paras 7-8].

Criminal Law - Rape – Appeal Against Acquittal – Standard of Review – No Interference – State challenged acquittal in rape case – Held: Acquittal grants double presumption of innocence – Unless findings are perverse, Appellate Court must refrain from interfering – Trial Court’s view was plausible and based on appreciation of evidence – Appeal dismissed [Paras 5, 9, 23].

Prosecutrix’s Testimony – Requirement of Sterling Quality – Not Met – Sole testimony of prosecutrix can sustain conviction if it inspires confidence – In present case, her version found improbable, inconsistent, and lacking natural conduct during and after incident – Absence of injuries and contradictions undermined credibility – Not a "sterling witness" as per Supreme Court precedent – Conviction cannot be based on her statement alone [Paras 14-18, 21-22].

Medical and Circumstantial Evidence – No Support to Prosecution Case – Medical report showed no injuries or signs of resistance – Lack of physical or circumstantial corroboration of forced sexual act – Conduct of prosecutrix, including delay in reporting and failure to inform close relatives, found unnatural – Supports conclusion of consensual interaction or false implication [Paras 16-20].

Principles of Criminal Jurisprudence – Higher Degree of Proof in Serious Offences – Court reaffirmed strict standards for conviction in offences like rape – Presumption of innocence reinforced on acquittal – When testimony is doubtful, benefit of doubt must go to accused – Reversal of acquittal without compelling grounds impermissible [Paras 9, 22-23].

Final Outcome – Acquittal Upheld – Bail Bonds Directed Under BNSS – High Court found no error in Trial Court judgment – Appeal dismissed – Respondent directed to furnish bail bond under Section 481 of BNSS in event of SLP before Supreme Court [Paras 23-24].

Maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. – Right of Adult Children – Major Son Entitled till Majority Only – Major Daughter Not Covered – Petitioners sought enhancement of maintenance from their father – Family Court rejected claim citing their majority status – Held: As per Section 125 Cr.P.C., a child is entitled to maintenance only till majority unless physically or mentally disabled – Petitioner No.2 (son) was entitled to enhanced maintenance until attaining majority on 17.03.2020 – Petitioner No.1 (daughter) was major before filing the application and is not covered under Section 125 – Enhancement allowed only for son till majority [Paras 8-14, 18].

Section 20(3), Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act – Maintenance to Unmarried Major Daughter – Remedy Available Under Personal Law – Although Section 125 Cr.P.C. does not allow maintenance to adult unmarried daughter, she may seek it under Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act – Held: The dismissal under Section 125 Cr.P.C. does not bar remedy under other statutory provisions [Paras 16-17, 21].

Moral Obligation of Father – No Recovery of Excess Maintenance – Welfare of Children Prioritized – Court noted that even if the father paid maintenance after children attained majority, he cannot recover or adjust the same – Held: Moral obligation of father and ongoing education of children outweigh technical legal restrictions – Refund of excess maintenance would adversely impact children's future [Paras 19-20].

Scope of Revision – Part Relief Granted – Maintenance Enhanced for Son till Attaining Majority – Family Court's decision partly modified – Petitioner No.2 (son) held entitled to maintenance at Rs. 8,000/month from 02.07.2018 till 17.03.2020 – Claim of petitioner No.1 (daughter) rejected under Section 125 Cr.P.C. but without prejudice to her rights under other laws [Paras 14, 18, 22].

Copyright Infringement – Film piracy – Dynamic+ injunction – Websites restrained from illegally streaming Plaintiff’s film “Jolly LLB 3” – Domain registrars, ISPs, DoT and MeitY directed to block infringing domains – Strong interim relief granted considering imminent release [Paras 34–43].

Commercial Courts Act – Pre-institution Mediation – Section 12A – Exemption granted – Suit involving urgent interim relief falls within exception as per SC judgment in Yamini Manohar v. T.K.D. Krithi, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1382 [Para 8].

Copyright – Ad-interim Injunction – Plaintiff, exclusive owner of “Jolly LLB 3” rights, established prima facie case – Unauthorized dissemination through rogue websites would cause irreparable harm and undermine investment – Balance of convenience in Plaintiff’s favour – Ex-parte injunction granted restraining 24 infringing websites [Paras 34–40].

Dynamic+ Injunction – Application of precedent – Following Universal City Studios LLC v. Dotmovies.baby, 2023:DHC:5842, Court extended relief not only to present infringements but also to future rogue websites discovered during proceedings – Ensures real-time blocking without repeated court intervention [Paras 37–42].

Defendants – Directions to DNRs and ISPs – Domain registrars (Namecheap, Cloudflare, Dynadot, Tucows, etc.) ordered to suspend and furnish details of registrants of infringing domains – ISPs directed to block access – DoT and MeitY to notify all ISPs to enforce blocking – Mechanism created for Plaintiff to notify fresh infringing domains for immediate blocking [Paras 40(b)–(f)].

Procedural Directions – Plaintiff to continue filing affidavits disclosing newly discovered infringing domains/URLs – Any wrongly blocked website permitted to approach Court with undertaking – Compliance with Order 39 Rule 3 CPC mandated within two days [Paras 42–45].

Disposition – Ad-interim injunction granted against 24 infringing websites – Domain registrars, ISPs and government authorities directed to ensure compliance – Matter listed for further hearing on 20.01.2026 [Paras 40–46].

Child Custody – Direction to Produce Child – Writ of Habeas Corpus – Contempt of Court Established – The respondent failed to comply with the High Court’s order dated 12.04.2019 in W.P. No. 47795 of 2018, which required her to produce the minor child before the Family Court at Tirupati – Held: Non-compliance constitutes willful disobedience – Subsequent developments and foreign court orders do not absolve the contemnor – Contempt established [Paras 21, 33-36, 41].

Foreign Court Orders vs Indian Court Directions – No Supersession of High Court Orders by U.S. Court Proceedings – Orders from Texas court obtained by the respondent were not barriers to compliance – Respondent willfully approached foreign courts to circumvent Indian judicial directions – Indian court’s directions remained valid and binding despite foreign judgments [Paras 14, 27-33, 36, 40].

Effect of Supreme Court Observations – No Bar to Enforcement of High Court Directions – Supreme Court’s observation in SLP (Crl.) No. 6436/2019 about non-requirement of child’s production was based on dismissal of FCOP – Once FCOP was restored and appeal allowed, the High Court’s order revived – Supreme Court’s later dismissal of Civil Appeal No. 6363/2022 confirmed High Court's direction [Paras 29-33].

Jurisdiction – Family Court at Tirupati Competent – Family Court at Tirupati had jurisdiction as the child was residing in India at the time of initial proceedings – Contention that only U.S. courts had jurisdiction rejected – Jurisdiction issue previously settled by Division Bench in FCA No. 172/2019 and affirmed by the Supreme Court [Paras 25, 30].

Welfare of the Child – Relevance in Enforcement Proceedings – Welfare of the child is a matter for the Family Court to decide upon production – Respondent cannot avoid compliance by invoking child’s welfare as defense against contempt – Production is procedural for custody determination, not final custody resolution [Paras 23-24].

Civil Contempt – Willful Disobedience – Consequences – Respondent’s actions amounted to deliberate defiance and breach of court order – Despite multiple opportunities and legal remedies, she chose to evade compliance – Held: Guilty of civil contempt under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 [Paras 38-41].

Judgment – Opportunity to Purge Contempt Given – Court granted respondent three months’ time to produce the child before the Family Court, Tirupati – Non-compliance would result in simple imprisonment for two weeks and fine of Rs. 2,000 – Further three days’ imprisonment upon failure to pay fine [Para 43].