Matrimonial Law – Cruelty – Section 13(1)(ia) HMA – Divorce Decree Set Aside – Marriage solemnized on 11.11.1997; parties separated from 11.04.2004; husband filed for divorce in January 2006 alleging cruelty; wife filed for restitution of conjugal rights in August 2008 – Family Court allowed the divorce petition and dismissed the restitution petition by judgment dated 28.11.2011 – On appeal, the Division Bench finds that none of the three primary incidents of cruelty alleged by the respondent-husband (dated 11.05.2003, 11.04.2004 and 05.07.2005) were established by cogent, corroborated evidence – Held: Divorce decree set aside; respondent's subsequent remarriage does not deter the Court from passing the order [Paras 1–53].

Cruelty – Proof – Cumulative Effect – Burden of Proof on Petitioner – Cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) HMA must be of such gravity that it makes it reasonably impossible for the aggrieved spouse to live with the other – Instances of cruelty are to be considered in their cumulative effect and not in isolation – Mere trivial irritations and ordinary wear and tear of married life do not constitute cruelty – The burden of proving cruelty lies on the petitioner who alleges it; the standard of proof is preponderance of probability and not proof beyond reasonable doubt – Held: Family Court erroneously shifted the burden of proof onto the appellant-wife and drew adverse inferences against her without compelling reasons [Paras 26–47, 51].

Section 73 Evidence Act – Handwriting Comparison – Procedural Fairness – Natural Justice – The Family Court invoked Section 73 of the Evidence Act at the conclusion of final arguments, asking the parties to write lines for comparison purposes without informing them of the purpose or the provision being invoked – Adverse inference was then drawn against the appellant for her hesitance in providing her handwriting – Held: Exercise of power under Section 73 requires that parties be informed as a prerequisite of procedural fairness; comparison must be undertaken sparingly and supplemented by expert opinion where the document is of substantial consequence; conducting comparison covertly and drawing adverse inference for resistance, without informing the party that the handwriting will be used for comparison, is against the principles of natural and fair justice and cannot be sustained – Such exercise was an attempt to support the view already taken by the Court rather than a fair procedure to reach the truth [Paras 33–37].

Medical Evidence – Cruelty – Insufficient Proof – The MLC issued by AIIMS in respect of the incident dated 05.07.2005 was silent on the identity of the assailant and the manner of assault – Medical records at best established that the respondent suffered injuries due to an assault, but did not establish that the injuries were inflicted by the appellant or her family members – No police investigation reports, police call records or independent witness supported the respondent's version – Self-serving testimony of the petitioner alone, without corroboration, is insufficient to establish cruelty – Held: Reasoning of the Family Court based solely on the respondent's testimony and medical documents is improper and inadequate [Paras 38–42].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned judgment and Decree of Divorce dated 28.11.2011 passed by the Family Court, Rohini Courts, Delhi set aside – No relief sought in respect of the disposal of the restitution petition under Section 9 HMA; findings thereon not disturbed – Pending applications disposed of.

Service Law – Dismissal from Service – Discrepancy in Date of Birth – Fraud Not Established – Petitioner appointed as Assistant Teacher in 2014 on the basis of Purva Madhyama certificate (2001) reflecting date of birth as 07.07.1987 – Dismissed vide order dated 27.06.2019 on the ground that High School certificate of 1998 reflected date of birth as 02.07.1984 – Neither the foundational certificates were alleged to be forged nor was it shown that any undue advantage was derived – Held: Mere discrepancy in date of birth across certificates, without proof of deliberate concealment or resultant benefit, does not constitute fraud or misconduct warranting cancellation of appointment – Impugned order quashed – Petitioner directed to be reinstated, without back wages for the intervening period [Paras 44–78].

Fraud – Essential Ingredients – Proof Required – Fraud cannot be presumed and must be established by cogent and unimpeachable evidence – Non-disclosure of earlier certificates reflecting a different date of birth must be shown to be purposeful, calculated and actuated by intent to deceive – Where the certificate relied upon for appointment is genuine, issued by a competent authority, and no allegation of fabrication is raised, mere omission does not amount to fraud – Held: Absence of mens rea and absence of undue advantage are decisive factors – Charge of fraud unsustainable on facts [Paras 45–46, 62–63].

Misconduct – Non-Disclosure of Earlier Certificate – Proportionality – Suppression of a material fact vitiates appointment only where it is deliberate and results in conferment of an undue advantage – Where the discrepancy is neither calculated to secure unfair benefit nor distorts the selection process, cancellation of appointment would be wholly disproportionate – Doctrine of proportionality must guide exercise of power [Paras 54–55].

Eligibility – Date of Birth – No Advantage Derived – Even accepting the date of birth as reflected in the High School certificate (02.07.1984), the petitioner remained within the bounds of eligibility – In absence of any consequential gain in terms of age relaxation or eligibility, the foundational element of fraud is wholly absent – Non-disclosure, in such circumstances, remains, at best, an irregularity [Para 47].

Precedent – Applicability – Division Bench Ruling – Reliance placed on Division Bench decision in Special Appeal No. 987 of 2024 (arising from Ashok Kumar Singh vs. State of U.P.) to the effect that mere possession or disclosure of an additional qualification, not relied upon by the selection committee and conferring no tangible advantage, does not ipso facto establish fraud – Sine qua non for sustaining fraud is a deliberate design to secure an advantage materially impacting selection [Paras 64–69].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Impugned order dated 27.06.2019 passed by Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Mau quashed – Respondents directed to permit petitioner to resume duties forthwith – No salary for intervening period on the principle of "no work, no pay" – Liberty reserved to respondents to initiate proceedings if documents subsequently found to be false or fabricated [Paras 77–81].

Constitutional Law – Reservation – State-Specificity – NEET PG Admissions – Out-of-State Reserved Category Candidates – Benefits Confined to State of Origin – Petitioner Federation challenged minutes of meeting dated 18.02.2026 directing that SC/ST/OBC candidates of other States would be treated as General category for State Quota NEET PG counselling and would not receive benefit of reduced qualifying percentile notified by Central Government on 13.01.2026 — Held: Under Articles 341, 342 and 342A of the Constitution, Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Socially and Educationally Backward Classes are notified State-specifically and their reservation benefits are confined to the State in relation to which they are notified — reserved category status acquired in one State cannot be claimed in another State — Clause 4 of Rajasthan State Instruction Booklet, which treats reserved category candidates of other States as unreserved, is in consonance with constitutional scheme, Act of 2008 and PGMER 2023 — impugned minutes merely reiterate existing policy and introduce no new condition — writ petition dismissed [Paras 8–9.2, 16–18].

100% Domicile-Based Reservation – Contention Repelled – Impugned decision does not amount to 100% domicile-based reservation as out-of-State reserved category candidates are not rendered ineligible; they may participate against unreserved/General category seats subject to qualifying criteria applicable to General category — restriction is only on extension of reservation benefits notified for reserved categories of Rajasthan to candidates from other States — cases relating to wholesale domicile-based reservation held distinguishable on facts [Paras 10–10.1].

Relaxed Qualifying Percentile – Category-Specific Threshold – Once reserved seats are exhausted and treated as unreserved, candidates seeking admission thereagainst must satisfy General category qualifying criteria — candidates of reserved categories of other States cannot claim admission against unreserved seats by availing relaxed percentile prescribed for reserved categories — such a proposition would conflate distinct eligibility regimes and is impermissible in law [Paras 11–11.2].

Medical Admissions – Seat Utilisation vs. Merit – PG Medical seats are of national importance and should ideally be filled — however, filling seats cannot be achieved by compromising minimum standards of merit or in derogation of constitutional and statutory framework — lowering of qualifying percentile by Central Government has already addressed the concern of vacant seats to a significant extent — candidates not meeting prescribed qualifying criteria cannot be granted admission merely to prevent seats from remaining vacant [Para 12–12.1].

Estoppel – Petitioner Acquiesced to Governing Framework – Clause 4 of the Instruction Booklet was consistently applied throughout all counselling rounds — Petitioner Federation never challenged said Clause at any earlier stage — having acquiesced to governing framework, Petitioner is estopped from challenging the same at the stage of stray vacancy round [Para 13.1].

Negative Equality – Impermissible – Admission granted to one Dr. Divyanshu Chitravanshi purportedly on basis of reserved category NEET score against General category seat pertained to All India Quota and not State Quota — even if deviation occurred in an individual case, courts cannot perpetuate or compound an illegality; principle of negative equality cannot be invoked to claim similar treatment in contravention of governing legal framework [Paras 14–14.1].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed — Impugned decision dated 18.02.2026 upheld — Stay petition and pending applications disposed of.

Criminal Law - Maintenance - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 125 - Applicant husband challenged Family Court order granting maintenance at graduated rates from 2017 onwards - Marriage solemnized in 2012 - Wife alleged dowry harassment and physical assault by husband with waist belt in 2014 - Wife left matrimonial home and filed for divorce - Husband contended wife eloped without cause and her filing of divorce petition showed unwillingness to perform matrimonial duties - Family Court found refusal and neglect by husband - High Court observed husband failed to contest the divorce petition and admitted lack of knowledge about wife's welfare - Held - Torture or ill-treatment in husband's house is sufficient ground for wife to live separately - Object of Section 125 is preventive to save dependents from destitution - Conduct of husband established neglect and refusal - Revision dismissed - [Paras 1-21].

Criminal Law - Social Purpose - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 125 - Maintenance - Summary remedy for preventing vagrancy - Jurisdiction is preventive rather than remedial or punitive - Refusal refers to failure to maintain after demand whereas neglect involves default in absence of demand - Conduct of party can imply neglect - Held - Where wife cannot reasonably live with dignity with her husband she may refuse to live with him - Offer to maintain must be bona fide and not made to escape obligation - [Paras 15-16].

Criminal Law - Factors for Maintenance - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 125 - Quantum - Husband claimed wife was able-bodied and could maintain herself - No evidence produced by husband to show wife had independent income or was earning - Reliance placed on Supreme Court guidelines regarding status of parties and reasonable wants of claimant - Held - In absence of evidence of wife's income and considering the position of parties the grant of maintenance by Family Court was just and reasonable - [Paras 10-11 and 19-20].

Decision: Revision application dismissed – Family Court order affirmed – Husband directed to pay the arrears amount within one month.

Commercial Suits – Written Statement – 120-Day Limitation – Service of Summons – Plaint Without Annexures – Limitation period for filing a Written Statement in Commercial Suits runs from the date of service of summons along with a copy of the plaint, regardless of whether the documents annexed to the plaint are separately served – Defendants cannot bifurcate the plaint into 'plaint' and 'annexed documents' to claim a fresh or extended period of limitation – Held: The clock starts ticking upon service of summons with the plaint and cannot be reset upon subsequent furnishing of annexures – Right to file Written Statement stands forfeited upon expiry of 120 days from date of service of summons [Paras 6–7, 51, 57, 60, 89].

Commercial Courts Act, 2015 – Mandatory Timelines – Forfeiture of Right – Court Divested of Discretion – The amended second proviso to Order V Rule 1(1) and Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC, as introduced by the CCA, impose a mandatory two-tier framework: 30 days from service of summons as the initial period; extension up to 120 days upon application with reasons in writing – Upon expiry of 120 days, the right to file Written Statement stands forfeited by operation of statute and the Court is expressly divested of all discretion to condone delay or extend time beyond this outer limit – Order VIII Rule 10 reinforces this bar by requiring the Court to pronounce judgment against the defaulting defendant [Paras 14–18, 52–55, 76, 89–90].

Pleading – Plaint – Meaning and Scope – A 'Plaint' within Order V Rule 1 and Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC means a concise statement of material facts and reliefs as defined under Order VI Rule 1 and Order VII, and does not include documents annexed thereto – The CPC consciously distinguishes between 'plaint' as a standalone pleading (Orders V, VII, VIII) and 'plaint with documents and annexures' (Orders XI and XXXVII) – This legislative distinction is deliberate and cannot be disregarded to expand the limitation period [Paras 25–28, 38–42, 45–48, 91–92].

Statutory Interpretation – Mischief Rule – Dura Lex Sed Lex – Pre-amendment mischief under Order VIII Rule 1 was the uncertainty and abuse arising from defendants exploiting the court's residual discretion to file Written Statements beyond 90 days – The CCA cured this mischief by introducing an irreversible forfeiture clause and divesting the Court of its extension power – Courts cannot invoke inherent powers under Section 151 CPC or Article 227 of the Constitution to override unambiguous mandatory provisions of a special statute; equity supplements law but cannot supplant it [Paras 70–77, 83].

Article 227 – Supervisory Jurisdiction – No Grounds Established – Petitioners failed to establish any error of jurisdiction, miscarriage of justice, or grave procedural irregularity which would warrant invocation of the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India – The Commercial Court correctly followed the mandatory amended provisions of the CPC – Revision Petitions dismissed [Para 93].

Decision: Civil Revision Petition Nos. 4464, 4465 and 4466 of 2025 dismissed along with all connected applications – No order as to costs.

Motor Vehicles Act – Section 163A – Personal Accident Cover – Owner-Insured – Jurisdiction of MACT – Deceased owner of motorcycle died in accident caused by unknown vehicle – Legal heirs filed claim petition under Section 163A before Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – Tribunal awarded Rs. 15,00,000/- with interest at 7.5% p.a. relying on personal accident package policy – Held: Owner/insured, not being a third party, is not entitled to claim compensation under Section 163A before the MACT relying upon personal accident coverage – Award set aside – Appeal allowed [Paras 6, 9, 10].

Third Party Liability – Owner vs. Third Party – Section 147, Motor Vehicles Act – Scope of Compulsory Insurance – Risk to the owner/insured of the vehicle is not required to be covered under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act – Owner/insured or legal heirs of deceased owner cannot maintain a petition under Section 163A before the MACT for injuries/death relying upon personal accident cover – They may directly approach the insurer under the personal accident cover and in case of failure, approach the Consumer Forum or other appropriate forum [Paras 6, 9, 10].

Conflicting Decisions – Reference to Larger Bench – Supreme Court – Issue of whether legal heirs of vehicle owners who died in accidents can claim compensation under no-fault liability provisions of Section 163A, or whether such claims are limited to third party liability, referred by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) Nos. 15447–48 of 2024 (Wakis Afrin (Minor) v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.) to a larger bench due to conflicting decisions of coordinate benches – High Court held the present case governed by its own earlier binding precedent [Para 9].

Plea of Limited Liability – Stage of Raising – Distinguishing Supreme Court Precedent – In Manjusha v. United India Assurance Co. Ltd. (2025 SCC Online SC 1512), the Supreme Court allowed the claimants' appeal since the plea of limited liability was neither raised before the Tribunal nor in the Memorandum of Appeal – Distinguished: In the present case, the Insurance Company raised the question of limited liability in the Memorandum of Appeal – Hence the said decision held inapplicable [Para 9].

Decision: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal allowed – No costs – Award dated 04.03.2024 in M.C.O.P. No. 688 of 2021 set aside – Respondents/petitioners at liberty to directly approach insurer under personal accident cover and if not compensated, to approach Consumer Forum or other appropriate forum – Connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

Land Acquisition – Amendment of Appeal – Enhancement of Compensation – Order VI Rule 17 CPC – Appellant's land acquired under notifications dated 13.02.2004 under Sections 4, 6 and 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Land Acquisition Collector fixed market value at Rs. 19,660/- per sq. m. – Reference Court enhanced compensation to Rs. 29,956.48 per sq. m. in one case and Rs. 26,896.62 per sq. m. in another – Appellant filed Appeals in 2009 restricting claim to Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 50,000/- per sq. m. respectively due to financial constraints – Subsequent coordinate bench judgments dated 29.10.2024 in M/s Anant Raj Projects Ltd. v. Union of India & Anr. fixed market value at Rs. 1,30,000/- per sq. m. for similarly situated adjacent lands acquired under the same notification – Appellant sought amendment to enhance claim to Rs. 1,30,000/- per sq. m. – Held: Amendment allowed subject to condition that Appellant shall not be entitled to interest on enhanced amount for the period from filing of Appeals till filing of Applications [Paras 1–44].

Amendment of Pleadings – Order VI Rule 17 CPC – Scope and Principles – Amendment of pleadings may be allowed at any stage of proceedings – Two essential conditions for grant of amendment are: (i) it must not work injustice to the other side, and (ii) it must be necessary for determining the real question in controversy – Court should adopt a liberal approach – Amendment should be refused only where the other party cannot be placed in the same position as if the pleading had been originally correct and the amendment would cause irrecompensable injury – Court must avoid hyper-technical approach and amendments should ordinarily be allowed especially when opposite party can be compensated by costs [Paras 19–25].

Land Acquisition – Nature of Amendment – Change of Claim Amount – Amendment confined to enhancement of quantum of compensation does not alter the nature or character of proceedings – Where foundational facts, identity of acquired land, and cause of action remain unchanged, and amendment does not introduce new factual foundation or require additional evidence, the amendment merely enlarges the relief within the same cause of action already pleaded and is permissible under Order VI Rule 17 CPC [Paras 26–28, 32].

Delay in Seeking Amendment – Balance of Equities – Interest – While Order VI Rule 17 prescribes no time limit for seeking amendment, delay by the Appellant in filing applications after a considerable lapse of time cannot be ignored – Balance of justice met by allowing amendment while protecting Respondents against financial prejudice arising from delay – Held: Appellant entitled to seek amendment to claim just compensation but shall not be entitled to interest on the enhanced amount for the period of delay attributable to the late filing of Applications [Paras 33–41].

Sections 148 and 149 CPC – Inapplicability – Respondent's reliance on Sections 148 and 149 CPC and the judgment in Manoharan v. Sivarajan & Ors. held misconceived – The controversy herein does not pertain to enlargement of time for any procedural act nor to deficiency of court fees – Said provisions and the ratio of the cited judgment have no application to the facts of the present Applications [Paras 29–31].

Decision: Applications under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC allowed – Appellant permitted to amend claim amounts in LA.APP. No. 450/2009 and LA.APP. No. 515/2009 to Rs. 1,30,000/- per sq. m. – Appellant shall not be entitled to interest on enhanced amount from date of filing of Appeals till date of filing of Applications – Additional court fee and amendments to be deposited/carried out within six weeks – No order as to costs.

Specific Performance – Sale Agreement – Two Agreements Executed Same Day – Public Policy – Section 23, Indian Contract Act – Plaintiff's assignor and original defendant executed two sale agreements on the same day in respect of 8 acres of land — one registered at a sale price of Rs. 50,000/- per acre and another unregistered at Rs. 2,82,000/- per acre — admitted intention being to evade stamp duty and registration charges — Held: Though the contracts for sale of properties are individually lawful, the object and intention behind executing two such agreements is unlawful as it defeats the provisions of law and causes loss to the exchequer — Both sale agreements held void as against public policy under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act — Plaintiff not entitled to relief of specific performance of a void contract [Paras 22, 22.1].

Assignment of Contractual Rights – Privity of Contract – Section 15, Specific Relief Act – The original agreement holder Sivaraman assigned his rights and liabilities under both sale agreements to the plaintiff — Neither Ex-A.1 nor Ex-A.2 was in the nature of a personal contract, nor did they contain any clause prohibiting assignment — Terms of both agreements permitted execution of sale deed in favour of Sivaraman or his nominees — Held: Assignment by Sivaraman in favour of plaintiff is valid — Privity of contract exists between plaintiff and original defendant — Assignee entitled to seek specific performance in absence of express or implied prohibition against assignment [Paras 16, 17, 18].

Payment Receipts – Genuineness – Burden of Proof – Defendants alleged that Ex-A.3 and Ex-A.4, receipts for Rs. 6,00,000/- and Rs. 9,00,000/- respectively, were fabricated using blank signed papers obtained by the plaintiff's father in earlier money transactions — Held: Defendants failed to prove the foundational fact of any money transaction between the original defendant and the plaintiff's father — Ex-A.3 and Ex-A.4 bear the original defendant's thumb impression and signature, are duly stamped, and are supported by the evidence of attesting witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.3 — Nothing elicited in cross-examination to discredit their testimony — Payment receipts held genuine and true — Trial Court's contrary finding set aside [Paras 19, 20, 21].

Money Decree – Unjust Enrichment – Void Contract – Though the sale agreements are void on account of unlawful object, the money transactions of Rs. 2,00,000/-, Rs. 6,00,000/- and Rs. 9,00,000/-, totalling Rs. 17,00,000/- paid as part sale consideration are not tainted by illegality — Denial of recovery of the said amount to the plaintiff-assignee would result in unjust enrichment of the defendants — In the interest of justice and equity, money decree granted for Rs. 17,00,000/- with simple interest at 6% per annum from the date of suit till realisation from the properties left behind by the original defendant [Para 24].

Permanent Injunction – Possession – Section 53A, Transfer of Property Act – Plaintiff, even on his own pleadings, did not take possession under any registered document — In evidence, plaintiff admitted that the defendants are in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties — Plaintiff not in lawful possession — Not entitled to the relief of permanent injunction — Trial Court's denial of injunction affirmed [Para 23].

Decision: Appeal Suit allowed in part — Relief of specific performance and permanent injunction declined — Money decree passed in favour of plaintiff for Rs. 17,00,000/- with simple interest at 6% per annum from date of suit till realisation — No order as to costs in Original Suit or Appeal Suit.

Criminal Law – Attempt to Murder vs. Grievous Hurt – Sections 307 and 325 IPC – Conviction – Accused stabbed complainant PW-1 in the abdomen and PW-2 (son of complainant) on the neck and abdomen with a knife during a sudden quarrel over sprinkling of water – Trial Court convicted accused under Section 325 IPC and not Section 307 IPC on the ground that weapon was not recovered and MLCs did not specify depth of injuries – State filed appeal for conviction under Section 307 IPC and enhancement of sentence – High Court finds no perversity or illegality in Trial Court's appreciation of evidence – Held: Non-recovery of weapon and absence of medical opinion on depth of injuries, coupled with the fact that the act was not premeditated but arose from a sudden quarrel, disentitle the prosecution from establishing the intent requisite under Section 307 IPC – Conviction under Section 325 IPC maintained – State's appeal dismissed [Paras 22–32].

Section 307 IPC – Ingredients – Intention – Non-Recovery of Weapon – To sustain conviction under Section 307 IPC it must be shown that the act was done with such intention or knowledge as would have made it amount to murder had death ensued – Where the incident arose not from premeditation but from sudden provocation over a trivial issue, and medical evidence does not establish depth of stab injuries or sufficiency to cause death in the ordinary course, the requisite intent for Section 307 IPC is not made out – Non-recovery of the weapon assumes significance in such cases where the weapon constitutes the core of the prosecution story [Paras 30–32].

Quashing – Post-Conviction Compromise – Section 528 BNSS – Non-Compoundable Offence – Inherent Powers – High Court's power under Section 528 BNSS is not curtailed by the non-compoundable nature of an offence – Where parties have amicably settled their disputes of their own free volition, and the offence is non-heinous and predominantly of a private nature, the High Court may quash proceedings including post-conviction, keeping in view the nature and circumstances of the offence, the manner of settlement, and the conduct of the accused – Ends of justice do not invariably require incarceration and the Court may adopt a pragmatic approach – Accused being first-time offender, sole earning member, having shown good conduct, and the dispute arising from a trivial matter between neighbours are relevant considerations [Paras 35–40].

Sentence – Probation – Post-Conviction Settlement – Belated Compromise – While compromise arrived at after conviction warrants caution, the Court may release accused on probation where the offence is non-heinous, not premeditated, and arose from a sudden quarrel – Accused to be placed on probation of good conduct for one year upon furnishing personal bond – Accused directed to deposit cost of Rs. 50,000/- with Army Central Welfare Fund as a condition of settlement given the belated stage at which compromise was arrived at [Paras 38–41].

Decision: CRL.A. 442/2023 filed by the State dismissed – Conviction of accused under Section 325 IPC maintained – Accused released on probation of good conduct for one year upon furnishing personal bond of Rs. 10,000/- with surety – Accused directed to deposit cost of Rs. 50,000/- with Army Central Welfare Fund within four weeks – CRL.A. 255/2021 and CRL.M.C. 1952/2025 disposed of accordingly.