Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Dishonour of Cheque – Enforceable Debt or Liability – Cheque as Collateral Security – Respondents supplied 1,393.105 MT of iron ore to the appellant against a contract for 40,000 MT — Cheque was presented for encashment on 24.05.2004 and dishonoured on 02.06.2004 — Analyst's report certifying inferior quality of iron ore is dated 09.07.2004, i.e., subsequent to the date of presentation — Held: As on the date of presentation of the cheque, the appellant was not aware that the iron ore was of inferior quality; no liability corresponding to the cheque amount was crystallised on that date — Cheque, being a collateral security not mentioned in the contract, could not have been presented for encashment when no enforceable debt or liability existed [Paras 14–17].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Sections 118 and 139 – Statutory Presumptions – Failure to Raise Foundational Facts – Statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 are triggered only upon establishment of the factual foundation necessary to make out the complainant's case — Contract between the parties made no mention of the subject cheque — Appellant filed contradictory complaints: in the Section 138 complaint it alleged that the cheque was handed over directly by the respondents, while in the cheating complaint filed on 01.08.2005 it alleged that the cheque was handed over to one Pandurang alias Bhai Naik who in turn gave it to the appellant — Pandurang alias Bhai Naik was never examined during trial, raising an adverse inference — Held: Appellant failed to raise the foundational facts required to invoke statutory presumptions; presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 not triggered [Paras 11, 16].

Appeal Against Acquittal – Scope of Interference – Presumption of Innocence Strengthened – An appellate court must bear in mind that the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused is strengthened by an order of acquittal — Unless the conclusions of the trial court are palpably wrong, based on an erroneous view of law, or likely to result in grave injustice, interference is not warranted — Merely because the appellate court may be inclined to take a different view on re-appreciation of evidence, interference with acquittal is not justified if the view taken is a possible view — Reasoning of the Sessions Judge found to be in consonance with law; no infirmity made out [Paras 13, 17–18].

Decision: Appeal dismissed — Impugned order of acquittal dated 30.09.2015 confirmed — Miscellaneous applications disposed of.

Criminal Law – Murder – Robbery – Circumstantial Evidence – Last Seen Theory – Five Golden Principles – Panchsheel – Appellant, a former driver sacked by truck owner, was last seen travelling with deceased driver Munna Mishra and cleaner Mohan on truck from Kanpur to Lucknow on 12.10.2005 – Dead bodies of driver and cleaner found on 14.10.2005 near Thakurdwara, village Ghazia Kheda, Police Station Ganga Ghat, Unnao – Truck subsequently recovered in ownerless condition with all goods, jack, rope and tarpaulin missing – Jack recovered on 24.11.2006 on pointing out of appellant from a spot where he himself dug it out – Post mortem showed death by strangulation (Munna Mishra) and shock and haemorrhage (Mohan) with time of death corroborating last seen evidence – Chain of circumstances complete – Held: All five golden principles of circumstantial evidence as laid down in Sharad Birdichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra satisfied – Appellant is the only perpetrator of crime – Conviction and sentence confirmed – Appeal dismissed [Paras 10-12, 22, 42-43].

Criminal Law – Last Seen Theory – Short Time Gap – Where time gap between last seen and discovery of dead bodies is very short and there is no evidence of separation of accused and deceased in the intervening period, possibility of any person other than accused being perpetrator of crime becomes impossible – Appellant seen going with deceased on 12.10.2005 and dead bodies found on 14.10.2005; doctor opined bodies were 3-5 days old pointing to 12.10.2005 – Last seen alone not sufficient but forms a crucial link in chain of circumstances – Following Rambraksh alias Jalim v. State of Chhatisgarh and State of Karnataka v. Chand Basha [Paras 23-25].

Criminal Law – Recovery – Section 27 Evidence Act – Hostile Witness – Recovery of Jack – Jack recovered on pointing out of appellant from spot where he had buried it, corroborated by PW-1 (complainant) and PW-7 (Investigating Officer) – PW-3 turned hostile and denied recovery in his presence in cross-examination – Held: Even if panch witness turns hostile, evidence of Investigating Officer and complainant who witnessed the recovery is sufficient to prove recovery – Recovery pursuant to disclosure statement admissible under Section 27 of Evidence Act – Following Modan Singh v. State of Rajasthan and Mohd. Aslam v. State of Maharashtra [Paras 31-35, 37].

Criminal Law – Motive – Contradictions – Reasonable Doubt – Appellant admittedly sacked by truck owner about a month before the incident for fare irregularities and had quarrel for non-payment of 13 months' salary – Sufficient motive established – Minor inconsistencies in evidence of PW-3 (who partly supported and partly denied prosecution case) not elevated to status of reasonable doubt – Held: Where contradictions are of minor nature and not destructive of prosecution case, they do not entitle accused to benefit of doubt – Following Kalinga @ Kushal v. State of Karnataka and Tomaso Bruno v. State of U.P. [Paras 26, 38-41].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction of appellant under Sections 394, 302/34, 201 and 411 IPC confirmed – Sentence of life imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/- under Section 302 IPC, 10 years rigorous imprisonment and fine under Section 394 IPC, 3 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 411 IPC and 5 years rigorous imprisonment and fine under Section 201 IPC, all running concurrently, confirmed – Appellant to serve remaining sentence – Trial court record to be transmitted within one week.

Contempt of Court – Civil Contempt – Breach of Solvent Surety – Implicit Undertaking to Court – Respondents furnished solvent surety in respect of Gat No. 775 as a condition for leave to defend the summary suit — Despite full knowledge of the subsisting surety condition reaffirmed by court orders dated 02.05.2011, 10.10.2011 and 07.04.2014, respondents executed a registered sale deed of the suretyship property in favour of a third party on 13.06.2023 — Held: A solvent surety furnished as a condition of leave to defend carries with it an implicit undertaking that the property shall remain unencumbered until disposal of the suit or further court order — Breach of such surety constitutes civil contempt within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 — Respondents held guilty of contempt [Paras 15–18].

Contempt – Apology – Not Accepted as Bona Fide – Unconditional apology tendered by respondents accompanied by an offer to replace the solvent surety — Explanation offered that financial necessity compelled execution of the sale deed, and that the advocate handling the matter had expired — Held: Where contempt is committed with full knowledge and consciousness, the apology tendered is merely a legal device to wriggle out of responsibility and cannot be accepted as bona fide — Courts should not show compassion when disobedience of an undertaking or court order is committed with impunity — Apology is not just a word; a true apology requires introspection, atonement and self-reform — Mere expression of being sorry coupled with an offer to replace surety, made only after court recorded prima facie findings of breach, does not constitute a bona fide apology — Apology rejected [Paras 19–29].

Contempt – Sentence – Discharge on Undertaking and Settlement – Respondent no. 1 tendered an undertaking to pay the full suit claim of Rs. 4,60,00,000/- (principal of Rs. 2,30,00,000/- plus equivalent amount towards interest) — Consent terms signed by both parties — Held: In view of the undertaking and settlement, respondents discharged on payment of a fine of Rs. 2,000/- — Respondents directed to deposit principal amount of Rs. 2,30,00,000/- with the trial court on or before 08.05.2026, with interest payable in four equal monthly instalments of Rs. 57,50,000/- — Trial court to permit petitioners to withdraw the deposited amounts without condition and dispose of the suit in accordance with the consent terms [Paras 31–37].

Contempt – Solvent Surety – Breach – Third-Party Rights Created – Effect – Third-party purchaser of the suretyship property cannot be a necessary party to contempt proceedings — Beneficiaries of a contumacious transaction have no right or locus to be heard in contempt proceedings on the ground that they are bona fide purchasers for value without notice — Court exercising contempt jurisdiction may declare such transactions void or issue appropriate directions to nullify the advantage secured by the contemnor [Paras 20–24].

Decision: Respondents held guilty of contempt of court — Unconditional apology not accepted as bona fide — Respondents discharged on payment of fine of Rs. 2,000/- to be deposited before trial court within four weeks — Undertaking dated 04.05.2026 and consent terms dated 04.05.2026 taken on record and accepted as undertakings to the court — Trial court directed to permit petitioners to withdraw deposited amounts and to dispose of suit in accordance with consent terms — Contempt Petition disposed of accordingly.

Criminal Law – Interim Custody of Seized Vehicle – Section 503 BNSS – Registered Owner Not an Accused – Petitioner-registered owner of Fortuner Car (MP16-C-6019) gave the vehicle to friend Shivam Rai on 05.08.2025 for travel to Bhopal – Without the petitioner's knowledge, Shivam Rai handed the car to accused Nitin Dubey who allegedly used it to commit murder of his wife – Vehicle seized on 14.09.2025 from Shivam Rai – Petitioner not arrayed as accused in ST No. 17/2026 – Trial court dismissed application for supurdagi on the ground that the vehicle was subject matter of evidence, charge had been framed, and prosecution evidence was yet to commence – Held: Court below failed to consider binding precedents on interim custody of seized vehicles – Where no allegation has been made in the charge sheet against the owner or his agent, vehicle should normally be released on supurdagi subject to the owner furnishing a bond to produce the vehicle as and when directed – Impugned order set aside – Matter remanded for fresh decision without being influenced by the impugned order – Trial court to decide afresh before proceeding further in the matter [Paras 2, 5–9].

Interim Custody – Principles – Vehicle as Evidence – Seizure of a vehicle amounts to entrustment to a government servant – Property should be restored to the original owner after the necessity to retain it ceases – It is no use to keep seized vehicles at police stations for long periods – Releasing seized vehicle on supurdagi with appropriate conditions including bond, undertaking to produce vehicle when required, prohibition on transfer or alteration, and photography to preserve evidentiary character serves the purposes of avoiding deterioration, misappropriation, and burdening of the court/police with custody – Court below was required to consider these principles and the coordinate bench decisions before dismissing the application [Paras 6–7].

Decision: Criminal revision partly allowed – Impugned order dated 10.02.2026 set aside – Matter remanded to the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Gadarwara for fresh decision on the application under Section 503 BNSS without being influenced by the impugned order and without proceeding further in the matter in the meantime – Pending applications disposed of.

Criminal Law – Criminal Conspiracy – False Implication in Rape Case – Extortion – Advocate and Police Officer – Conviction Upheld – A1 a practising advocate and A2 a Sub-Inspector of Police conspired with two deceased accused to falsely implicate PW12, an innocent person who was the principal witness in a molestation case against a police official, in a fabricated gang rape case with a view to extort money from him – A false FIR was registered, false documents were prepared by A2 in his official capacity, PW12 was arrested, subjected to custodial violence and remanded to custody – Investigation by Crime Branch ultimately exonerated PW12 – Held: The evidence of PW1, PW2, PW6, PW7 and PW12, corroborated by DNA evidence, clearly establishes the conspiracy and the roles played by A1 and A2 – Conviction under Sections 120B, 193, 195, 218, 465 and 389 read with 120B IPC upheld – CRL.A. 286/2016 and CRL.A. 326/2016 dismissed [Paras 20–36].

Accomplice Evidence – Competency of Witness – Section 133 Indian Evidence Act – Sections 306, 307 Cr.P.C. Not Mandatory Conditions – The defence contended that PW1, PW2, PW6 and PW7 being accomplices could not be examined as prosecution witnesses as the procedure under Sections 306 or 307 Cr.P.C. was not followed and therefore their testimony was inadmissible – Held: A person who was not arraigned as an accused at any point of time cannot be equated with the situation of a co-accused sought to be examined as a witness without pardon – Under Section 118 of the IEA all persons are competent to testify unless prevented from understanding questions – Under Section 133 of the IEA an accomplice is a competent witness against an accused – The competency of an accomplice is not destroyed because he could have been tried jointly with the accused but was not – The provisions of Section 306 or 307 Cr.P.C. are not mandatory conditions for examining a witness who was never arraigned as accused – Distinction from case where the additional witness had been arraigned as co-accused [Paras 16–19].

Evidence – Cross-Examination – Wilful Non-Examination – Section 33 Indian Evidence Act – Admissibility of Uncross-Examined Testimony – PW12 Sushil Gulati appeared before the trial court on over 20 occasions over a period of nearly three years after completion of examination-in-chief but was sent back without cross-examination solely on account of adjournments sought by the defence – He died on 19.12.2014 without being cross-examined – Held: Where ample and repeated opportunity was granted to the defence to cross-examine PW12 but was not availed, the ingredients of Section 33 IEA are clearly attracted and PW12's evidence is admissible as though cross-examined – This Court expressed concern at the extent of harassment caused to PW12 who was not only falsely implicated but summoned to court repeatedly without any productive purpose – The trial court erred in granting adjournments without restraint in violation of this Court's earlier direction to dispose of the matter expeditiously – Granting repeated adjournments on mere asking was a clear abuse of process [Paras 30–34].

Victim's Appeal – Compensation – Enhancement – Section 372 Cr.P.C. – Proviso – Victim's legal representatives appealed under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. seeking enhancement of compensation – Held: The trial court's direction that Rs. 2,00,000 out of the total fine of Rs. 3,00,000 be paid as token compensation is inadequate considering the extent of harassment and humiliation, custodial violence, false implication in a heinous offence, and prolonged trial endured by the victim – Compensation enhanced to the entire fine amount of Rs. 3,00,000 payable to the legal representatives of PW12 Sushil Gulati [Paras 39–40].

Appeal Not Pressed – Cannot Be Dismissed for Default – Must Be Decided on Merits – The legal representatives in CRL.A. 691/2016 expressed unwillingness to prosecute the appeal – Held: Once an appeal is admitted, the appellate court must decide it on merits and cannot dismiss it for default or non-prosecution – Decided on merits after going through the record [Para 37–38].

Decision: CRL.A. 286/2016 dismissed — CRL.A. 326/2016 dismissed — CRL.A. 691/2016 partly allowed — Compensation enhanced from Rs. 2,00,000 to Rs. 3,00,000 (entire fine amount) payable to legal representatives of PW12 Sushil Gulati — Pending applications closed.

POCSO Act — Section 15(2) — Child Sexual Abuse Material — Discharge of Accused — Subjective Satisfaction Test — Accused persons chargesheeted for storing, possessing, and transmitting Child Sexual Exploitation Material (CSEM) through mobile phones and WhatsApp groups — Sessions Court discharged accused under Section 15(2) POCSO Act solely on the ground that age of children depicted in pornographic videos could not be conclusively established through documentary proof or medical examination — High Court, on suo motu revision, holds that Sessions Court erred in applying rigid age-determination criteria to CSEM cases involving unidentified child victims — Impugned discharge order set aside — Sessions Court directed to frame charges under Section 15(2) POCSO Act and proceed to trial [Paras 2, 42–44].

Definition of 'Child' — Section 2(1)(d) vs. Section 2(1)(da) POCSO Act — Distinction in standard of proof — Section 2(1)(d) defines 'child' as any person below eighteen years — Section 2(1)(da) defines 'child pornography' to include visual depictions which 'appear to depict a child' — Legislature consciously departed from objective age-determination criteria under Section 2(1)(d) when enacting Section 2(1)(da) so as to prevent Section 15 from being rendered unworkable — Held: For offences under Section 15 POCSO Act relating to CSEM, courts are not required to conclusively establish age of depicted persons through objective means; it suffices if the material appears to depict a child to a prudent ordinary person [Paras 30–36].

Subjective Satisfaction Test — Expert Opinion — Application to Unidentified Child Victims — Two medical experts from Maulana Azad Medical College, on perusal of videos and photographs recovered from accused's devices, opined that some persons depicted therein were children below eighteen years based on physical development, genital development, and secondary sexual characteristics — Witnesses from Delhi Commission for Women similarly opined that material depicted children in sexually explicit manner — CFSL forensic report confirmed storage and transmission of CSEM by both accused — Held: Expert opinions and investigation material prima facie satisfy the test of subjective satisfaction; Sessions Court failed to properly appreciate such evidence while passing the discharge order [Paras 37–42].

Interpretation of POCSO Act — Purposive Construction — Section 15 and Section 2(1)(da) to be read conjunctly — Rigid application of age-determination procedure under Section 34 POCSO Act read with Section 94 JJ Act confined to cases where victim is identifiable and traceable — In CSEM cases involving unidentified victims, such procedure is wholly impractical and unjust — To discharge accused solely on failure to produce documentary or medical proof of age would defeat the object of the statute and leave countless unidentified child victims without protection — Held: Mandatory age-determination procedure under Section 34 POCSO Act and Section 94 JJ Act inapplicable where child victims are unidentified and cannot be produced before Court [Paras 27–36].

Relied upon: Just Rights for Children Alliance v. S. Harish, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2611 — Held: For any offence under POCSO relating to child pornographic material, courts are only required to form a prima facie subjective satisfaction that the material appears to depict a child from the perspective of an ordinary prudent person; such satisfaction may be arrived at from FSL report, expert opinion, or court's own assessment of material.

Decision: Revision petition allowed — Impugned order dated 01.09.2023 set aside to the extent it discharged Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 under Section 15(2) of the POCSO Act — Sessions Court directed to frame charges against Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 under Section 15(2) POCSO Act, Section 67B IT Act, and Section 120B IPC, and to proceed with trial in accordance with law [Paras 43–44].

Domestic Violence – Interim Maintenance – Income Concealment – Cross-petitions by husband and wife challenging appellate court's award of ₹13,000/- per month total interim maintenance under the PWDV Act – Wife alleged husband concealed true income from proprietorship business M/s Lalaji Plastic and falsely projected himself as salaried employee earning ₹12,000/- per month – Husband denied domestic violence and claimed business was closed in 2016–17 – Held: Husband's claim of earning only ₹12,000/- per month not credible in light of financial record; income assessed at not less than ₹20,000/- per month – Total interim maintenance of ₹13,000/- per month upheld [Paras 2–3, 12–20].

Income Assessment – Non-Disclosure – Adverse Inference – Husband filed income affidavit claiming salary of ₹12,000/- per month as Supervisor with M/s Jeet Engineering Works – Bank account statements revealed substantial earlier transactions in his name and in name of firm M/s Lalaji Plastic – Husband filed ITR in Form ITR-4 (business income) even after alleged closure of business, indicating continued business activity – Tax-saving investments of ₹55,000/-, ₹31,000/- and ₹30,000/- in ICICI Prudential Tax Plan made just before close of financial year 2016–17 – No satisfactory explanation offered regarding closure of business accounts – Held: Husband withheld material financial information; adverse inference drawn; income cannot be assessed below ₹20,000/- per month [Paras 13–17, 19].

Minimum Wages – Earning Capacity – Able-Bodied Educated Husband – Husband, a graduate who previously ran a proprietorship business, claimed post-separation income of ₹12,000/- per month, below Delhi minimum wages – Held: An able-bodied person cannot defeat maintenance claim by withholding financial particulars; courts entitled to impute baseline earning capacity with reference to minimum wages when direct proof of income is unavailable – Relied upon: Tasmeer Qureshi v. Asfia Muzaffar: 2025 SCC OnLine Del 7272 [Para 18].

Wife's Income – Nil Assessment – Husband alleged wife earning ₹30,000/- per month from tuitions but placed no supporting material on record – Held: Unsubstantiated allegation cannot be accepted at interim stage; wife's income assessed as Nil [Para 12].

Set-Off – Section 125 CrPC Maintenance Against PWDV Maintenance – Wife already receiving ad-interim maintenance of ₹7,000/- per month under Section 125 CrPC from Family Court – Held: Said amount shall be set off and adjusted against total interim maintenance of ₹13,000/- per month awarded under the PWDV Act proceedings; observations subject to revision upon final determination by Trial Court after evidence [Paras 20–22].

Decision: Both petitions disposed of – Appellate Court's award of total interim maintenance of ₹13,000/- per month upheld – ₹7,000/- per month under Section 125 CrPC to be set off against the same – Husband's income assessed at not less than ₹20,000/- per month – Final quantum subject to evidence before Trial Court.

Domestic Violence Act — Section 12 — Interim Maintenance — Prima Facie Case — Allegations of Illicit Relationship — Effect — Respondent-wife filed application under Section 12 PWDV Act alleging physical, mental, and economic abuse by petitioner-husband and his family — Trial Court granted consolidated interim maintenance of ₹25,000/- per month — Appellate Court partially modified order — On revision, husband contended wife was in illicit relationship with female friend and had subjected him to cruelty — Held: Unlike Section 125(4) CrPC, PWDV Act contains no express statutory bar disentitling a woman from seeking reliefs on allegation of living in adultery — At stage of interim maintenance, only prima facie satisfaction is required — Allegations of illicit relationship being unsubstantiated and a disputed question of fact, cannot disentitle respondent-wife from interim maintenance at this stage [Paras 13–22].

Interim Maintenance — Quantum — Voluntary Financial Liabilities — Deductions Not Permissible — Petitioner-husband sought to set off home loan EMIs, health insurance premiums, LIC premiums, and school fees while calculating his net income for maintenance purposes — Held: Voluntary expenses such as repayment of loans, LIC premiums, and health insurance premiums cannot override statutory duty to pay maintenance — Only statutory deductions from salary are ordinarily taken into account — Determination of maintenance must be based on "free income" and not on net income remaining after voluntary financial commitments — Petitioner's admitted monthly salary of ₹80,000/- taken as basis — Assessment of ₹25,000/- per month as interim maintenance for wife and minor child upheld as reasonable [Paras 23–26].

Maintenance — Educational Qualification of Wife — Capacity to Earn vs. Actual Earning — Petitioner contended respondent-wife was a postgraduate (M.A.) who had deliberately quit employment to claim maintenance — Held: Mere educational qualification or capacity to earn does not ipso facto establish that wife is actually earning — Clear distinction exists between ability to earn and actual income — In absence of material to demonstrate that respondent-wife is gainfully employed or earning any independent income, interim maintenance cannot be denied solely on the basis of educational qualification [Paras 27–30].

Interim Maintenance — Adjustment of Sale Proceeds — Date of Adjustment — Date of Application vs. Date of Separation — Respondent-wife received ₹20,00,000/- from sale of property in Rohini and utilised the same for personal expenses and upkeep of minor child — Trial Court adjusted said amount from date of separation (April 2019) at a notional rate of ₹40,000/- per month — Appellate Court recalculated adjustment at rate of ₹25,000/- per month from April 2019, resulting in maintenance becoming payable from 01.01.2026 — Held: Interim maintenance is ordinarily to be granted from date of filing of application and not from date of separation — Adjustment of sale proceeds must also be computed from date of filing of application (20.10.2020) and not from date of separation — ₹20,00,000/- adjusted at ₹25,000/- per month from 20.10.2020, covering period till 20.06.2027 — Consolidated interim maintenance of ₹25,000/- per month payable to respondent-wife and minor son from 21.06.2027 [Paras 37–42].

Relied upon: Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324 — Held: Maintenance ought to be granted from date of application in all cases, as significant delays occur in disposal of maintenance applications and interests of justice require such approach.

Decision: Revision petition disposed of — Adjustment of ₹20,00,000/- computed from date of filing of application (20.10.2020) till 20.06.2027 at ₹25,000/- per month — Consolidated interim maintenance of ₹25,000/- per month payable to respondent-wife and minor son with effect from 21.06.2027 — Nothing expressed to be treated as opinion on merits [Paras 40–45].

Habeas Corpus – Custody of Minor Child – Maintainability – Writ Petition dismissed by Single Judge on the ground that remedy under Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 was available and that no illegality in custody was established – Minor child aged approximately 15–20 months retained by respondent no. 6 (father, a police constable) despite order dated 10.09.2025 of the Child Welfare Committee (C.W.C.) directing handover to appellant no. 1 (mother) – Police officers of the department providing protection to respondent no. 6 in violating C.W.C. directions – Held: View of learned Single Judge contrary to settled law – A writ of habeas corpus cannot be dismissed merely on the ground that remedy is available under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 – Writ court is not foreclosed from exercising extraordinary jurisdiction in custody matters – Order set aside – Writ petition restored [Paras 4, 15–16, 19–21].

Child Custody – Welfare of Child – Paramount Consideration – Habeas corpus jurisdiction of the High Court can be invoked in custody disputes involving minors regardless of whether the detaining party is the other natural guardian – Father, being a natural guardian, is not immune from a writ of habeas corpus if retention of the child is contrary to the child's welfare – At such a tender age, welfare of the minor is best served with the mother – It is too late in the day to urge that a writ of habeas corpus is not maintainable where the child is in custody of another parent – Court can invoke its extraordinary writ jurisdiction for the best interest of the child [Paras 11–12, 16–18].

Child Welfare Committee – Non-Compliance of Orders – Conduct of Police Officers – Despite order dated 10.09.2025 of C.W.C. directing respondent no. 6 to hand over custody of the minor child to the mother, the same was not complied with – Police officers, instead of enforcing the order, were found to be writing letters to one another and providing protection to the errant respondent – Superintendent of Police, Jaunpur communicated to take appropriate steps but no action followed – Court expressed strong disapproval of the conduct of police officers in shielding respondent no. 6 [Paras 5–6].

Decision: Special appeal allowed – Order dated 06.11.2025 of the learned Single Judge set aside – Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 931 of 2025 restored to its original number and status – Matter to be listed before appropriate Bench on 16.04.2026 as a fresh case for consideration on merits [Paras 19–21].