Criminal Law – Quashment of FIR – Section 482 CrPC – Cheating and Criminal Breach of Trust – Allegations that petitioners received ₹3.86 crore under subcontract agreement but diverted construction material and failed to complete work – Specific allegations of dishonest intention and misappropriation of funds from inception of contract found in complaint – Petitioners allegedly shifted materials to personal project and retained valuable equipment – Held: Prima facie offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC made out – FIR not liable to be quashed merely because of existence of arbitration clause or civil nature of dispute – Delay in lodging FIR explained – Limitation under Section 468 CrPC not a bar to investigation of offence punishable with 7 years imprisonment [Paras 2–4, 8–11, 16–21].

Corporate Criminal Liability – Lifting of Corporate Veil – Petitioners being Managing Director and Director accused of personal misuse of company funds and materials – Specific allegations of active involvement in acts of misappropriation – Held: When individuals controlling company are accused of dishonest acts, they cannot seek shelter under corporate veil – Sufficient averments to continue criminal proceedings [Paras 14–15].

Territorial Jurisdiction – Place of Cause of Action – Petitioners contended that no part of offence took place in Hyderabad – Held: Transfer of misappropriated funds occurred in Hyderabad; company offices located in Hyderabad – Investigation can proceed even if jurisdiction questionable – As per Section 156(2) CrPC and Satvinder Kaur judgment, police can investigate offence irrespective of territorial jurisdiction at this stage [Paras 4.6, 28–29].

Civil vs Criminal Remedy – Arbitration Clause – Petitioners argued arbitration clause existed in contract – Held: Arbitration clause does not bar criminal prosecution if allegations make out prima facie offence – Allegations in FIR include dishonest intention and misappropriation from inception, which cannot be resolved merely by arbitration [Paras 4.4, 16, 19].

Power under Section 482 CrPC – Scope – Court reiterated that inherent power must be used sparingly – When FIR discloses cognizable offence and investigation is ongoing, courts should not interfere at threshold stage – Petitioners not entitled to quash FIR when disputed facts require investigation [Paras 20, 27, 30–31].

Decision: Petition dismissed – FIR not quashed – Criminal proceedings to continue – Observations confined to decision on quashment and not to affect merits of investigation or trial [Para 33].

Right to Privacy – Posthumous Personality Rights – Not Heritable – Petitioner, daughter of Late Shah Bano Begum, sought injunction against the film ‘Haq’ claiming it dramatizes and distorts the private life of her late mother without consent – Alleged violation of right to privacy and dignity – Held: As per K.S. Puttaswamy (2017) and Deepa Jayakumar (2021), right to privacy extinguishes upon death – Personality and privacy rights are not inheritable – No cause of action survives for legal heirs to claim violation of deceased’s privacy – Petition dismissed [Paras 8–10]

Freedom of Expression – Fictional and Dramatized Works – Use of Public Record – Film inspired by Supreme Court’s judgment in Shah Bano case and adaptation of published book – Contains disclaimer clarifying fictional nature and non-association with real individuals – Held: Once information enters public domain and court records, right to privacy ceases – Creative and artistic liberty protected under Article 19(1)(a) – Film does not claim to be a biopic – Use of dramatization permissible – No legal basis to restrain its release [Paras 11–13]

Certification of Film – Judicial Review – CBFC Certificate Grants Prima Facie Validity – Alternative Remedy Not Exhausted – Petitioner did not challenge certification through available remedy under Section 5-E of the Cinematograph Act – Held: High Court not to interfere unless certification is challenged for procedural irregularity, which was not done – Absence of challenge to certificate fatal to relief sought – Writ petition dismissed for not availing alternate statutory remedy [Paras 14–15]

Delay and Laches – Knowledge of Film Production Since February 2024 – Petition Filed Just Before Release – Film teaser released in September 2025 – Certification granted in October 2025 – Petition filed on 01.11.2025 despite wide publicity – Held: Petitioner not vigilant – Delay defeats equitable relief – Writ petition suffers from laches [Para 16]

New Grounds Raised in Oral Argument – Not Pleaded – Not Permissible – Petitioner sought to raise community-based objections during hearing which were not part of pleadings – Held: Factual contentions not pleaded cannot be raised during argument – Court declined to consider unpleaded grounds [Para 7]

Precedents – Petitioner’s Reliance Misplaced – Cases cited concerned living persons or different contexts (e.g. defamation, copyright, decency) – Held: Inapplicable to case involving dramatized depiction of deceased person and lack of legal injury to petitioner herself – Respondents’ reliance on Babuji Rawji Shah (2023), Viacom 18 Media (2018), and R. Rajagopal (1994) upheld [Para 17]

Decision: Petition dismissed – No violation of legal or constitutional rights shown – Film’s release upheld – No interference with CBFC certification justified. [Para 18]

Patent Law – Computer-Related Invention – Section 3(k) – Technical Contribution – Graphic Data Lineage Generation – Rejection on ground of being algorithmic and lacking technical effect – Held: System incorporating diagram generator, metadata querying interface, configuration information sets, and dynamic iterative lineage generation constitutes technical effect and technical contribution – Not excluded under Section 3(k) [Paras 17–54]

Patent Law – Database Management System – Technical Effect – Claim enabling ad-hoc upstream/downstream tracing of data transformations using metadata – Reduction of query response time, avoidance of manual multi-step tracing, and configuration-based autonomous retrieval amount to technical advancement – Invention not mere presentation of information nor simple execution of an algorithm – Technical effect established [Paras 49–54]

Patent Law – Novelty and Inventive Step – Section 2(1)(j) – Prior Art D1 distinguished – D1 disclosed entity-relationship visualisation but did not disclose tracing of data evolution, metadata configuration sets with distinct selection specifications, or iterative querying of metadata management systems – Claimed invention addresses a different technical problem and yields different technical results – Not obvious to PSITA even with common general knowledge – Novelty and inventive step satisfied [Paras 55–61]

Computer Programme Per Se – Technical Effect Test – Indian Position aligned with EPO rather than UK approach – Indian jurisprudence recognises patentability where software-enabled inventions use technical means to solve technical problems – CRI Guidelines 2025 emphasise technical contribution, consistent with precedents such as Lava International and Microsoft decisions – Held: Claimed invention not barred by Section 3(k) [Paras 19–48]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Rejection order dated 13/07/2020 set aside – Patent Application No. 4693/CHENP/2010 to proceed to grant based on last submitted claims – No order as to costs.

Industrial Disputes Act – Representation through Advocates – Section 36(3)-(4) – Labour Court debarred Management’s counsel – Held: Workman’s own appearance through counsel amounts to implied consent and waiver – Leave of Court also implied as Labour Court permitted filing of Vakalatnama and allowed adjournment – Order debarring advocate set aside [Paras 11–18].

Industrial Adjudication – Representation by Legal Practitioners – Section 36(3) & (4) ID Act – Scope and Requirement of Consent and Leave – Complete bar applies only to conciliation – Before Labour Court, appearance permissible with consent of opposite party and leave of Court – Held: Two-fold requirement of consent and leave reaffirmed – Consent may be express or implied; leave may be express or inferred from conduct of the Court – Legal position reiterated from Paradip Port Trust (1977) and Thyssen Krupp (2023) [Paras 9–10, 14].

Implied Consent – Waiver of Objection – Workman filed preliminary objection under Section 36(3)-(4) but subsequently appeared through counsel on 04.10.2024 – This subsequent conduct constitutes waiver of objection and implied consent – Once a party itself appears through advocate, it cannot deny the other side the same facility – Workman’s later claim that the order-sheet recording appearance through counsel was “erroneous” rejected due to absence of rectification application – Order-sheet is conclusive record of court proceedings [Paras 11–13].

Implied Leave of the Court – Labour Court permitting Management’s counsel to appear and allowing adjournment application dated 12.11.2024 amounts to implied leave – Consideration and allowance of application filed by advocate shows Court’s permission – Subsequent attempt by workman to retract not sustainable [Paras 16–17].

Precedents – Paradip Port Trust v. Their Workmen (1977) 2 SCC 339 – Consent and leave are mandatory – Section 36(4) cannot be read as disjunctive – Industrial Disputes Act prevails over Advocates Act as special legislation – Reaffirmed – Thyssen Krupp Industries India Pvt. Ltd. v. Suresh Maruti Chougule (2023 SCC OnLine SC 1707) applied – Patna HC in M/s Key’s Brake Hoses (1999) and Bombay HC in T.K. Varghese (2001) followed on implied consent and unjustified refusal of consent [Paras 14–15].

Judicial Record – Sanctity of Order Sheets – Courts’ orders are conclusive of proceedings – Respondent cannot discredit order-sheet entries without seeking formal rectification – Mere assertion in affidavit insufficient [Para 13].

Decision – Labour Court’s order dated 27.02.2025 debaring advocate unsustainable in law and on facts – Implied consent and implied leave established – Order set aside – Writ petition allowed – Labour Court directed to apprise workman of his right to legal aid and proceed expeditiously [Paras 18–20].

Criminal Law – Rape – Sole Testimony of Prosecutrix – Credibility – Appellant convicted under Section 376 IPC based solely on the testimony of the prosecutrix – FIR lodged after delay of one day, allegedly after husband’s consent – Medical examination showed ruptured hymen but no external injuries – Neighbours, husband, and key witnesses not examined – Held: In absence of corroboration and amid glaring contradictions regarding the occurrence, identification of accused, sleeping arrangement, and presence of weapon, conviction cannot be sustained – Sole testimony not inspiring confidence [Paras 10–16, 18–21].

Criminal Evidence – Delay in FIR – Victim lodged complaint one day after incident citing need for husband’s permission – Husband not examined to corroborate – No neighbour examined despite claim that one informed husband – Delay and absence of explanation create serious doubt on authenticity of allegation [Paras 11–13].

Medical Evidence – Absence of Injuries – Doctor found only ruptured hymen, no external injuries or marks of violence – Victim a married woman with three children – Held: Medical findings inconsistent with allegation of forcible rape; rupture of hymen not conclusive of sexual assault [Paras 14–15].

Defective Investigation – Investigation found to be perfunctory – Failure to seize mat, weapon, or clothing – No site sketch or verification of call records – No examination of key witnesses – Held: Though defective investigation alone not ground for acquittal, when coupled with unreliable and inconsistent evidence, prosecution case collapses [Para 19].

Presumption of Innocence – Standard of Proof – Prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Suspicion cannot substitute proof – Major inconsistencies and unexplained circumstances warrant benefit of doubt to the accused [Paras 20–21].

Decision – Trial court erred in relying solely on uncorroborated testimony of prosecutrix despite serious contradictions and lack of evidence – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellant acquitted – Connected applications disposed of [Paras 22–23].

Criminal Law – Framing of Charges – Murder – Criminal Conspiracy – Charge Sustained – Accused allegedly conspired to dispossess the complainant from his land, leading to fatal assault on his son – Evidence of threats, long-standing land dispute, and coordinated movement of accused supported by CCTV footage, CDRs, and eyewitness accounts – Held: Trial court rightly framed charges under Sections 120-B, 302, 307, 447, 147, 201, and other IPC provisions – Material creates grave suspicion, sufficient to proceed to trial [Paras 40–55].

Criminal Law – Nature of Offence – Murder vs. Culpable Homicide – Prima Facie Case of Murder Established – Argument that single blow rules out murder rejected – Repeated blows with bricks and iron pipe on the deceased’s head with full force show intention to kill – Injury pattern and conduct reveal deliberate targeting – Held: No basis to convert charge to Section 304 IPC at this stage – Trial court justified in framing charge under Section 302 IPC [Paras 51–58].

Criminal Conspiracy – Inference from Circumstances – Land Dispute Escalation – Shared Intent – History of land transactions and threats point to common design among accused – Execution of illegal dispossession plan amounts to conspiracy – Even non-present accused implicated by pre-event meetings and CDR data – Held: Conspiracy can be inferred from conduct and surrounding facts – Presence at spot not essential for conspiracy charge [Paras 45–50].

Criminal Procedure – Discharge of Accused – High Court Revisional Power Limited – Discharge of Sharat Puri, Rajat Jandyal, and Raghunandan Singh upheld – Evidence against them not sufficient to infer intent or participation – No direct or reliable role assigned – Trial court applied correct legal test – Held: High Court will not interfere unless manifest illegality or perversity exists – Discharge justified [Paras 66–71].

Criminal Procedure – Bail – Serious Offences – Bail Rejected – Bail sought on merits and medical grounds – Accused charged with murder and conspiracy – Evidence indicates continuing threat to complainant – Trial at initial stage with material witnesses pending – Medical conditions found manageable in jail – Held: Gravity of offence, conspiracy angle, and threat to complainant warrant rejection of bail [Paras 74–78].

NDPS Act – Section 21 – Conviction – Appeal – Appellant convicted for possession of commercial quantity of heroin (nearly 6 kg) recovered from bag on motorcycle – Search conducted after informing appellant of right under Section 50 NDPS Act – Recovery in presence of DSP and consent recorded – Samples drawn on spot and sealed – Produced before Magistrate next day – Seals found intact – Held: Recovery not from person but from bag – Hence, Section 50 not applicable – Compliance with Section 52A satisfied – Conviction upheld [Paras 6-12].

Section 50 NDPS Act – Applicability – Heroin recovered from bag carried on motorcycle – Not personal search – Held: As per SC rulings (Pawan Kumar, Ranjan Chadha, Prabhu), Section 50 applies only to personal search – Voluntary consent given and recovery witnessed by DSP – No violation found [Paras 8-9].

Section 52A NDPS Act – Drawing of Samples – Appellant contended that samples not drawn before Magistrate – Held: Samples taken at spot in accordance with Standing Orders – Inventory, samples, and case property presented before Magistrate next day – Seals intact – No prejudice shown – Procedural compliance deemed sufficient – Recent SC judgment in NCB v. Kashif relied on [Paras 10-11].

Independent Witness – Non-joinder – Contention of no public witness during recovery – Held: Ruqa shows attempt was made to join public witnesses but none were available – Prosecution version corroborated by consistent testimony of officials – Not fatal to case [Para 13].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Section 21 NDPS Act confirmed – No infirmity found in trial court’s findings [Para 14].

Bail – Enticement Allegation – Contradictory Statement of Victim – Applicant accused under Sections 137(2) and 87 BNS for allegedly enticing informant’s daughter – Victim in statement under Section 183 BNSS stated she left home voluntarily – Charge-sheet filed, no need for further custodial interrogation – Applicant in custody since 25.09.2025 – Bail granted subject to usual conditions [Paras 2–6].

Constitutional Mandate – Right to Personal Liberty – Liberty under Article 21 demands prompt communication and execution of bail orders – Once bail is granted, undertrial must be immediately informed to avoid continued incarceration due to administrative delay [Paras 16–17].

Implementation of Supreme Court Guidelines – FASTER & e-Prison Integration – Following Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail [(2024) 10 SCC 685], High Court reiterates that bail orders must be emailed to jail authorities on same/next day; Jail Superintendents must record date of bail in e-Prisons software – Delays or corruption in verification of sureties noted as systemic issue requiring reform [Paras 11–17].

Administrative Directions – Mandatory Jail Details & Electronic Surety Verification – Court issues binding directions:

(i) Advocates to mention jail details in bail applications;

(ii) Reporting Section not to process applications lacking such details after 01.12.2025;

(iii) CPC to obtain NIC access to e-Prison portal for direct electronic transmission of bail orders;

(iv) State to establish in-court electronic surety verification to prevent delay or corruption;

(v) Jail authorities to release prisoners immediately on receipt of electronic BOMS order without evening delay [Paras 19–20].

Judicial Reform – Enforcement Mechanism – Registrar (Compliance) directed to circulate order to Chief Secretary, Additional Chief Secretary (Home), Director General (Prison), NIC, and Court administration for strict adherence – Reinforces judicial accountability in ensuring that bail orders translate into immediate liberty [Para 20].

Decision: Bail granted to applicant Sohrab @ Sorab Ali on personal bond with two sureties – Detailed procedural and systemic directions issued to ensure compliance with Supreme Court’s bail policy and safeguard fundamental right to liberty – No costs.

Civil Law – Commercial Recovery – Dismissal of Suit – Appeal – Plaintiff textile company filed suit for recovery of ₹7,86,101/- against event organiser alleging breach of booth fabrication contract for international exhibition in Frankfurt – Trial Court dismissed suit for lack of evidence and non-joinder of necessary party – Held: Plaintiff failed to prove claim due to lack of competent and knowledgeable witness – Testimony of SPA holder devoid of personal knowledge – Defendant had transferred money to third party (Anuj Gautam) with plaintiff’s consent – Non-joinder of third-party contractor fatal to suit – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1, 3–5, 10–21, 26–34, 39–40].

Evidence Act – Proof of Transaction – Burden of Proof – Plaintiff relied on testimony of SPA holder (PW-1) with no personal knowledge of transaction – PW-1 admitted he did not visit site, had no knowledge of business dealings, and had met director of plaintiff company only once – Held: SPA witness must have personal knowledge of transaction to testify – Plaintiff failed to discharge burden under Sections 101 to 106 of Evidence Act – Reliance on National Small Industries and A.C. Narayanan misplaced – Those cases require witness to have both authorization and personal knowledge [Paras 13–15, 26–29, 35].

Contract Law – Privity of Contract – Third Party Execution – Defendant referred work to third-party vendor (Anuj Gautam) allegedly with plaintiff’s consent – Plaintiff failed to implead said third party – Trial Court and Appellate Court held that without impleading executing party, suit for deficiency in service was not maintainable – Held: Non-joinder of necessary party fatal under Order I Rule 9 CPC – No effective adjudication possible without third party – Suit rightly dismissed [Paras 7–8, 19–20, 31–34].

Admissions – Section 58 Evidence Act – Applicability – Plaintiff claimed admitted facts (receipt of money and partial refund) should be accepted without proof – Held: Admission of receipt alone insufficient – Plaintiff must still prove that balance was unjustifiably retained and not paid to third party as instructed – No legal inference of liability can be drawn from partial refund alone – No admission by defendant acknowledging liability for ₹7.86 lakhs [Paras 22, 38].

Commercial Courts Act – Pre-Institution Mediation – Procedural Compliance – Plaintiff attempted pre-suit mediation under Section 12A – Defendant did not participate – Suit proceeded – Compliance with procedural requirement upheld – However, case failed on merits [Para 6].

Approbate and Reprobate – Allegation of Inconsistent Conduct – Plaintiff argued defendant could not deny liability after issuing recovery notice to third party – Held: No inconsistent conduct shown – Defendant's consistent stand was that it acted only as intermediary – Recovery notice to third party not inconsistent with denial of liability towards plaintiff – Reliance on Karunesh Kumar and Dhanjeet Singh misplaced – No application to facts of commercial recovery [Paras 25, 36–37].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Suit rightly dismissed by Trial Court – Plaintiff failed to prove claim or join necessary party – Pending application also dismissed as infructuous – No costs awarded [Paras 40–41].