Criminal Law – Section 295A IPC – Sanction under Section 196 Cr.P.C. – Stage of applicability – Petition seeking quashing of FIR on the ground that prior sanction under Section 196 Cr.P.C. was not obtained – Held: Statutory bar under Section 196 Cr.P.C. operates only at the stage of taking cognizance by the Court and not at the stage of registration of FIR or investigation – Police are competent to register FIR and conduct investigation without prior sanction – Sanction becomes mandatory only when the Court proposes to take cognizance upon filing of the final report [Paras 7–8].

Criminal Procedure – FIR and Investigation – Scope of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – High Court cautioned against premature interdiction of investigation at an incipient stage – Interference at investigation stage permissible only when complaint does not disclose any offence or proceedings are manifestly abusive – Held: Investigation in present case cannot be stifled when allegations disclose serious offence affecting communal harmony [Paras 8, 10].

Penal Code – Section 295A IPC – Deliberate and malicious intention – Prima facie satisfaction – Allegations relating to circulation of extraordinarily obscene, demeaning and profane images of Hindu deities in a WhatsApp group – Material on record demonstrating tendency to outrage religious feelings and disturb communal harmony – Held: Ingredients of Section 295A IPC prima facie satisfied – Question of mens rea, extent of petitioner’s role and liability of other administrators are matters for investigation and trial [Paras 9–10].

Information Technology Act – Section 67 – Obscene electronic content – Online dissemination – Circulation of obscene images through WhatsApp group involving large number of participants – Electronic material seized and examined during investigation – Held: Allegations disclose offence under Section 67 IT Act warranting continuation of investigation [Paras 2, 10].

Freedom of Speech – Article 19(1)(a) – Reasonable restrictions – Religious offence – Reliance placed on Ramji Lal Modi, Amish Devgan and other precedents – Held: Section 295A penalises only aggravated forms of insult with deliberate and malicious intent – Content having propensity to disrupt public order falls within reasonable restriction under Article 19(2) – Free speech cannot be a shield for obscene and malicious religious insult [Paras 9–9.4].

Investigation – Selective prosecution – Role of administrators – Court noted concern that investigating agency appeared not to have proceeded uniformly against all group administrators – However, such aspect held to be within domain of investigation – Direction issued to conclude investigation expeditiously and proceed against all persons found culpable [Para 10–11].

Decision:Criminal Petition dismissed – FIR and investigation in Crime No.4/2021 upheld – Interim orders vacated – Investigating Officer directed to complete investigation expeditiously – I.A. No.2 of 2024 disposed.

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Allegation of Civil Dispute – Pendency of Civil Suits – Held: Mere availability or pendency of civil remedy does not bar criminal investigation where allegations disclose prima facie cognizable offences [Paras 9–11].

Forgery and Impersonation – Large Scale Property Fraud – Detailed complaint alleging impersonation of landowner, fabrication of sale deeds, gift deeds, GPA, JDA, forged Will and misappropriation of compensation – Allegations not peripheral but central to criminal conspiracy – Investigation cannot be interdicted at threshold [Paras 3–8, 12–13].

Inherent Jurisdiction – Section 528 BNSS, 2023 – Scope and Limitations – Court not to assess truth or otherwise of allegations at investigation stage – Interference permissible only in rare cases where no offence is disclosed – Present case discloses serious cognizable offences warranting full investigation [Paras 10–11, 15].

Civil and Criminal Remedies – Coexistence – Same set of facts may give rise to civil as well as criminal liability – Criminal law not eclipsed merely because civil suits for cancellation of documents are pending – Principle reiterated through Supreme Court precedents [Paras 9–11].

Impersonation Before Public Authorities – Abuse of Judicial and Registration Process – Allegations of forged appearances before Sub-Registrar, fraudulent mutation entries, false court proceedings and Letters of Administration – Matters requiring thorough investigation by police [Paras 12–13].

Reliance on Precedents – Distinguishing Case Law – Judgment relied upon by petitioner held inapplicable on facts – Present case saturated with allegations of fraud, impersonation and forgery unlike mere contractual or civil disputes [Paras 14].

Decision: Criminal Petition dismissed – Interim order vacated – Investigation in Crime No.446 of 2025 to proceed in accordance with law – I.A. No.1 of 2026 disposed of [Para 15].

Sports Law – Olympic Selection – Cross Country Skiing – Exclusion of Meritorious Athlete – Arbitrary Selection Process – Petitioner, top-ranked Indian athlete as per FIS points list dated 19.01.2026, excluded from Olympic consideration on ground of non-participation in World Championship – Held: FIS Qualification System prescribes exhaustive, objective, points-based eligibility criteria under Section C – Participation in World Championship not a mandatory eligibility condition – Selection based on extraneous criteria is manifestly arbitrary and unsustainable in law [Paras 34–45].

Sports Selection – FIS Qualification System – Distinction between Athlete Eligibility and Quota Allocation – Section C governs athlete eligibility based on age, medical fitness, and FIS points – Section D relates only to allocation of quota to National Olympic Committees – Held: Respondents impermissibly conflated quota allocation with athlete eligibility – Additional conditions cannot be read into the Qualification System by executive interpretation [Paras 38–44].

Administrative Law – Arbitrariness – Introduction of Non-Notified Selection Criteria – Respondents restricted Olympic selection to performance in March 2025 World Championship, ignoring notified assessment period from 01.07.2024 to 18.01.2026 – Held: Retrospective and selective application of criteria defeats the notified qualification framework and violates principles of fairness and transparency [Paras 46–47, 50].

Sports Governance – Long List under NOC Accreditation Manual – Scope and Effect – Long List dated 26.09.2025 relied upon to exclude petitioner – Held: Long List is only an accreditation mechanism and cannot override Final List based on FIS points – Clause 3.2.2 does not mandate World Championship participation as a precondition – Exclusion from Long List cannot defeat substantive eligibility [Paras 48–49].

Judicial Review – Sports Matters – Limits and Exceptions – While courts ordinarily defer to expert bodies in athlete selection, interference is justified where decision-making is arbitrary, unfair, or contrary to governing rules – Present case falls within exception warranting judicial intervention [Paras 31–33, 45].

Ad-hoc Committee – Selection Process – Procedural Impropriety and Bias – Selection undertaken by Ad-hoc Committee applying criteria not traceable to international qualification documents – Held: Committee acted beyond authority and contrary to binding FIS framework – Selection process vitiated [Paras 50, 52–55].

Relief – Direction to Ensure Olympic Participation – Prayer to include petitioner allowed – Respondent IOA and Ad-hoc Committee failed in supervisory duty – Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports directed to make all reasonable efforts to facilitate petitioner’s participation in Winter Olympics, Milano Cortina 2026, with full cooperation from IOA [Paras 56–58].

Observations on Role of State and Sports Bodies – Ministry cannot act as mute spectator in matters affecting athletes’ careers and national representation – Fairness, transparency, and merit-based governance are integral to sports administration – Institutional indifference deprecated [Paras 54–59].

Decision: Writ Petition partly allowed – Exclusion of petitioner declared arbitrary and illegal – Directions issued to facilitate petitioner’s participation in XXV Olympic Winter Games, Milano Cortina 2026 – Prayer C (challenge to Ad-hoc Committee) kept pending; respondents directed to file reply – Matter listed for further hearing.

Service Law – Selection Process – Fair Price Shop Dealer – Allocation of Marks for Interview – Judicial Restraint on Finalisation of Selection – Non-est Selection – Notification issued inviting applications for appointment of Fair Price Shop dealer providing 50 marks for written test and 50 marks for oral interview – Appellant secured full marks in written test but was unsuccessful in interview – Selection challenged on ground of excessive weightage to interview and violation of constitutional principles – Learned Single Judge dismissed writ petition applying doctrine of estoppel on ground that appellant participated in selection process – Held: Though ordinarily a candidate who participates in a selection process is estopped from challenging it, such principle cannot apply where the selection itself is conducted in violation of binding judicial directions – Selection continued and finalised despite specific direction in W.P. No.3553 of 2012 & batch restraining finalisation till revision of guidelines – Entire selection process rendered non-est in law – Court cannot uphold an appointment made in defiance of directions issued by a constitutional court – Judgment of Single Judge set aside – Fresh selection directed in accordance with revised criteria pursuant to judgment in W.P. No.7022 of 2013 & batch quashing G.O.Ms.No.4 of 2011 – Appeal allowed [Paras 12–14].

Administrative Law – Doctrine of Estoppel – Participation in Selection Process – Exception – Participation in selection ordinarily bars subsequent challenge – However, estoppel has no application where selection is vitiated by illegality and conducted contrary to express judicial आदेश – Rule of estoppel cannot legitimise an act that is void in law [Paras 12–13].

Constitutional Law – Judicial Discipline – Binding Nature of Court Directions – Authorities bound to comply with interim and final directions issued by High Court – Any action taken in contravention thereof is void and unenforceable – Courts exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot sustain such actions [Paras 9, 13].

Decision: Writ Appeal allowed – Judgment dated 19.06.2014 in W.P. No.6463 of 2012 set aside – Respondents directed to initiate fresh selection process by fixing interview marks in accordance with criteria laid down pursuant to judgment dated 04.04.2013 in W.P. No.7022 of 2013 & batch – No costs – Connected miscellaneous applications closed.

Criminal Law – Corruption Case – Second Bail Application – Parity with Co-accused – Temporary Bail Granted – Applicant, a Sub-Inspector, accused of extorting ₹50 lakhs during election code period – First bail application rejected considering recovery of ₹30 lakhs from applicant and gravity of offence – Co-accused Prince Srivastava subsequently granted bail by Supreme Court on ground of long incarceration and non-framing of charges – Delay in trial attributable to protective orders obtained by other co-accused – Held: On parity with co-accused and prolonged custody since 09.04.2024, applicant entitled to temporary bail for four months with strict conditions – Bail granted subject to surrender after four months [Paras 40–45].

Bail – Delay in Trial – Attribution of Delay – Protective Orders to Co-accused – Trial not progressed due to non-appearance of co-accused enjoying “no coercive action” orders under Section 528 BNSS – Prosecution not at fault for non-framing of charges – Court nevertheless considers prolonged incarceration of applicant already in custody – Held: Delay factor relevant but balanced by limited-duration bail [Paras 41–42].

Criminal Procedure – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Interference with Investigation – Application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. – Applicant sought direction to collect CCTV footage and CDR/GPS data of police officials – Earlier identical application rejected by trial court and attained finality – Second application filed without disclosure of earlier rejection amounts to concealment – Reliance on State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi – Accused not entitled to invoke Section 91 Cr.P.C. at pre-trial stage for defence material – Held: No interference warranted – Application dismissed [Paras 19–27].

Criminal Procedure – Quashing of Proceedings – Section 528 BNSS – Scope and Limits – Co-accused Vishal Tiwari and Prachand Pratap Singh sought quashing of charge-sheet and cognizance – Not named in FIR but specifically named in statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. with assigned roles – No recovery from them but prima facie material exists – Court cannot conduct mini trial or assess defence at quashing stage – Principles of Neeharika Infrastructure and four-step test in Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani applied – Held: No ground for quashing – Applications dismissed [Paras 28–37].

Evidence – Confessional Statement – Section 25 Evidence Act – At Quashing Stage – Argument that only confessional statements exist against co-accused rejected – Statements of informant under Section 161 Cr.P.C. constitute independent material – Admissibility and weight of evidence matters for trial – Held: Cannot be examined at Section 482/528 stage [Paras 29–36].

Directions – Expeditious Trial – Interim protections vacated – Trial court directed to proceed expeditiously without granting undue adjournments – Applicant on bail directed to cooperate and surrender after four months [Paras 38–47].

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 – Resumption of Land – Proof of Grant – Absence of Original Records – Assistant Commissioner proceeded on assumptions without producing grant order or authenticated records – Mere reference to “documents available on record” insufficient – Order of resumption unsustainable [Paras 21–26].

PTCL Act – Burden of Proof – Claimants seeking resumption must conclusively establish that land was granted to a member of SC/ST with conditions against alienation – Confiscatory nature of resumption proceedings – Strict proof required – Deputy Commissioner rightly set aside resumption order in absence of proof [Paras 27–28].

Grant vs. Auction Sale – Darkhast Register – Material produced in appeal indicating that land was sold to original holder in public auction and not granted free or at concessional rate – Land sold in auction does not attract PTCL Act – Proceedings under PTCL Act not maintainable [Paras 18–20, 21–22].

Alienation of Land – Registered Sale Deed of 1951 – Long Possession of Purchasers and their Successors – Delay and Laches – Application for resumption filed after about 46–47 years – Such belated challenge to alienation held not maintainable [Paras 25, 30].

Single Judge’s Order – Error Apparent – Proceeded on assumption that grant in favour of Bovi community member stood proved – Failed to examine absence of original grant records and delay – Order set aside [Paras 16, 28–29].

Decision: Writ Appeal allowed – Order dated 17.11.2004 passed in W.P. No. 7988/2002 (SC/ST) set aside – Appellate order of Deputy Commissioner dated 15.10.2001 restored – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 31–32].

Land Acquisition – Compensation – MMRDA Act, 1974 – Grant of TDR instead of monetary compensation – Illegality – Land of petitioners acquired for Santacruz–Chembur Link Road project – Competent Authority unilaterally awarded compensation in the form of TDR without determining monetary compensation under Section 35 – Statutory scheme under Section 35 mandates determination of “amount” payable – Held: Compensation under the MMRDA Act must be monetary and cannot be substituted by TDR unilaterally – Award dated 15.12.2012 held arbitrary and unsustainable [Paras 28–35].

Statutory Interpretation – Section 35, MMRDA Act – Step-wise procedure mandatory – Section 35 provides a complete code for determination of compensation – Requires attempt at agreement under Section 35(2) and, failing that, determination of compensation based on net average monthly income – No provision permitting unilateral grant of TDR – Any deviation from statutory mechanism violates authority of law under Article 300A [Paras 23–29, 34–35].

Transferrable Development Rights (TDR) – Consent of land owner – Requirement of consensus – Even where statute contemplates TDR (as under MRTP Act), grant must be by consensus – Applying Full Bench decision in Shree Vinayak Builders and Developers – Under MMRDA Act, which does not expressly provide for TDR, unilateral imposition of TDR is impermissible – Petitioners on stronger footing [Paras 30–34].

Alternative Remedy – Tribunal under Section 35(6) – Not efficacious – Tribunal’s jurisdiction confined to disputes regarding quantum of monetary compensation based on net average monthly income – Tribunal cannot adjudicate legality of grant of TDR in lieu of monetary compensation – Objection of alternative remedy rejected [Paras 36–37].

Delay and Laches – Continuing violation of Article 300A – Acquisition completed in 2011–2012, writ petition filed in 2024 – Held: Forcible deprivation of property without lawful compensation constitutes continuing wrong – State cannot defeat constitutional right to property on ground of delay – Reliance placed on Sukh Dutt Ratra, Vidya Devi, and Kolkata Municipal Corporation v. Bimal Kumar Shah [Paras 38–45].

Constitutional Law – Right to Property – Article 300A – Deprivation of property must be by authority of law and accompanied by just, fair and reasonable compensation – Compensation is integral to lawful acquisition – Unilateral grant of TDR amounts to taking possession without authority of law – Violates constitutional and human right to property [Paras 39–44].

Relief – Quashing of Award – Direction to determine monetary compensation – Impugned award dated 15.12.2012 and communication dated 01.04.2024 quashed – Respondents directed to determine monetary compensation strictly in accordance with Section 35(2) to 35(5) of the MMRDA Act – Exercise to be completed within six months – Writ petition allowed [Paras 49–51].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Impugned award and communication set aside – Respondents directed to determine and pay monetary compensation as per Section 35 of the MMRDA Act within six months.

Banking Law - SARFAESI Act – Judicial Review under Articles 226 & 227 – Limited scope of interference – Borrower sought quashing of e-auction proceedings on the ground of arbitrary reduction of reserve price and violation of MSME revival framework – Held: Measures taken by secured creditor strictly in accordance with SARFAESI Act and Rules – No arbitrariness or procedural impropriety warranting interference in writ jurisdiction [Paras 13–14].

MSME – RBI Framework for Revival and Rehabilitation – Obligation of borrower – Petitioner claimed benefit of MSME status belatedly after initiation of SARFAESI measures – Held: MSME borrower must proactively assert its status and seek benefits of the framework at the stage of reply to Section 13(2) notice supported by affidavit – Failure to do so disentitles borrower from invoking framework at later stage [Paras 10–13].

SARFAESI Act – Section 13(2) and 13(3A) – Demand notice and objections – No material placed to show that borrower raised MSME status or sought restructuring in response to demand notice – Admittedly no revival or restructuring proposal submitted at any stage – Held: Bank not obligated to suo motu extend MSME benefits in absence of borrower’s claim [Paras 11–13].

Auction of secured assets – Reduction of reserve price – Validity – Reserve price reduced after failure of earlier auctions – Reduction carried out in accordance with bank guidelines and SARFAESI Rules – Held: Mere reduction of reserve price does not per se establish arbitrariness, particularly after repeated failed auctions [Paras 6, 9, 13].

Equitable jurisdiction – Conduct of borrower – Bank released one secured property enabling borrower to liquidate substantial dues – Significant payments adjusted against outstanding – Considerable time gap between NPA classification and auction proceedings – Held: Bank adopted a fair, measured and restrained approach – Borrower cannot invoke equity to stall lawful recovery proceedings [Paras 4, 13].

Precedent – MSME borrowers and SARFAESI proceedings – Reliance placed on M/s Pro Knits v. Canara Bank and Shri Shri Swamy and Finance Solution v. NKGSB Co-op Bank Ltd. – Held: MSME benefits cannot be claimed as a dilatory tactic after SARFAESI process has substantially progressed [Paras 10–12].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – No interference with SARFAESI measures or e-auction proceedings – Actions of the Bank upheld as lawful and in consonance with statutory framework.

Tenancy Law – MTAL Act – Section 43 – Prohibited transfer – Jurisdictional fact of “transfer” – Agricultural land purchased by tenants under Section 32G – Unregistered Agreement for Sale executed with express condition of prior State permission – No permission obtained – Held: In absence of sanction and completion of sale, no transfer in law occurred – Section 43 not attracted [Paras 19–21, 30–33].

Section 84C, MTAL Act – Vesting in State – Preconditions – Proceedings under Section 84C can be invoked only when there is a transfer or acquisition invalid under the Act – Where Agreement for Sale itself contemplated State permission as condition precedent and such permission was never obtained, there was no transfer to declare invalid – Vesting of land in State and subsequent proclamation unsustainable [Paras 21–22, 27–33].

Agreement for Sale – Possession – Section 53A, Transfer of Property Act – Mere delivery of possession under an unregistered agreement does not amount to transfer for purposes of Section 43 MTAL Act – Compliance with tenancy law is integral to validity of transfer – Protection under Section 53A cannot override statutory prohibition [Paras 13–14, 30–33].

Equity and Statutory Purpose – Abuse of protective provisions – Petitioners sought nullification of transaction after 18 years to benefit from statutory vesting and re-allotment in their own favour – Section 43 and Section 84C intended to protect tenant-turned-owner from exploitation, not to aid transferee in perfecting title through forfeiture – Invocation of Section 84C by transferee held contrary to scheme of Act [Paras 24–29, 31].

Revenue Tribunal – Revisional Jurisdiction – Section 76, MTAL Act – Tribunal examined whether jurisdictional facts for invoking Section 84C existed – Finding that no transfer occurred is a reasonable and plausible view – No re-appreciation of evidence warranting interference under Article 226 [Paras 15, 27, 32–33].

Delay – Conduct of Parties – Writ Jurisdiction – Petitioners’ predecessor invoked Section 84C after nearly 18 years of Agreement for Sale – Conduct disentitled petitioners from discretionary relief under Article 226 – Writ Court not bound to interfere merely because an alternative view is possible [Paras 24–29, 33].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – Order of Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal dated 13.01.2020 upheld – No transfer proved under Section 43 – Proceedings under Section 84C held untenable – Rule discharged.