Criminal Law - Kidnapping – Enticing Minor Girl – Section 363 IPC – Conviction Upheld - The appellant enticed the 15-year-old victim from her father’s shop on the pretext of watching a movie with false representation of parental consent – Thereafter, he threatened her and took her to another city – Held: The act constitutes kidnapping from lawful guardianship under Section 361 IPC and punishable under Section 363 – Documentary evidence like high school marksheet proving minority prevails over medical opinion – Conviction under Section 363 upheld [Paras 3-6, 13, 20-21].

Kidnapping to Compel Marriage – Section 366 IPC – Threat and Confinement – Offence Established - After taking the girl to Agra and watching a movie, the appellant proposed marriage and issued threats to compel her – Victim was confined in the house of appellant’s relative under false identity – Escaped and lodged FIR – Held: Compulsion, threat and intent to marry make out offence under Section 366 IPC – Conviction and sentence sustained [Paras 7, 14, 20-21].

Minor’s Age – Evidentiary Value – High School Certificate Prevails Over Medical Opinion - Appellant claimed victim was above 18 and had gone voluntarily – Court held that high school marksheet clearly indicated victim was 15 at time of incident – Medical opinion indicating 16-18 years not decisive in light of documentary proof – Victim’s minority proved [Paras 4, 13, 21].

Free Consent – Not Applicable to Minor – Threat Perception Evident - Despite absence of resistance during public travel, victim’s testimony revealed coercion and fear – Once minor, her “consent” is legally immaterial – Passive compliance under threat cannot negate offence – Conduct of victim consistent with fear-induced obedience until she found opportunity to escape [Paras 13-14, 20].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Conviction and Sentence Affirmed – Appellant to Surrender - The Court upheld the conviction under Sections 363 and 366 IPC – Found no illegality or perversity in Trial Court’s judgment dated 24.08.1983 – Directed Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra to take the appellant into custody to serve remaining sentence – Appeal dismissed [Paras 21-23].

Criminal Revision – Service of Notice on Foreign Entity – Section 105 CrPC – Not Mandatory – UBS Switzerland AG, de facto complainant in a criminal case involving misappropriation of pledged goods worth Rs. 55 crores, challenged the order dispensing with notice under Section 105 CrPC on ground of international reciprocity – Held: Section 105 CrPC deals with processes relating to search, seizure, warrants, and attachment in cases with extraterritorial elements – It does not mandate service of notice to an opposite party/complainant in criminal revision – No statutory requirement exists to serve foreign parties through diplomatic channels in such proceedings – Failure to invoke Section 105 CrPC does not vitiate revision proceedings [Paras 10–13, 16].

Fair Hearing – Procedural Requirement – Mere Representation by Counsel Not Equivalent to Valid Service – Court held that appearance of complainant’s counsel before trial court cannot substitute independent service of notice – Representation does not waive statutory service requirements – However, in this case, notice was sent by registered post to petitioner’s correct address, ensuring no prejudice – Hence, proceedings remain valid [Paras 13–15].

Judicial Review – Correctness of Reasoning vs. Conclusion – While Additional Sessions Judge’s reasoning (dispensing with service solely due to past representation by counsel) was unsustainable, his ultimate conclusion refusing issuance of notice under Section 105 CrPC was correct – High Court substituted proper reasoning but upheld conclusion [Paras 14, 17].

Decision – Criminal revision dismissed – Order of Additional Sessions Judge upheld though on different reasoning – No merit in petitioner’s challenge [Paras 18–19].

Temporary Injunction – Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC – Trespasser vs. True Owner – Refusal of relief – Plaintiff sought injunction on basis of alleged long possession over Survey No.643; no sale deed or lawful title produced; Khasra entry of 1990–91 held baseless—Held: Injunction cannot be granted to protect unlawful possession against true owner; concurrent findings of Civil Court and Appellate Court upheld [Paras 14–20].

Revenue Entries – Section 115 MP Land Revenue Code – Collector’s permission mandatory – Orders quashed – SDO ordered correction of entries without Collector’s recommendation; appellate orders affirmed same—Held: Though findings justified on merits, procedure under Section 115 must be complied with; orders of 26.11.2019 and 05.04.2021 quashed; matter remanded to SDO to obtain Collector’s permission and pass fresh orders [Para 21].

Decision – M.P. No.1564/2022 dismissed (no injunction) – M.P. No.1722/2021 partly allowed by quashing revenue appellate orders; case remanded to SDO for fresh decision [Para 22].

Service Law – Examination – Judicial Review of Answer Key – Manifest Error in Law – Interference Warranted - Petitioners challenged the official answer key for Question No. 28 in Set 'K', concerning a Magistrate’s power under Cr.P.C. – Court found that the correct answer was both cognizable and non-cognizable offences, whereas HSSC had opted only for cognizable – Held: Where the answer is manifestly wrong and statutory provision (Section 155(2) Cr.P.C.) clearly provides otherwise, Court can interfere even in academic matters – Answer key to that extent is incorrect [Paras 7-12].

Answer Key – Expert Committee Report – Limited Interference – No Roving Inquiry by Court - While answer to Question No. 28 was found to be clearly erroneous in law, Court refused to interfere with answers to other questions like Question No. 94 where dispute was based on comparison between different sets – Held: Court is not an expert body and will not conduct roving inquiry unless manifest illegality is shown [Paras 13-14].

Recruitment Process – Consistency Across Multiple Sets – Responsibility of Examining Body - Court noted concern that differing answers across question paper sets for identical questions leads to confusion and litigation – Suggested that recruitment bodies must ensure internal consistency across all versions of papers [Para 16].

Decision – Petition Partly Allowed – Answer Key Rectified for Question No. 28 – Matter Remitted - Court held that HSSC’s answer to Question No. 28 in Set 'K' was legally incorrect – Directed Commission to re-evaluate the performance of petitioners in light of the correct answer and take further action as per rules – No interference made with other disputed questions [Paras 15-16].

Civil Law - Will – Execution by Literate Testator with Thumb Impression – Section 63 of Succession Act – No Suspicion – Challenge Rejected – Appellants argued Will not read over and explained, testator affixed LTI despite being literate, creating suspicion – Held: Evidence of attesting witness proved LTI was affixed due to old age and trembling hands – Testator was an experienced law clerk, fully aware of implications – Section 63(c) permits execution either by signature or mark – No suspicious circumstance established [Paras 25–31].

Attestation – Compliance with Section 63(c) Succession Act – Proof Sufficient – Though PW2 did not expressly state other attesting witness signed in presence of testator, evidence cumulatively showed both attesting witnesses and testator executed simultaneously – No counter-suggestion in cross-examination – Substantial compliance proved – Probate Court rightly accepted execution [Paras 32–37].

Suspicious Circumstances – Two Wills Executed on Same Date – Allegation of Coercion – Rejected – Evidence showed testator executed two Wills at Barasat and Salt Lake on same day – Both admitted by objectors – Even if both existed, beneficiaries were either sons or their sons (grandsons), leaving no motive for fabrication – Reciprocal nature of parents’ Wills natural, not suspicious – Alleged abduction by sons not proved as crucial witness Namita did not testify – Complaint lodged belatedly and treated as afterthought – Hence, allegations of coercion rejected [Paras 43–48, 51–53].

Additional Evidence – Order XLI Rule 27 CPC – Application Dismissed – Objectors sought to introduce police complaint and second Will at appellate stage – Both documents were already available earlier but not exhibited – No valid ground for belated production – CAN 3 and CAN 4 of 2025 dismissed [Paras 44–47, 55–56].

Decision – Execution and attestation of Will substantially proved – No suspicious circumstances found – Probate Court’s order affirmed – First Appeal dismissed – Probate of Will dated 07.01.2004 in favour of respondent upheld – No order as to costs [Paras 54, 57–59].

Contempt Petitions – Claim Without Prior Adjudication – Dismissed – A large number of teachers/employees filed contempt petitions alleging non-compliance of the 2015 judgment in Bhagwan Das Todi College case – Petitioners had neither filed any original writ petitions nor approached the Educational Tribunal to establish their individual claims – The Court held that without prior adjudication of rights, contempt petitions are not maintainable – Contempt proceedings cannot be used to claim benefits in the absence of personal orders in petitioners' favour – Held: Contempt dismissed as misconceived [Paras 1–3, 15–19].

Scope of Contempt – Fresh Adjudication Not Permissible – Proceedings Under Section 12 of Contempt Act Limited – Petitioners sought enforcement of rights not crystallised by prior judgments/orders – The Court reiterated that contempt jurisdiction is not meant for adjudicating fresh disputes, especially where facts vary individually and were never tested before a competent forum – Held: Disputed entitlements must be raised before the appropriate Tribunal under the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 [Paras 12–14, 17–18].

Interpretation of Bhagwan Das Todi Judgment – Not a Judgment in Rem – Misreading by Petitioners – Petitioners claimed the 2015 judgment applied universally – The Court clarified that the intention of the Division Bench in the Todi case was to apply the ruling to similarly situated persons who had already approached the Court or Tribunal – Held: The benefit under the Todi judgment is not automatic or generalised – Petitioners misread the scope of the ruling [Paras 15–16].

Compliance Already Made – No Wilful Disobedience – Many Petitioners Already Received Partial or Full Benefits – State Authorities had considered several claims and released payments in various cases – Petitioners alleging non-compliance despite absence of any explicit directions in their favour – Held: There is no willful disobedience – Remedy lies in Tribunal, not contempt jurisdiction [Paras 5–6, 16.1, 17].

Decision – Contempt Petitions Dismissed – No Costs – Court found no deliberate violation or non-compliance with the 2015 judgment by the State – Liberty given to aggrieved petitioners to approach the Tribunal for adjudication of individual claims – All pending contempt petitions accordingly dismissed as misconceived [Paras 19–20].

Advocates Act, 1961 - Professional Misconduct – No Advocate-Client Relationship – Complaint Dismissed – The appellant alleged professional misconduct against advocates representing opposing parties in an NI Act case – Bar Council of Delhi dismissed the complaint for lack of fiduciary relationship – The BCI affirmed that no professional misconduct is made out as the advocates acted per their client's instructions and no duty exists to verify client claims – Dismissal upheld [Paras 1.1–1.2, 6].

Advocate’s Duty – Representation Based on Client Instructions – No Obligation to Investigate Case Merits – The Court reiterated that an advocate cannot be faulted for representing a client without independently verifying the client’s version – Held: The duty of truth verification lies with the Court, not the advocate – No misconduct for representing a client whose case may later be held untrue [Paras 1.2–1.3, 7].

Rule 4, BCI Rules – Not a Bar on Representation – Rule Misinterpreted – The appellant argued that Rule 4 prohibits being a ‘mere mouthpiece’ – Court clarified that this rule does not mandate preliminary inquiry into a client's claims – No violation of ethical standards found [Para 1.3].

Fiduciary Duty – Opposing Counsel Not Bound – The Court held that lawyers representing adverse parties owe no fiduciary duty to the appellant – No professional breach arises without a lawyer-client relationship – Complaint under Section 35 of Advocates Act found untenable [Paras 4, 6].

Alleged Perjury – Independent Criminal Remedy Available – Allegations of fabricated evidence already subject to proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. – Held: Such issues are for determination by the concerned court, not through disciplinary action against opposing counsel [Para 5].

Decision – Intra-Court Appeal Dismissed – No Interference Warranted – The High Court found no illegality in the Single Judge’s order rejecting writ petition against Bar Council orders – Appeal dismissed with no order as to costs [Paras 8–9].

Civil Law - Land Acquisition – Minority Educational Institution – Article 30(1A) of the Constitution – Colourable Exercise of Power – Acquisition Set Aside – The State, being constitutionally barred from directly acquiring the land of a linguistic minority school without a special law under Article 30(1A), entered into a compromise to acquire adjacent landowners’ property instead, to compensate the school – Held: Such acquisition, based on a private arrangement, does not qualify as a “public purpose” under Section 3(f) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – The proceedings amounted to a dubious method to circumvent constitutional restrictions – Entire acquisition proceedings including notification under Section 4(1) set aside [Paras 6, 10–11].

Public Purpose – Scope under Section 3(f) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Limited to schemes by Government or statutory authorities – Acquisition for a private school cannot be deemed as public purpose – Reliance on compromise to acquire adjacent private land invalid – Distinction drawn with cases where public purpose was accepted for religious or community needs [Paras 7–9].

Compensation – Applicability of 2013 Act – Though acquisition is invalid, possession already taken and land handed to school – Appellants entitled to compensation in accordance with the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – State directed to calculate and pay compensation, upon which appellants to execute conveyance deed at State’s expense [Paras 11–12].

Decision – Writ Appeal allowed – Land Acquisition proceedings and award in OP(C) No. 1802 of 2011 set aside – Compensation to be paid under 2013 Act [Para 12].

Domestic Violence Act - Limitation – Application under Section 12 DV Act – Not Barred by Limitation – Application Maintainable - Petitioner sought quashing of complaint filed under Section 12 DV Act on the ground that the incident of domestic violence dated back to July 2019 and complaint was filed in February 2022, allegedly beyond the period of limitation under Section 468 CrPC – Held: Section 468 CrPC applies only to penal proceedings under Section 31 of DV Act and not to civil reliefs under Section 12 – Complaint is not time-barred and is maintainable [Paras 6, 14-15, 17].

Nature of Proceedings under DV Act – Civil in Nature – Proceedings under Section 12 Distinguished from Criminal Complaints - Court reiterated that application under Section 12 of DV Act is civil in nature and not a "complaint" under Section 2(d) of CrPC – Cognizance procedures under Section 190 and Chapter XV CrPC do not apply to Section 12 applications – Section 28 allows the court to lay its own procedure for such applications [Paras 10-12].

Quashing under Section 482 CrPC – Exercise of Inherent Powers – Interference Warranted Only in Exceptional Cases - Though petition under Section 482 CrPC is maintainable, court held that such power should be exercised sparingly and only in cases of gross injustice – No illegality or abuse of process found in the present complaint to warrant quashing [Paras 16, 18].

Relief – Petition Dismissed – Complaint under Section 12 and Application under Section 23 of DV Act to Proceed - Since limitation bar under Section 468 CrPC does not apply and allegations raised triable issues under the DV Act, the petition was dismissed as misconceived and devoid of merit [Paras 17-18].