Transfer of Civil Proceedings – Section 24 CPC – Widowhood and Financial Hardship – Insufficient Grounds – Petitioner No.1, widow of the deceased, and Petitioner No.2, her minor daughter, sought transfer of Civil Suit No.41 of 2019 pending at Salipur to Kendrapara where they reside with petitioner's parents – Grounds urged included absence of male family members, financial dependency, and alleged influence of opposite parties at Salipur – Held: Grounds urged do not merit transfer – Defendants in a civil suit are not required to attend every date of hearing as they are represented through counsel – Physical presence arises only if they choose to depose as defence witnesses – Transfer petition dismissed [Paras 2, 5–6].

Video Conferencing – Commission Evidence – Alternative Remedy Available – Even if physical attendance before the Court at Salipur is inconvenient, petitioners/defendants have the option to be examined through Video Conferencing mode in accordance with the Orissa High Court Video Conferencing for Courts Rules, 2020, or through commission under Order 26 Rule 4 CPC, by moving an appropriate application before the Court below at the stage of trial – Rejection of the transfer petition is not a bar to availing these remedies [Paras 6, 9].

Decision: Transfer petition disposed of – Prayer for transfer of C.S. Case No.41 of 2019 from Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Salipur to Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Kendrapara rejected – Petitioners/defendants at liberty to seek examination through Video Conferencing or commission before the Trial Court.

Criminal Law – Forgery – Forwarding of Complaint – Section 175(3) BNSS – Handwriting Expert Report – Sole Basis Insufficient – The second respondent filed a complaint alleging that the petitioners had fabricated and antedated an Agreement of Sale purportedly executed by K.S. Jeganathan (since deceased), with the signature therein found to be forged as per a Forensic Examination Report dated 15.04.2025 – The learned Magistrate forwarded the complaint for police investigation solely on the basis of the said expert opinion – Held: A handwriting expert's opinion is a relevant piece of evidence under Section 45 of the Evidence Act but is not conclusive proof; forwarding of complaint based solely on such opinion is erroneous – Impugned order set aside [Paras 10, 12, 13].

Criminal Proceedings – Parallel Civil Proceedings – Bar Against Prejudice – When the genuineness of the very document forming the basis of the criminal complaint is already under challenge and pending adjudication before a Civil Court, allowing criminal proceedings to run simultaneously based only on a handwriting expert's opinion would prejudice the parties and amount to abuse of process of court – Continuation of such criminal proceedings is unsustainable [Paras 11, 12].

Expert Evidence – Handwriting Comparison – Not Exact Science – Advisory Nature – An opinion rendered by a handwriting expert is advisory and relevant but not determinative – Unlike thumb impression analysis, handwriting comparison is not an exact science – Courts retain the power under Section 73 of the Evidence Act to independently compare admitted and disputed writings – A criminal complaint cannot be set in motion on the exclusive basis of a handwriting expert's report [Paras 12, 13].

Distinguished: Accamma Sam Jacob v. State of Karnataka, 2026 INSC 362 – Distinguished on facts as the forgery allegations therein were supported by other materials and surrounding circumstances beyond the handwriting expert's report, unlike the present case where the entire allegation rested solely on the expert opinion [Para 9].

Decision: Criminal Revision Petition allowed – Order dated 16.02.2026 passed by Judicial Magistrate No. II, Dharmapuri in Crl.M.P. No. 1622 of 2025 set aside – Connected Miscellaneous Petitions closed.

POCSO Act – Special Educator – Competency Assessment – Procedural Safeguards – Suo Motu Order Set Aside – Petitioner/accused facing trial under Section 6 of POCSO Act for alleged penetrative sexual assault on a minor victim – Trial Court, without any application from prosecution or defence, passed a suo motu order directing examination of the victim with the assistance of a Psychiatric Doctor/Special Educator, relying solely on the psychiatric assessment report dated 06.11.2024 – Statement of victim recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. by police and under Section 164 Cr.P.C. by Magistrate on 18.12.2024, neither finding any infirmity in the victim's competency – Held: Before invoking Section 38(2) of the POCSO Act for assistance of Special Educator, competency assessment of the witness must be conducted by the Presiding Judge in the presence of counsel for both parties, as mandated under Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act and the Vulnerable Witness Guidelines (Notification No. 26 of 2024) – Trial Court's reliance on the word "Euthymic" in the psychiatric report, without conducting such assessment, was procedurally improper – Impugned order set aside – Trial Court directed to conduct competency assessment afresh before passing appropriate orders [Paras 2–8].

Vulnerable Witness – Competency Examination – Guidelines – Section 118, Indian Evidence Act – The Criminal Rule Committee of the Madras High Court formulated Vulnerable Witness Guidelines notified vide Notification No. 26 of 2024 – Rule 3(a)(ii) classifies a victim under the POCSO Act as a vulnerable witness – Rule 7 enables the Court to conduct a competency examination suo motu or on application, but only by putting questions to assess the witness and not merely on the basis of a medical/psychiatric report – Rules 8(b) and 9 require the competency examination to be conducted in the presence of counsel for both parties by the Presiding Judge – Compliance with these Rules is mandatory before any order under Section 38(2) of the POCSO Act is passed [Paras 4 and 7].

Medical Terminology – "Euthymic" – Misreading by Trial Court – The Trial Court placed undue reliance on the term "Euthymic" appearing in the psychiatric assessment report, without appreciating its correct meaning – "Euthymia" as defined in Stedman's Medical Dictionary denotes joyfulness, mental peace and tranquility, or moderation of mood, i.e., neither manic nor depressed – The term does not indicate any mental incapacity or impairment – The Magistrate who recorded the 164 statement nearly a month after the psychiatric assessment expressly certified the victim's competency to give her statement – Reliance on "Euthymic" to order a Special Educator was based on a misreading of the report [Para 7].

Decision: Criminal Original Petition allowed – Suo motu docket order dated 22.10.2025 passed by the Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court (POCSO), Puducherry in Spl.S.C. No. 26 of 2025 set aside – Trial Court directed to conduct competency assessment of the victim child by examination in accordance with law and thereafter pass appropriate orders – Connected miscellaneous petition closed.

NDPS Act – Bail – Parity – Section 20(b)(ii)(B) – Cannabis – Accused No.2 alleged to have supplied cannabis to Accused No.1 and to have been found in possession of 1.590 kg of cannabis recovered pursuant to disclosure by Accused No.1 – Accused No.2 in custody since 15.06.2025 – Accused No.1, found with higher quantity of 4.725 kg, already enlarged on bail by Special Court – Chargesheet filed and investigation complete – 21 witnesses yet to be examined and trial likely to take time – Held: Accused No.2 entitled to bail on parity with Accused No.1 subject to conditions [Paras 2, 5].

Bail Conditions – Personal Bond – Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties – Regular appearance before trial court – No tampering with prosecution witnesses – No commission of future offences – No departure from jurisdiction without court permission [Para 2, Order].

Decision: Petition allowed – Petitioner/Accused No.2 directed to be enlarged on bail in Special Case No.193/2025 pending before Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chamarajanagara, subject to conditions.

Works of Defence Act, 1903 - National Security - Restricted Zones - Construction Permissions - PIL highlighting illegal constructions near vital military installations in Jodhpur - Held, since the matter involves national security and sensitive zones of the Indian Air Force and Indian Army, all permissions granted by local authorities must strictly adhere to the Notifications and guidelines issued by the Ministry of Defence/Central Government from time to time. [Paras 5, 13].

Works of Defence Act, 1903 - Survey and Demolition - Unauthorized Encroachments - Local authorities directed to conduct a detailed survey of Khasra No. 632 and its sub-divisions - Held, if constructions are found to have been raised de hors the mandatory guidelines or without required permissions/NOCs, the local authorities shall take urgent steps to remove or demolish such constructions in accordance with law. [Paras 11, 14-15].

Works of Defence Act, 1903 - No Objection Certificate (NOC) - Mandatory Compliance - Construction permissions in restricted areas - Held, local authorities must obtain an NOC from the concerned defence authorities before granting construction permissions in appropriate cases as per Central Government notifications - Even if a layout plan was previously sanctioned, construction permissions issued in violation of mandatory Ministry of Defence instructions must be cancelled. [Paras 16, 20].

Works of Defence Act, 1903 - Timeline for Compliance - Judicial Oversight - Court directed the entire exercise of survey and removal of unauthorized persons/structures to be completed within three months - Compliance report ordered to be furnished before the Court on or before 03.08.2026. [Paras 17-18].

Decision: Writ petitions disposed of with specific directions for survey and demolition – Contempt petitions and pending applications also stand disposed of.

Education Law – NEET (UG) 2026 – Delayed Fee Payment – Portal Buffering Claim – Petitioner uploaded registration form and documents on 09.02.2026 but did not submit the fee for over a month – On the last extended date of 11.03.2026, successful logins were made but no payment completed – Server logs furnished by NTA showed repeated successful logins; claimed inability to make payment not demonstrated – Oral submissions by Senior Counsel that form was uploaded only on 11.03.2026 found contrary to portal records and not even averred in the petition – Petitioner approached Court nearly one month after the alleged failure – Held: No interference warranted; petition dismissed [Paras 5-6, 8-10, 15-16].

"Portal Cannot Be Opened for One Candidate" – Consistent Judicial Position – Coordinate Bench judgments of this Court and the Supreme Court in Vanshika Yadav v. Union of India affirm that the NEET portal cannot be reopened for a single candidate – Supreme Court orders granting indulgence in isolated cases were based on peculiar facts, including demonstrated earnest and repeated attempts to log in, as in Atul Kumar v. Chairman (2024 SCC Online SC 2684) – Facts of present case do not meet that threshold [Paras 13-14].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – No interference called for [Para 16].

Public Interest Litigation – Punjab Police SAANJH Portal – Service Charges on FIR/DDR Downloads – Petitioner challenged imposition of Rs. 80/- as service charge for downloading FIRs, Rs. 100/- for DDR and Rs. 30/- for Lost Information Receipt from the Punjab Police SAANJH Portal – Representation dated 24.03.2026 submitted by Petitioner No. 1 to the Government of Punjab, Department of Home Affairs and Justice and the Director General of Police, Punjab, pending consideration – Court disposed of the PIL without expressing opinion on merits – Held: Competent Authority directed to consider and decide the representation dated 24.03.2026 by passing a speaking order in accordance with law within 30 days from receipt of certified copy of this order and to communicate the same to the petitioner [Paras 2–4].

Decision: PIL disposed of – Competent Authority directed to decide representation dated 24.03.2026 by speaking order within 30 days – No opinion expressed on the merits of the case – Liberty granted to petitioner.

Agreement to Sell – Recovery of Earnest Money – NOC Obligation – Breach by Seller – Appeal Dismissed – Plaintiff paid Rs. 80,75,000/- as advance consideration for purchase of 15 Bighas 4 Biswas of agricultural land – Agreement to Sell dated 18.07.2007 required the seller to obtain NOC from Revenue Authorities and Land Acquisition Collector – Defendants failed to apply for or obtain the NOC despite repeated reminders and duly filled NOC forms being supplied by the Plaintiff on the date of Agreement – Held: Breach of Agreement to Sell was on the part of the Defendants; Plaintiff was justified in seeking refund of earnest money – Trial Court decree upheld – Appeal dismissed [Paras 44, 52, 55, 56, 61, 62, 67].

Limitation – Cause of Action – Accrual from Date of Repudiation, Not Date of Contract – Appellants contended the suit filed on 19.07.2010 was barred by limitation as the Agreement to Sell was dated 18.07.2007 – Held: Under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the period of limitation is reckoned from when the facts entitling the Plaintiff to have the contract rescinded first became known to him – In a contract of sale, right to sue for refund accrues when the contract is repudiated or the promisor refuses to perform, not from the date of the contract – Legal Notice dated 06.06.2008 constituted the earliest point of repudiation; suit filed on 19.07.2010 was within limitation [Paras 37, 39, 40, 41].

Section 33, Delhi Land Reforms Act – NOC Obligation on Seller – Bar Operates at Stage of Actual Transfer – No Bhumidar can sell land where the result of transfer would leave him with less than 08 standard acres in Delhi – Section 33(2) permits transfer of entire holding if less than 08 acres – Held: It was the Defendants/Appellants as owners and sellers who bore the obligation to obtain NOC and overcome restrictions of Section 33 DLR Act – The bar under Section 33 operates at the stage of actual transfer of Bhumidhari rights and does not render an Agreement to Sell per se void or incapable of enforcement between the parties [Paras 49, 50, 51].

Partnership Act – Section 69 – Bar Inapplicable – No Formal Partnership – Appellants argued that an unregistered partnership between the Plaintiff and M/s Raisina Villas Pvt. Ltd. attracted the bar of Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act – Held: There was no formal partnership as understood under the Partnership Act; parties had merely pooled funds for a single purchase transaction – The Plaintiff, having returned Rs. 45,00,000/- to M/s Raisina Villas Pvt. Ltd., became solely entitled to recover the entire amount – Bar of Section 69 not attracted [Paras 63, 64, 65].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree dated 24.09.2022 of the learned Additional District Judge upheld – Pending applications disposed of.

Bail – Gang Rape and Murder of Minor – First Petition – Refused – Petitioner attributed principal role in kidnapping, administering sedatives, gang rape, and murder of an 8-year-old Bakarwal girl – In custody since 19.01.2018 (over 8 years) – Out of 309 witnesses, only 41 examined – Held: Despite prolonged incarceration, bail cannot be granted as a matter of course where gravity and nature of the offence shock the collective and judicial conscience – Prima facie case established; long custody by itself cannot entitle petitioner to bail – Prayer for regular bail declined [Paras 7].

Bail Jurisprudence – Prolonged Incarceration – No Automatic Entitlement – Petitioner contended long custody of 8 years and slow pace of trial warrant release – Held: There is no straight-jacket formula that an accused is automatically entitled to bail on ground of prolonged incarceration – Discretion must be exercised considering intrinsic merits of the case and gravity of charge – In cases involving serious and gruesome crimes, courts must balance rights of the victim, society, and the accused [Paras 4, 6].

Bail – Relevant Considerations – Factors to be Weighed – Nature and gravity of charge, severity of punishment, likelihood of witnesses being tampered, danger of justice being thwarted, prima facie evidence, and the role of the accused are all relevant considerations – Mere period of incarceration or unlikelihood of trial concluding soon is insufficient to enlarge accused on bail when charges carry life imprisonment or death penalty [Paras 4, 5, 6].

Trial Court – Expeditious Trial – Directed – Considering the considerable delay in trial and the long period of custody of the petitioner, the Trial Court is requested to expedite the trial and conclude it preferably within one year from the date of order [Para 7].

Decision: Petition for regular bail dismissed – Trial Court directed to conclude trial preferably within one year.