Minor's Personal Liberty – Social Media – Misleading Post – Facebook – Article 21 – A minor child, residing lawfully with her natural guardian-mother, approached the Court after a post falsely declaring her missing and offering a cash reward of Rs.1,00,000/- was uploaded on Facebook, allegedly in the name of her grandfather (Respondent No.5) – The post, though disputed as to its origin, remained visible on Facebook causing unknown persons to visit the petitioner's residence – Held: Posting of misleading or false material on Facebook or any social/electronic/print media violates personal rights, dignity, and reputation guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution – Meta Platform Inc. directed to block/take down the offending post and photographs of the petitioner forthwith [Paras 5, 10, 11].

Social Media Regulation – Intermediary Liability – IT Rules, 2021 – Rule 3 of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 mandates intermediaries, including social media platforms, to ensure users do not host, upload, or share patently false, misleading, or privacy-invading information – Facebook/Meta Platform Inc. found to have failed in enforcing adequate safeguards against such misleading content – Regulation of social media essential to balance freedom of expression with dignity and rights of vulnerable individuals, particularly children [Paras 8, 9, 10].

Child Custody – Pending Proceedings – Minor to Remain with Natural Guardian-Mother – Respondents claimed to have filed an application for custody of the petitioner before a competent Court, disputed by the petitioner's counsel as already rejected – Held: In the absence of any subsisting order or pending petition, the petitioner shall remain in the lawful custody of her natural guardian-mother; any pending Court proceedings shall govern the rights of the parties accordingly [Para 7].

Decision: Petition disposed of – Meta Platform Inc. (parent company of Facebook) directed to block/take down the misleading post and photographs of the petitioner from its platform – Copy of order directed to be sent to the registered office of Meta Platform Inc. in India – Stay application and all pending applications disposed of.

Income Tax – TDS – Section 201(3) – Limitation – Quarter-wise Computation – Not Annual – Assessee filed TDS Returns for the first three quarters of FY 2008-09 in that financial year itself, while the fourth quarter return was filed on 15.06.2009 in FY 2009-10 – Order under Section 201(1) declaring assessee in default was passed on 15.03.2012 – Section 201(3) stipulates that no order shall be passed after expiry of two years from the end of the financial year in which the TDS statement is filed – Since TDS statements under Rule 31A are mandatorily filed on a quarterly basis, each quarter constitutes a separate compliance period with a distinct filing date and independent starting point for limitation – Appellant's contention that limitation must be computed on an annual/cumulative basis rejected as contrary to the text and structure of the statutory framework – Held: Proceedings for first three quarters barred by limitation; demand for fourth quarter rightly sustained – Limitation provisions in taxing statutes must be strictly construed and cannot be extended by implication [Paras 6-7]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Order of ITAT, Pune dated 12.03.2018 upheld – Proceedings for first three quarters of AY 2009-10 held barred by limitation – Demand for fourth quarter sustained.

Railways Act – Untoward Incident – Section 123(c)(2) – Crossing Railway Track – Not Falling from Train – Claim Rejected – Deceased was allegedly travelling from Nallasopara to Borivali on 05.08.2006 and said to have fallen from a moving train between Bhayandar and Nallasopara – However, the postmortem report dated 10.08.2006 recorded that on arrival at K.E.M. Hospital at 3:15 p.m. on 05.08.2006, it was stated by Mr. Sachin Jewekar (companion) that the deceased was crossing the railway track at Nallasopara Railway Station when he was hit by a running train from behind – Station Master and police were not informed on the date of incident – Subsequent police investigation report (08.08.2006) and inquest panchanama (10.08.2006) stated that deceased fell from a moving train – Held: Statement made at the first available instance before hospital authorities on the date of the incident is more authentic and reliable than subsequent statements – Incident was one of being knocked down while crossing a railway track and does not fall within the definition of "untoward incident" under Section 123(c)(2) – Tribunal justified in rejecting the claim [Paras 5-7]

Railways Act – Bonafide Passenger – Issue Not Required to Be Examined – Both conditions of "bonafide passenger" and "untoward incident" must be satisfied for compensation – Since the incident does not fall within an "untoward incident", the issue of bonafide passenger need not be examined – Failure of either condition is sufficient to reject the claim [Para 7]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Order of Railway Claims Tribunal, Mumbai dated 23.02.2015 upheld – Civil/Interim Applications do not survive.

Qalandra under Section 66 of the Punjab Police Act, 2007 quashed for violation of Section 195 Cr.P.C. – SHO not competent to file complaint when original representations were addressed to Commissioner of Police – DGP Punjab directed to institutionalise sensitisation programme for police officials on compliance with Section 195 Cr.P.C./Section 215 BNSS.

“When The Whistle-Blower Becomes The Accused” – Quashing of Qalandra – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Section 66 Punjab Police Act, 2007 – Section 195 Cr.P.C. – Petitioner, a social worker, submitted representations to the Commissioner of Police alleging misuse of reservation benefits by a certain individual – Enquiry conducted at the level of the Commissioner of Police found allegations unsubstantiated – Directions were issued to the SHO to initiate proceedings under Section 66 of the Punjab Police Act, 2007 – Impugned Qalandra filed by the SHO before the Magistrate – Held: Section 195 Cr.P.C. mandates that complaint must emanate from the public servant concerned or an officer administratively superior thereto – SHO being subordinate in the hierarchy was not competent to file the Qalandra – Ratio of P.D. Lakhani (supra) squarely applicable – Impugned Qalandra and all consequential proceedings quashed [Paras 6, 7].

“Routine Cognizance Without Judicial Mind” – Non-Application of Mind by Magistrate – The learned Magistrate registered the Impugned Qalandra and issued notice in a routine manner without examining the statutory bar contained in Section 195 Cr.P.C. – Held: The requirement of due consideration at the stage of taking cognizance cannot be treated as a routine formality – Magistrate failed to apply judicial mind to the question of maintainability [Para 7].

“Quashing Does Not Mean Absolute Immunity” – Scope of Quashing Order – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – The quashing of the Impugned Qalandra does not operate as a perpetual injunction against the State – Instant adjudication predicated solely upon the statutory bar contained in Section 195 Cr.P.C. – Court has not delved into the factual culpability or innocence of the petitioner – State remains at liberty to initiate a fresh complaint in strict accordance with prescribed statutory procedure [Para 8].

“Sentinel on the Qui Vive” – Mandatory Nature of Section 195 Cr.P.C./Section 215 BNSS – Section 195 Cr.P.C. is not a mere directory provision but a mandatory jurisdictional pre-requisite – Filing of Qalandra without adherence to the strictures of Section 195 Cr.P.C. constitutes a textbook example of procedural dereliction – Court deplored the alarming proliferation of frivolous complaints where baseless allegations are weaponized to unsettle the administration of justice [Para 9].

“Remedial Directions to DGP Punjab” – Directions to Director General of Police – DGP Punjab directed to institutionalise a comprehensive sensitisation programme for all police officials to ensure strict adherence with mandatory provisions of Section 195 Cr.P.C./Section 215 BNSS – DGP further directed to conduct a formal inquiry as to whether the filing of the Impugned Qalandra by the SHO was a bona-fide professional error or was motivated by malafide intentions – Compliance report to be filed before Registrar General within 06 weeks [Paras 9.2, 10].

Decision: Petition allowed – Qalandra under Section 66 of the Punjab Police Act, 2007 and all consequential proceedings including the order dated 11.06.2018 quashed – DGP Punjab directed to institutionalise sensitisation programme and file compliance report within 06 weeks.

Criminal Law – Discharge Application – Section 250 BNSS – Sixty-Day Period – Nature and Effect – Condonation of Delay – Applicants, Directors, CEO and medical practitioners of Khyati Hospital sought discharge under Section 250 BNSS — discharge applications filed beyond sixty days from date of committal — Sessions Court rejected delay condonation applications and entered into merits at that stage — maximum delay beyond sixty days was approximately 140 days — prosecution relied upon additional documents not forming part of original charge-sheet record at stage of hearing discharge applications — Held: Sixty-day period under Section 250(1) BNSS regulates procedure and does not extinguish the right to seek discharge — delay does not ipso facto disentitle accused where sufficient cause is shown — Sessions Judge erred in refusing to condone delay and in entering into merits at stage of condonation — impugned orders quashed — delay condoned — discharge applications remitted for fresh consideration [Paras 3–6, 30–35].

"Section 250(1) BNSS – Sixty-Day Period – Trigger Mechanism or Substantive Bar – Nature of Right to Discharge"

BNSS – Section 250(1) – Discharge – Sixty-Day Period – Nature – Accused have a right to prefer discharge application within sixty days from date of committal under Section 250(1) BNSS — this provision is intended to trigger prosecution to open and crystallise its case at the threshold — however, failure to exercise right within sixty days does not extinguish the substantive right — right of discharge is intrinsically connected with the guarantee of fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution — sixty-day period regulates the remedy and not the underlying right — beyond sixty days, the remedy is subject to the Court's discretion to condone delay upon sufficient cause being shown — Court remains duty bound to apply judicial mind before framing of charge even if no discharge application is filed and if no sufficient material exists for framing of charge, the Court must discharge the accused — Held: Sixty-day period under Section 250(1) BNSS does not exclude judicial discretion in appropriate cases where delay is not attributable to the accused [Paras 9, 9.1, 21–23].

"Non-Supply of Documents – Section 230 BNSS – Committal Proceedings – Prejudice – Void ab initio"

BNSS – Section 230 – Section 232 – Supply of Documents – Committal – Validity – Prosecution supplied certain additional documents not forming part of original charge-sheet papers at the stage of reply to discharge applications — committal under Section 232 mandates prior compliance with Section 230 — supply of documents is condition precedent for meaningful defence — committal proceedings are administrative in nature and not adjudicatory on merits — procedural irregularities do not ipso facto vitiate proceedings unless failure of justice is demonstrated — prejudice must be shown to invalidate committal — Held: Committal not rendered void ab initio merely because additional documents were supplied subsequently — prosecution cannot rely upon such additional documents until they are duly furnished to the accused — discharge applications to be considered afresh after complete supply of all materials relied upon by the prosecution [Paras 24–29].

"Condonation of Delay – Merits Not to Be Examined – Sessions Judge's Error"

Criminal Procedure – Delay Condonation – Sessions Court erred by adverting to merits of the case while deciding condonation of delay — it is settled law that merits of the case are not to be examined while deciding condonation — substantial justice must prevail over technical considerations — length of delay is not decisive; what matters is whether sufficient cause is shown and whether delay is bona fide — Held: Rigid and technical approach in the present facts would defeat substantial justice — delay condoned [Paras 15–17, 31–32].

Decision: All impugned orders quashed and set aside — delay in filing discharge applications condoned — trial Court directed to decide discharge applications afresh on merits after ensuring complete supply of all documents relied upon by prosecution and after affording full opportunity of hearing to both sides — trial Court to remain uninfluenced by any observations in earlier orders or the present order — Rule made absolute.

Land Law – Surplus Area Proceedings – Civil Court Jurisdiction – Finality – Doctrine of Merger – Limitation – All Seven Matters Disposed of – Surplus area orders against Moman (big landowner) passed by Collector (Surplus Area) on 30.05.1961, reviewed on 13.06.1962, were affirmed by Commissioner, Financial Commissioner, and upheld by this Court in writ jurisdiction (CWP No. 640 of 1963, decided 03.01.1967) – Widow Smt. Bhuri and son Shiv Prakash thereafter instituted Civil Suit No. 353-C of 1987 (registered as CS No. 418 of 1990/1987) challenging the surplus area orders and consequential allotment orders of 1980-81 – Trial Court decreed the suit (12.08.1993); First Appellate Court affirmed the decree (01.03.1997) – Held: Surplus area proceedings having attained finality through the entire statutory hierarchy and writ proceedings, the same could not be reopened in an independent civil suit – Judgments and decrees dated 12.08.1993 and 01.03.1997 set aside – Civil Suit No. 353-C of 1987 dismissed with costs – RSA Nos. 1020 of 1997 and 3561 of 1997 allowed [Paras 63-71].

Bar of Civil Court Jurisdiction – Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act, 1953 – Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 – Section 25 of the 1953 Act expressly bars civil court jurisdiction in respect of matters which the competent authorities under the Act are empowered to determine – Similarly, Section 26 of the Haryana Ceiling Act, read with Paragraph 13 of the 1976 Utilization Scheme, excludes civil court jurisdiction over matters arising under the Act and Scheme – Allotment orders dated 25.08.1980 and 26.02.1981 having been passed under the 1976 Scheme, any challenge thereto was exclusively within the statutory hierarchy – Civil suit to assail such orders was incompetent for want of jurisdiction – Relied upon: Azad vs. Dharampal; Devender Singh vs. State of Haryana, 2006 AIR SC 2850 [Paras 47-48].

Doctrine of Merger – Surplus Area Orders – Once the original surplus area orders dated 30.05.1961 and 13.06.1962 were carried in appeal and revision and affirmed by the Commissioner, Financial Commissioner, and thereafter by this Court in writ jurisdiction, the original orders merged in the higher orders and lost their independent identity – Unless the appellate and revisional orders were specifically challenged, the foundational orders could not be reopened in a civil suit – Same principle applied to allotment orders of 1980-81, which stood affirmed by the Collector on 08.02.1983 – Plaintiffs neither disclosed nor challenged the successive appellate and revisional orders, including the dismissal of CWP No. 640 of 1963, before the civil court – Counsel for plaintiffs admitted non-disclosure of the writ judgment – Relied upon: Amarjit Singh vs. Financial Commissioner, 1978 PLJ 228 (DB); Chandi Prasad vs. Jagdish Prasad, 2005 (2) RCR (Civil) 737 (SC) [Paras 44-46, 61, 64].

Limitation – Surplus Area Challenge – Suit Hopelessly Barred – Surplus area orders were passed in 1961-62 and allotment orders in 1980-81, whereas the suit was instituted only in 1987 – Courts below erroneously computed limitation from order dated 27.05.1985 (dismissal of exemption application in appeal) – Held: Dismissal of an exemption application under Section 8(1)(a) of the Haryana Act cannot revive or extend the limitation period for challenging the surplus area orders or allotment orders which had long since attained finality – Even if orders were void, they had to be challenged within the prescribed period – Relied upon: State of Punjab vs. Gurdev Singh, AIR 1992 SC 111; Kamlesh Babu vs. Lajpat Rai Sharma, 2008 (12) SCC 577 [Paras 51-53, 69].

Post-Appointed Date Transfers – Surplus Determination – Exemption Plea – The alleged gift by Moman in favour of his wife and sons was effected on 25.05.1954, i.e. after the appointed date of 15.04.1953 – Mutation No. 468 dated 27.05.1954 (relied upon by plaintiffs) refers to an oral gift (Tamliq Malqiat Jubani) dated 25.05.1954, with no reference to any transfer in 1949 – Under Section 10-A(c) of the 1953 Act, such post-appointed date transfers were liable to be ignored for surplus determination – Transferees could not claim independent recognition in surplus proceedings – The exemption plea under Section 8(1)(a) of the Haryana Act was wholly extraneous, the exemption orders having attained finality unchallenged [Paras 65-68].

Notice in Surplus Proceedings – Post-Appointed Date Transferees – No Notice Required – Surplus area case was required to be determined with reference to the holding of the landowner as on 15.04.1953 – Moman was alive, was the recorded landowner, was duly served, and even appeared and made a statement during the proceedings – Transfers in favour of wife and sons having been made after the appointed date were to be disregarded under Section 10-A(c) – Transferees could not independently claim notice as their rights in the surplus pool had no legal recognition – Upon vesting of surplus land in the State under Section 12(3) of the Haryana Act, the landowner stood divested of all rights and the State was not obligated to issue notice of allotment to the heirs of Moman – Relied upon: Surinder Nath Dewan vs. State of Haryana, (1994) 1 SCR 186 [Paras 49-50].

Consequential Proceedings – RSA Nos. 1871 and 1873 of 2006 – Civil Revisions 1539, 1564 and 1574 of 1997 – Since the core judgment dated 12.08.1993 as affirmed on 01.03.1997 has been set aside, the foundation of Civil Suit Nos. 280 of 1998 and 522-C of 1998 (relating to Khasra Nos. 18 and 32), which were entirely built upon the said adjudication, is rendered untenable – RSA Nos. 1871 of 2006 and 1873 of 2006 dismissed as a necessary corollary – With the allotment orders upheld as legal and valid, the proceedings under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC for alleged violation of injunction also lose their foundation – CR Nos. 1539, 1564 and 1574 of 1997 accordingly allowed [Paras 71-73].

Decision: RSA Nos. 1020 of 1997 and 3561 of 1997 allowed – Judgments and decrees dated 12.08.1993 (Trial Court) and 01.03.1997 (First Appellate Court) set aside – Civil Suit No. 353-C/418 of 1987 dismissed with costs – RSA Nos. 1871 of 2006 and 1873 of 2006 dismissed – CR Nos. 1539, 1564 and 1574 of 1997 allowed – All seven matters disposed of [Paras 70-74].

Education Law – Unfair Means in Examination – Possession of Mobile Phone – CBSE Guidelines – The respondent student appearing for Class XII examination was found carrying a mobile phone inside the examination hall – Though no incriminating material relating to the examination was found and the phone was not used for copying, the CBSE Unfair Means Committee placed the case under Category-3 and imposed penalty of cancellation of current as well as next year’s examination in all subjects – Single Judge set aside the penalty relying on parity with earlier decision and extended benefit of doubt – Division Bench held that after the 139th Governing Body Meeting dated 24.06.2024, possession of a mobile phone itself has been specifically included in Category-3 attracting stringent penalty – Courts cannot dilute or read down guidelines framed and ratified by an expert body in academic matters – Held: Mere non-use of the phone is irrelevant once possession inside the examination centre is established – Single Judge’s order unsustainable [Paras 24-31].

Judicial Review – Academic/Expert Decisions – Scope of Interference – Guidelines regarding Unfair Means were framed after deliberation by the Examination Committee and ratified by the CBSE Governing Body – The categorisation placing possession of mobile phones in Category-3 with severe penalty was a conscious policy decision to prevent leakage of question papers and misuse of electronic devices – Held: Courts exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot substitute their opinion for that of an expert body or dilute such policy unless manifestly arbitrary or unconstitutional [Paras 24-31].

Parity with Earlier Judgments – Applicability – Single Judge relied on decision in *Shuchi Mishra* where penalty for possession of mobile phone was set aside – Division Bench held that the said case arose prior to issuance of revised UFM guidelines and categorisation introduced later – Hence, the doctrine of parity was inapplicable to the present case governed by the amended rules [Paras 22-23].

Unfair Means Committee – Findings – The committee recorded that the student admitted possession of the mobile phone though it was not used for copying – Evidence included mobile phone, statements of invigilator, observer and student – Based on the revised guidelines, the competent authority imposed Category-3 penalty – Held: Action of CBSE was in accordance with the governing guidelines and cannot be interfered with merely on sympathetic considerations [Paras 19, 26-30].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Order of the Single Judge dated 23.08.2025 in W.P. No.16511/2025 set aside – Penalty imposed by CBSE cancelling the current as well as next year’s examination in all subjects upheld – All pending applications disposed of.

Company Law – Interim Relief – Administration Suit – Plaintiff sought directions to be made joint signatory to bank accounts, deposit of income from estate properties, and restoration of monies allegedly withdrawn from estate – Reliance placed on Commissioner’s Report indicating high cash withdrawals and financial irregularities in company associated with deceased – Held: Commissioner’s report cannot be treated as conclusive evidence at interlocutory stage and defendants must be given opportunity to challenge and test the report through cross-examination and evidence – Interim reliefs refused as they would amount to granting substantially final relief without trial [Paras 24–25, 31].

Company Law – Jurisdiction – Civil Court vis-à-vis NCLT – Plaintiff raised grievances regarding financial management and alleged dissipation of assets of company in which deceased held substantial shareholding – Held: Issues relating to corporate governance, oppression, mismanagement, or functioning of company fall within exclusive jurisdiction of NCLT – Civil court in administration suit cannot grant reliefs interfering with management of company [Paras 29].

Evidence – Commissioner’s Report – Evidentiary Value – Report of court-appointed commissioner appointed by consent of parties – Held: Mere consent to appointment of commissioner does not imply acceptance of findings as final – Commissioner’s report is not substantive evidence and can be challenged by parties through cross-examination and independent evidence [Paras 24–25].

Corporate Governance – Acquiescence – Plaintiff, a director of the company, had signed financial statements for multiple years after demise of deceased reflecting financial transactions and shareholding structure – Held: Plaintiff cannot prima facie feign ignorance of financial affairs or challenge shareholding structure at interlocutory stage after several years – conduct indicates acquiescence and delay [Paras 26–27].

Interim Relief – Mandatory Directions – Prayer to restore allegedly withdrawn monies and deposit revenues of estate in court – Held: Reliefs are substantially mandatory and near-final in nature – In administration suits such directions ordinarily follow only after determination of rights and accounting – Grant of such relief at interim stage impermissible [Paras 30–31].

Administration of Estate – Interim Financial Arrangement – Court noted earlier ad-interim order directing defendants to pay plaintiff ₹3,00,000 per month – Held: Existing arrangement sufficiently safeguards plaintiff’s financial interests pending suit – No irreparable injury shown as alleged monetary loss can be compensated after accounts are taken [Paras 32–33].

Decision: Interim Application rejected insofar as prayer clauses (c), (f) and (g) are concerned – Statement of defendants recorded that they shall not create third-party rights in respect of estate assets pending suit – Existing arrangement directing payment of ₹3,00,000 per month to plaintiff to continue – Liberty granted to plaintiff to seek enhancement of amount if circumstances so warrant – No order as to costs.

Criminal Law – Bail – Implementation of Bail Orders – Wrongful Custody – Duty of Court Staff – Typographical Omission of One Section Not Ground to Withhold Bail Papers – Applicant granted bail by this Court in CRA No.1782 of 2026 vide order dated 19.02.2026 – Bail papers furnished on 20.02.2026 but Criminal Reader of the Special Judge's Court refused to place papers before the Presiding Officer on the ground that Section 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act was omitted due to typographical error – Held: Procedure adopted by Criminal Reader was invalid – When case number, crime number, and name of accused are clearly mentioned in the bail order, the order is sufficient to identify the accused and the case – Criminal Reader was duty-bound to place the papers before the learned Special Judge who could then pass appropriate orders – Keeping accused in wrongful custody for more than 12 days due to a typographical omission amounts to serious dereliction of duty – Relying on Aftab vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 687, wherein the Supreme Court held that as long as basic particulars are available and there is no dispute about identifying the individual, nitpicking of Court orders and keeping the individual behind bars on that pretext is a serious dereliction of duty – Order read in conjunction with order dated 19.02.2026 in CRA No.1782 of 2026 [Paras 1-6]

Decision: M.Cr.C. allowed to the extent indicated – Order dated 19.02.2026 in CRA No.1782 of 2026 to be read in conjunction with the present order – Section 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act noted as having been omitted due to typographical error – Instant petition disposed of accordingly.