Writ of Mandamus – Section 67B of the Information Technology Act - Child Pornography Allegation – Teaser of Movie "Bad Girl" on YouTube – Direction Issued for Removal – Petitioners alleged that the teaser of a Tamil film hosted on YouTube contains child pornographic and obscene content in violation of child protection laws – Despite filing complaints with relevant authorities, no timely action was taken – Held: State and statutory authorities failed to act despite receiving complaints – Court directed the Union Government to issue appropriate orders for removal of the content and for the Women and Child Commissions to monitor the matter – Criminal proceedings not directed due to lack of specific accused details – Writ petition allowed with directions [Paras 1–14].

Child Protection – State Obligation under Article 39(f) and Article 45 – Responsibility Affirmed – The Court emphasized the constitutional duty of the State to safeguard the moral and emotional well-being of children – Held: Online dissemination of sexually inappropriate material impacts children's minds – Authorities must act proactively to protect young viewers – Court found failure to act contrary to constitutional duties [Paras 7–11].

Criminal Prosecution – No Direction for FIR – Lack of Specific Allegations – Petitioners sought initiation of criminal proceedings under POCSO and POSH Acts – Held: Court declined to issue direction for prosecution since names of accused and full facts were not provided – Petitioners are at liberty to file a complaint before competent authorities [Para 13].

Duty of Online Platforms – Accessibility of Obscene Content – YouTube Not Impleaded – Not Fatal – Though YouTube was not made a party, the Court held that the Union Government has authority to direct removal of content under IT laws – Held: First respondent to act and issue directions within one month to remove the obscene teaser and related content [Paras 12–13].

Criminal Revision – Conviction under Sections 506(i) and 353 IPC – Sentence Reduced – The petitioner, a shop owner, was convicted by the trial court for obstructing and intimidating a Food Inspector (PW4) while discharging official duties and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months under both Sections 506(i) and 353 IPC along with fines – The conviction was upheld by the Appellate Court – In the revision, the High Court held that the consistent and credible testimony of the Food Inspector, corroborated by PW1, established the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt despite PW2 and PW3 turning hostile – The Court rejected the contention that acquittal under the PFA Act precluded conviction under IPC since the offences under PFA Act and IPC are distinct in nature – The Court refused to apply Section 210 Cr.P.C. as offences and occurrences in the two cases were different – Observations in PFA case about non-obstruction were held irrelevant – The Court declined to interfere with the conviction but considering the petitioner’s old age (73 years), ailments, and prolonged pendency of over 21 years, reduced the substantive sentence from six months to three months while maintaining the fine and default sentence – Ordered sentences to run concurrently [Paras 6-10].

Civil Writ – Service Law - Pension Entitlement – Daily Wager Service Prior to Regularization – Non-Consideration of Pre-Regularization Service – Dismissal of Writ – Petitioner, a Chowkidar in Gorakhpur Development Authority, sought inclusion of daily wage service from 1988 to 2010 towards pension qualifying service under the Retirement Rules, 2011—Held: As per Rule 2(i), qualifying service requires 20 years of regular service; petitioner’s regular service was only 13 years post-regularization—Service prior to regularization as daily wager excluded from qualifying service computation—Petition dismissed [Paras 14-18].

Application of Prem Singh Principle – Distinction Between Work-Charged and Daily Wager Service – Petitioner Ineligible – The Supreme Court’s ruling in Prem Singh (2019) applies to work-charged employees under 1961 Rules; clarified in Uday Pratap Thakur (2023) that daily wager service cannot be counted for pension quantum or qualifying service under Retirement Rules, 2011—Held: Petitioner being daily wager, not entitled to pensionary benefits for pre-regularization service [Paras 17-18].

Pending Reference Before Larger Bench – Judicial Restraint Exercised – The issue of counting daily wage service under the 2011 Rules is sub judice before Division Bench in Kanhai Ram (2024)—Held: Court refrained from granting relief pending authoritative determination of issue—Petitioner at liberty to avail remedy post reference outcome [Para 18-19].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – No Pension Entitlement for Daily Wage Service – Court dismissed petition noting absence of requisite 20 years qualifying service post-regularization, and legal distinction between work-charged and daily wager categories—Petitioner’s remedy remains open subject to decision in pending reference [Para 19].

Criminal Law - Section 94, 438(2) BNSS - Interlocutory Orders – Revisional Jurisdiction Barred under BNSS – Petition Dismissed – The petitioner sought to set aside the trial court’s order summoning the Investigating Officer (IO) for a report regarding CCTV footage preservation – The High Court held that the impugned order was purely interlocutory in nature, not amounting to any substantive direction, and thus, barred from challenge under Section 438(2) of BNSS – Held: Revisional jurisdiction cannot be exercised against interlocutory orders, nor can inherent powers be invoked to bypass this bar [Paras 1-4].

No Interference Where Application Pending – Premature Challenge – The petitioner further sought directions for CCTV footage preservation which was already the subject matter of the pending application before the trial court – Held: There is no occasion to interfere when the lower court has already seized of the matter; petition deemed premature and infructuous [Paras 5].

Frivolous Petition – Costs Imposed – Abuse of Court’s Time – The Court found the petition not only meritless but frivolous, filed without any justification for interference at the interlocutory stage – Held: Petition dismissed with costs of ₹20,000 payable to Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee within one week [Paras 6].

Decision – Petition Dismissed with Costs – Directions Issued – The High Court dismissed the petition at the threshold, refused to intervene in the interlocutory proceedings, and imposed exemplary costs, directing communication of the order to the Jail Superintendent for apprising the petitioner [Paras 6].

Criminal Law - Anticipatory Bail – Sections 351(2), 79, 3(5), 70 of the BNS - Serious Allegations of Sexual Offence – Bail Granted – The petitioner sought anticipatory bail in a case involving allegations of gang rape, assault, and robbery arising from alleged retaliation after employment termination – The Court observed substantial contradictions in the complainant’s successive statements, unexplained delay in lodging FIR, absence of medical evidence, and conflicting Call Detail Records (CDRs) – Held: Prima facie inconsistencies cast serious doubt on the prosecution’s case – Bail granted with stringent conditions [Paras 1-19].

Delay and Contradictions – Adverse Impact on Prosecution Credibility – The Court noted unexplained delay in FIR registration, absence of rape allegations in initial versions, refusal to undergo medical examination, and contradictory narratives about the involvement of the petitioner – Held: Such contradictions diminish reliability of prosecution case, especially at pre-trial stage [Paras 12-13].

Right to Liberty – Presumption of Innocence Prevails – Gravity Not Sole Criterion – While acknowledging seriousness of allegations, the Court reiterated the principle of personal liberty and presumption of innocence until proven guilty – Custodial interrogation found unnecessary in absence of flight risk or tampering concerns – Held: Bail should not be denied merely due to gravity of offence without cogent reasons [Paras 11, 14].

Civil Dispute Colouring Criminal Allegations – Motive Found in Ongoing Property Dispute – The Court noted existence of a civil property dispute between petitioner’s family and complainant’s family, influencing timing and content of criminal allegations – Held: Civil dispute forming backdrop strengthens petitioner’s defence of false implication [Paras 17-18].

Conditions Imposed – Monitoring of Conduct – Petitioner directed to furnish personal bond, refrain from contacting complainant or tampering with evidence, and remain available for investigation – Held: Liberty granted subject to strict adherence to conditions, with liberty to prosecution to seek cancellation upon breach [Para 19].

Decision – Bail Application Allowed – The Court allowed anticipatory bail with protective conditions, clarified observations are limited to bail adjudication and will not prejudice trial [Paras 19-21].

Criminal Law - Dowry Death and Suicide – Conviction under Section 304B Modified – Section 306 and 498A Sustained – The appeal was preferred against conviction under Section 304B IPC for dowry death following suicide of wife within seven years of marriage—High Court found lack of evidence establishing harassment or dowry demand 'soon before death' but consistent dowry demands established during marriage—Held: Conviction under Section 304B IPC unsustainable, altered to Section 306 IPC (abetment of suicide) and Section 498A IPC (cruelty)—Sentence reduced—Appeal partly allowed [Paras 12-24].

Dowry Demand and Cruelty – Section 498A – Established – Continuous dowry demand including demand for car shown by reliable testimony—Court held the demands amounted to cruelty under Section 498A IPC—Conviction under Section 498A IPC confirmed with reduced sentence of two years [Paras 23-24].

Soon Before Death Requirement – Section 304B IPC Not Attracted – Court explained that absence of dowry-related cruelty immediately before death disables presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act—Last proven dowry demand made more than three months prior to death—Conviction for dowry death under Section 304B IPC set aside [Paras 19-21].

Acquittal of Co-Accused – Upheld Due to Lack of Evidence – Co-accused (mother-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law) acquitted by Trial Court as they lived separately and their involvement was not established—Revision petition against their acquittal dismissed—Held: Trial Court’s finding proper, no interference warranted [Paras 25-26].

Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed, Revision Dismissed – Conviction altered from Section 304B to Section 306 and 498A IPC—Sentence reduced to four years for Section 306 and two years for Section 498A, to run concurrently—Revision petition against acquittal of co-accused dismissed [Paras 24-26].

Civil Law - Title and Recovery of Possession – Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act - Dar Raiyati Interest – Right Not Heritable – Adverse Possession Plea Rejected – The plaintiffs filed suit for declaration of right, title and possession over raiyati land, claiming defendants, recorded as sikmi dakhaldars, had no inheritable rights – Trial Court dismissed the suit relying on limitation and adverse possession – The Appellate Court reversed the trial court’s finding, holding that Sikmi rights are not inheritable without proof of custom – Second appeal dismissed confirming the Appellate Court's findings that the defendants are mere trespassers – Provisions of the C.N.T. Act and Specific Relief Act do not bar such suits by recorded raiyats – Held: Entry in records shows plaintiffs as rightful raiyats and defendants' occupation is unauthorized [Paras 3-23].

Adverse Possession – No Hostile Animus Established – Continuous Possession Insufficient – The defendants claimed long possession for 70-75 years and heritable sikmi rights by custom – Court held possession alone does not constitute adverse possession – There was no hostile assertion against plaintiffs nor claim of ownership adverse to them – Revenue records remained unchanged reflecting plaintiffs' title – Held: No adverse possession established, defendants liable to be ejected [Paras 9, 17-21].

Suit Maintainability – Bar under Section 34 of Specific Relief Act and Section 46(1)(a) of C.N.T. Act – Clarified – The Court held that a recorded raiyat is entitled to sue for recovery of possession from unauthorized occupants despite remarks column entries showing sikmi rights – Suit is not barred by Section 34 of Specific Relief Act or Section 46 of C.N.T. Act as no lease exceeding five years was in question – Notice under Section 106 T.P. Act is not necessary in cases of unauthorized possession – Held: Plaintiffs' suit maintainable [Paras 7, 22].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Judgment and decree of the Appellate Court upheld – Defendants are trespassers liable to be evicted from suit land – No interference warranted in concurrent findings on title and possession in favor of plaintiffs [Paras 23-25].

Criminal Law - Murder – Conviction Under Section 302, 34 IPC – Conviction Set Aside – Acquittal -  The appellants challenged their conviction for murder citing improper appreciation of evidence, dubious oral dying declaration, procedural lapses in investigation, and faulty Section 313 examination—High Court found multiple inconsistencies in prosecution story including absence of dying declaration in FIR, non-examination of neutral witnesses, improper recovery of weapon from public place, and defective questioning under Section 313 CrPC—Held: Prosecution failed to prove case beyond reasonable doubt—Appeals allowed—Conviction and sentence set aside—Appellants acquitted [Paras 1-25].

Dying Declaration – Non-Mention in FIR and Inquest Report – Version Discredited – Alleged oral dying declaration by victim to his brother not reflected in FIR or medical records—No hospital records showing presence of PW1—Omissions deemed material and suggestive of prosecution improvement—Held: Prosecution failed to establish dying declaration as credible evidence [Paras 10-15].

Eyewitness Credibility – Prosecution Relied Only on Victim’s Associates – Court noted suspicious absence of local independent witnesses at place of occurrence—Seizure witnesses and primary prosecution witnesses all belonged to victim’s locality, not the crime scene—Held: Prosecution version doubtful, non-examination of neutral witnesses fatal [Paras 16-21].

Recovery of Weapon – Recovery from Public Place Without Proper Corroboration – Iron rod recovered from public drain in absence of local witnesses—Court held recovery lacked credibility under Section 27 Evidence Act—Reliance placed on Nikhil Chandra Mondal v. State of W.B. and Manjunath v. State of Karnataka—Held: Recovery not proved satisfactorily [Paras 18-20].

Defective Examination Under Section 313 CrPC – Procedural Lapse – Court found improper clubbing of questions under Section 313, denying appellants fair opportunity to explain incriminating evidence—Held: Trial Judge erred by not conducting proper examination—Conviction vitiated due to violation of fair trial principles [Paras 22-24].

Final Decision – Appeals Allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside—Appellants acquitted of all charges—Directed to be released forthwith if not required in other cases [Paras 25-26].

Criminal Law - DNA Testing in Rape Case – Quashing of Sessions Court Order – Mandatory DNA Sampling Upheld – The petitioner, prosecutrix, filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the order of the Additional Sessions Judge which had set aside the Magistrate’s order permitting DNA sampling of Respondent No.2 in a case registered under Section 376 IPC. The Delhi High Court held that the Sessions Court had erroneously applied the presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act despite clear evidence of separation between the prosecutrix and her husband. It was concluded that in cases involving allegations of rape, DNA examination under Section 53A Cr.P.C. is mandatory and indispensable for a fair investigation. The Court set aside the order of the Sessions Court and directed Respondent No.2 to provide his blood sample for DNA testing within fifteen days. The Court also permitted use of reasonable force if the accused declined or resisted [Paras 1-99].

Collection of DNA Sample – Section 53A Cr.P.C. – DNA Testing is a Mandatory Step in Rape Investigation – The Court reaffirmed the legal position that in cases of sexual assault, DNA sampling is mandatory under Section 53A Cr.P.C. The rationale is to ensure comprehensive investigation and facilitate accurate determination of guilt or innocence. The order of the Magistrate allowing DNA testing was found to be correct and aligned with the statutory mandate of fair investigation [Paras 53-57, 86-88].

Presumption of Legitimacy under Section 112 Evidence Act – Not Applicable in Criminal Investigation – The Court held that the presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 of the Evidence Act is meant for matrimonial disputes and cannot be allowed to interfere in criminal proceedings. In the present case, since the prosecutrix and her husband were separated without access to each other, the presumption was inapplicable. The Court held that modern scientific tools like DNA testing must prevail over presumptions to ascertain truth in criminal cases [Paras 60-93].

Scientific Evidence Prevails – Importance of Truth in Criminal Justice – The Court emphasized that in criminal justice, truth is paramount and DNA testing is a near-perfect scientific tool to determine paternity and establish facts in sexual assault cases. Courts must prefer conclusive scientific evidence over legal fictions or presumptions where justice demands it [Paras 64-71, 85-87].

Distinction Between Civil and Criminal Proceedings – Principles of Matrimonial Law Not Applicable – The Court distinguished between civil and criminal cases, observing that while certain presumptions may apply in matrimonial disputes, they cannot limit the investigative powers of the police in criminal proceedings. The right to fair investigation in rape cases includes recourse to scientific methods like DNA testing irrespective of matrimonial presumptions [Paras 83-89].

Direction for Compliance – ASJ Order Set Aside – Blood Sample to be Collected – The Court set aside the order of the Additional Sessions Judge and directed Respondent No.2 to present himself for DNA sampling within fifteen days. The Investigating Officer was authorized to use reasonable force if Respondent No.2 failed to cooperate. The petition was allowed, ensuring proper application of legal provisions to aid investigation [Paras 98-99].