Protection of Young Woman – Custody Restoration – Court’s Preventive Intervention – Petitioner No.1, a 19-year-old girl, produced before Court from Open Shelter for Girls, Srinagar – Court observed that timely judicial vigilance prevented the life of the young girl from going astray – Custody restored to her mother with directions to police to ensure safe return to native place and verification of travel details [Paras 1, 12–13].

Judicial Oversight – Possible Exploitation of Young Girls – Alleged Nikahnama and Role of Religious Preacher – Court expressed concern over alleged involvement of self-proclaimed peers/tantriks and religious intermediaries in luring vulnerable girls – Held: Matter has wider societal implications involving safety and security of young and gullible girls, particularly in rural areas, requiring deeper judicial scrutiny [Paras 6, 8].

Writ Jurisdiction – Continuation of Proceedings Suo Motu – Court declined to treat the matter as a routine custody restoration case – Proceedings directed to continue suo motu to examine larger issues including conduct of individuals involved and systemic concerns relating to protection of vulnerable girls [Paras 6–7].

Role of Advocate – Judicial Scrutiny – Court directed issuance of notice to Advocate who filed the petition, requiring his personal appearance – Court warned that coercive measures may be taken if he evades service of notice [Paras 17–19].

Appointment of Amicus Curiae – Protection of Vulnerable Women – Advocate appointed as amicus curiae to assist Court in examining broader issues related to safety, security, and exploitation of young girls – Social worker requested to assist amicus in the proceedings [Paras 14–16].

Protective Directions – Counselling and Police Protection – Court directed psychological counselling through One Stop Centre authorities and ordered SSP to ensure safety of the petitioner and her mother from any harm or intimidation by the other petitioner or his associates [Paras 23–24].

Decision: Custody of petitioner restored to her mother – Amicus curiae appointed – Notice issued to concerned advocate – Authorities directed to provide counselling and protection – Matter to continue for further consideration.

Income Tax – Survey under Section 133A – Voluntary Disclosure – Additional Income of Rs.1,14,20,100/- offered by letter dated 29.09.2016 pursuant to survey dated 27.09.2016 – Income declared in return filed on 20.11.2017 and tax paid – No retraction of disclosure nor revision under Section 139(5) – For first time before Tribunal, assessee contended income was non-existent and admitted under coercion – Held: Such plea involves mixed question of fact and law and cannot be entertained without foundational facts – Tribunal justified in rejecting contention – No substantial question of law arises [Paras 7–11, 13–17, 20].

Income Tax – Powers of Tribunal – Additional Grounds – Reliance on National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. – Tribunal empowered to entertain new grounds if pure question of law arising from facts on record – However, where assessee had not raised plea before Assessing Officer or CIT(A) and no factual foundation exists, Tribunal not bound to adjudicate – Discretion properly exercised [Paras 9–11].

Income Tax – Admission in Return – Binding Nature – Assessee consciously declared additional income in return nearly 14 months after survey – Contention of continuing coercion untenable – Statutory remedy of revised return not availed – Admission not retracted at any stage – Sanctity and finality attached to return of income cannot be undermined [Paras 12–16, 18].

Income Tax – Section 115BBE – Challenge before CIT(A) confined only to rate of tax at 60% – Assessee sought taxation at normal rate and never disputed taxability per se – Conduct demonstrates acceptance of taxability – Subsequent challenge impermissible [Paras 14, 18].

Income Tax – Burden of Proof – Admitted Income – Once income voluntarily declared in return, it is not for Assessing Officer to establish evidentiary basis – Self-assessment cannot be disowned without availing statutory mechanism – Findings of Tribunal are findings of fact and not shown to be perverse [Paras 19–20].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – No substantial question of law – Order of Tribunal upheld.

Banking Law – MSME Borrower – Pre-Payment Charges – Contractual Stipulation vs. MSME Code – MSME borrower challenged levy of pre-payment charges by bank upon premature closure of loan – Bank levied charges pursuant to Clause 5(ii) of hypothecation agreement and sanction letter providing 2% pre-payment charges in case of takeover by another bank – Held: Clause 5.3(H) of Code of Banks’ Commitment permits prepayment without penalty only where loan is repaid from borrower’s own sources – Code does not prohibit levy of pre-payment charges where loan is taken over by another bank – Contractual clause valid and enforceable [Paras 8–9.2, 12].

Commercial Contracts – Sanctity of Contract – Binding Nature of Loan Agreement – Once parties voluntarily enter into loan agreement with clear stipulation for pre-payment charges, they are bound by its terms – Courts cannot rewrite commercial contracts on equitable considerations – Borrower estopped from disputing agreed terms after having availed benefits of loan [Paras 10–10.4].

Doctrine of Estoppel – Approbate and Reprobate – Borrower who consciously accepted contractual conditions and acted upon them cannot later challenge pre-payment charges as illegal – Party cannot accept benefits under agreement and subsequently question its obligations – Principle reiterated with reference to Supreme Court precedents [Paras 10.2, 10.5].

MSME Code – Nature and Scope – Code of Banks’ Commitment is a statement of voluntary best practices – Does not override or nullify express contractual terms mutually agreed between parties – Cannot be read so as to supplant binding commercial agreements [Paras 12].

Pre-Payment Charges – Computation – Burden of Proof – Plea that charges were wrongly calculated on entire sanctioned amount rejected – Appellant failed to produce cogent evidence regarding outstanding amount as on date of prepayment – Trial Court justified in rejecting claim for recovery [Paras 11].

RTI Reply – Evidentiary Value – Information supplied under Right to Information Act indicating general position regarding MSMEs does not amount to binding admission overriding contractual terms – Cannot confer substantive rights contrary to agreement [Para 13].

Appellate Jurisdiction – Commercial Matters – Findings of Commercial Court based on correct appreciation of contractual documents and settled legal principles – No perversity or legal infirmity shown – No interference warranted in appeal [Paras 14–15].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree dated 10.05.2023 passed by Commercial Court No.2, Jodhpur affirmed – No order as to costs [Paras 15–18].

Senior Citizens Act – Scope and Ambit of Section 23 – "Transferee" vs. "Children/Relative" – Property Registered in Name of Wife Not Covered – Senior citizen-Petitioner sought transfer and injunction in respect of two flats standing in the registered name of Respondent No. 3 (wife), alleging that the purchase consideration was paid by him – Tribunals below held that the reliefs sought were beyond the purview of the Senior Citizens Act – Court examined Section 23, which provides that where a senior citizen transfers property subject to the condition that the transferee shall provide basic amenities and physical needs, and the transferee defaults, such transfer may be declared void by the Tribunal – Held: "The sine qua non for invocation of Section 23 of Senior Citizens Act is that the ownership property of a senior citizen has been transferred, in any manner whatsoever, subject to the condition of providing basic amenities and physical needs" – Since the registered documents stood in the name of Respondent No. 3, and no transfer by the Petitioner was established, Section 23 was inapplicable [Paras 14, 15, 22].

Maintenance Under Senior Citizens Act – Wife Not a "Relative" Within Section 2(g) – No Claim for Maintenance Pressed – Section 4 read with Section 2(g) of the Senior Citizens Act entitles a senior citizen to claim maintenance from children or relatives, where "relative" is defined as a legal heir of a childless senior citizen in possession of, or set to inherit, his property – Petitioner had children and therefore his wife, Respondent No. 3, did not fall within the definition of "relative" under Section 2(g) – Further, no claim for maintenance was pressed before the Tribunal or before the High Court – Held: The statutory scheme for maintenance operates within defined categories and the wife cannot be impleaded for maintenance in a case where the senior citizen is not childless [Para 13].

Property Dispute Disguised as Senior Citizens Act Claim – Appropriate Forum is Civil Court – Petitioner's Remedy Lies in Declaration of Title, Not Before Senior Citizens Tribunal – The Petitioner's claim was premised on the assertion that the purchase consideration for the two properties was paid by him, though registered in the name of Respondent No. 3 – Court held that "the Petitioner's claim for ownership right in the properties is premised on the ground that the consideration in respect of the said two premises was paid by him, in which case the remedy of the Petitioner is to approach the Civil Court for seeking declaration of his right, title, and interest in these properties" – Relief of injunction would entail an inquiry into ownership rights, which is entirely outside the purview of the Senior Citizens Act [Paras 15, 16].

Overriding Effect of Section 3 – Misplaced Reliance in Absence of Conflict With Other Enactment – Petitioner invoked Section 3 of the Senior Citizens Act, which grants overriding effect to the Act in cases of conflict with other enactments – Court held that Section 3 is attracted only when a conflict between the Senior Citizens Act and another enactment is demonstrated – In the present case, no such conflict was shown, rendering reliance on Section 3 entirely misplaced [Para 17].

Referred Cases Distinguished – Nayana Sudhir Shah, Ramkrishna Pandey, Sri Venkataiah and Urmila Dixit – None Applied to Present Facts – In Nayana Sudhir Shah & Ors. vs. Sudhir Premji Shah & Ors., the subject properties were self-acquired properties of the senior citizen himself, factually distinct from the present case where the registered title stood in the wife's name – In Ramkrishna Pandey vs. State of Chhattisgarh, a Gift Deed executed in favour of a nephew was challenged under Section 23, constituting a direct transfer by the senior citizen – In Sri Venkataiah vs. State of Karnataka, the Petitioner was the absolute owner of agricultural land and challenged a Gift Deed procured by his daughters after false assurances – In Urmila Dixit vs. Sunil Sharan Dixit & Ors., the Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's power to order eviction where property was gifted by a senior citizen to her son under a condition of maintenance that was breached – Held: All four decisions are clearly distinguishable on facts as none involved a situation where the property was not originally owned or transferred by the senior citizen but was purchased in the name of the respondent [Paras 18, 19, 20, 21].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – No interference warranted under Article 227 of the Constitution of India – Impugned order of the Appellate Authority confirmed – Rule discharged – Petitioner directed to approach the Civil Court for declaration of ownership rights, if so advised [Para 23].

Criminal Law – Private Complaint – Return of Complaint – Postal Address of Accused – Complaint alleging cyber defamation and online harassment returned by Magistrate for non-furnishing of accused’s postal address – Held: BNSS does not mandate furnishing of postal address as condition precedent for entertaining complaint – Complaint may be filed even against known or unknown persons – Returning complaint solely for want of postal address is ex facie erroneous and unsustainable [Paras 8–11, 15, 30].

BNSS – Definition of “Complaint” – Section 2(1)(h) – Statute expressly recognises complaint against “known or unknown” person – If accused can be unknown, furnishing postal address cannot be elevated to jurisdictional prerequisite at threshold stage [Paras 8–9].

Process to Compel Appearance – Sections 63 & 64 BNSS – Electronic Service – BNSS permits issuance and service of summons through electronic communication bearing digital signature/seal – Furnishing name or postal address not condition precedent for presentation or acceptance of complaint – Courts empowered to utilise electronic identifiers [Paras 12–13, 15].

Cognizance under Section 223 BNSS – Transformative Procedural Shift – Proviso mandates opportunity of hearing to accused before taking cognizance – However, this does not imply that complaint cannot be received in absence of postal address – Magistrate may examine complainant and adopt procedure under Sections 223 and 225 BNSS [Paras 16–18].

Postponement of Process – Section 225 BNSS – Magistrate may inquire or direct investigation for ascertaining identity of accused – In cyber offences, identity may be traced through lawful investigation and technical assistance – Practical difficulties in execution cannot justify rejection at filing stage [Paras 14, 29–30].

Intermediaries – Statutory Obligation to Preserve Data – IT Act and Rules – Sections 67C, 69, 69A, 69B IT Act and Intermediary Guidelines, 2021 cast duty on intermediaries to preserve subscriber data and disclose upon lawful direction – Courts not powerless to compel production of documents under Section 94 BNSS – Non-compliance punishable under Section 210 BNS [Paras 19–23, 28].

Cyber Offences – Anonymous Digital Identities – Access to Justice – In cyberspace offences such as cyberbullying, impersonation and online defamation, accused often operate under pseudonymous identities – Complainant may only possess electronic identifiers – Insisting on postal address at threshold would render victims remediless and subordinate substantive justice to procedural rigidity – Processual rules are handmaid of justice [Para 30].

Kerala Electronic Processes (Issuance, Service and Execution) Rules, 2025 – Enable service through disclosed electronic communication – Criminal Rules of Practice do not bar electronic process – Absence of specific rule cannot justify return of complaint [Paras 29–30].

Inherent Powers – Section 528 BNSS – Exercised to set aside Magistrate’s order returning complaint – Magistrate directed to accept complaint on file and issue process through disclosed electronic communication addresses – Registrar (District Judiciary) directed to examine need for amendments to Criminal Rules of Practice in context of cyber offences [Final Paras].

Decision: Criminal Miscellaneous Case allowed – Order dated 14.08.2025 returning complaint set aside – Magistrate directed to accept complaint on file and issue process to accused through disclosed electronic communication – Further steps to be taken in accordance with BNSS and applicable Rules – Registrar (District Judiciary) directed to place matter before competent authority to consider suitable amendments to Criminal Rules of Practice.

Criminal Law – Bail – Illegal Detention – Applicant allegedly detained by police from 14/15.09.2025 but formal arrest shown on 17.09.2025 – Sister of applicant filed application before CJM complaining of illegal custody – Police failed to produce CCTV footage of police station despite repeated judicial directions – Held: Detention of applicant prior to formal arrest amounted to illegal detention and violation of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution – State directed to pay compensation of ₹1 lakh to applicant with liberty to recover the amount from erring officers [Paras 31-32].

Contempt of Court – Disobedience of Orders of Subordinate Court – SHO and Investigating Officer failed to comply with repeated orders of CJM directing production of CCTV footage of police station – Officers admitted non-compliance and tendered unconditional apology – Held: Deliberate non-compliance of orders of the Chief Judicial Magistrate constitutes contempt of subordinate court – High Court exercising powers under Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act held both officers guilty of contempt and sentenced them to custody till rising of the Court [Paras 23-24].

Arrest and Personal Liberty – Constitutional Safeguards – Violation of D.K. Basu Guidelines – Court reiterated that arrest procedures must comply with constitutional protections under Articles 21 and 22 and statutory provisions incorporated in Cr.P.C./BNSS – Failure to inform family members and failure to maintain proper arrest records violate safeguards laid down in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal – Such violations amount to infringement of personal liberty [Paras 13-16, 31].

Police Accountability – CCTV Cameras in Police Stations – Compliance with Supreme Court Directions – Court emphasized mandatory installation and preservation of CCTV footage in police stations as directed in Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh – Practice of maintaining footage only for 2-2½ months contrary to Supreme Court mandate requiring longer storage – SHO responsible for maintenance and production of footage – Non-maintenance undermines protection against custodial abuse and illegal detention [Paras 18-20].

Judicial Authority – Status of Judicial Officers – High Court observed that judicial officers while discharging judicial functions exercise sovereign functions and their orders must be respected by administrative and executive authorities – Disobedience of orders of a Judicial Magistrate undermines rule of law and authority of courts and is punishable as contempt [Paras 21-22].

Judicial Oversight – Monitoring of CCTV Compliance – High Court directed that Chief Judicial Magistrates or jurisdictional Magistrates may randomly inspect police stations after court hours to verify functioning of CCTV cameras in compliance with the directions of the Supreme Court in Paramvir Singh Saini – Such inspection shall be treated as part of official duty and police officials must cooperate [Para 27].

Bail – Grant of Bail in Financial Fraud Case – Considering illegal detention of applicant, nature of allegations, overcrowding of jails and undertaking of applicant to deposit ₹15 lakh with the finance company – Held: Applicant entitled to bail subject to conditions including cooperation in trial and payment of amount as undertaken [Paras 33-35].

Decision: Bail allowed – Applicant directed to be released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties – State directed to pay compensation of ₹1 lakh for illegal detention – SHO and Investigating Officer held guilty of contempt and sentenced to custody till rising of the Court – Directions issued to DGP, U.P. regarding compliance with CCTV guidelines and accountability of police officers.

Criminal Law – Rape and Murder of Minor Girls – Conviction Based on Circumstantial Evidence – Appellant convicted under Sections 302, 376, 363 IPC and Sections 4 and 6 POCSO Act – Prosecution case based primarily on testimonies of three child witnesses and alleged confessional statement leading to recovery – High Court found material contradictions in testimonies of PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 – Failure to establish complete chain of circumstances – Confessional statement recorded in violation of settled law – Held: Prosecution failed to prove case beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellant acquitted [Paras 27-29, 38-43].

Child Witness – Competency and Reliability – Trial court recorded only general satisfaction regarding competence without recording preliminary questions – Statements of PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 inconsistent and mutually contradictory regarding manner of occurrence – Witnesses failed to disclose name of appellant at earliest opportunity despite being co-villager – Statements not recorded under Section 164 CrPC – Evidence found to be tutored and unreliable – Benefit of doubt extended [Paras 27-29].

Circumstantial Evidence – Requirement of Complete Chain – Case resting entirely on circumstantial evidence – Inquest reports not brought on record – Contradictions regarding time of recovery of dead body and delay in FIR – Alleged sketch of accused neither produced nor proved – Suppression of initial Sanha entry – Chain of circumstances incomplete and incapable of sustaining conviction – Principles in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda applied [Paras 35-39, 41].

Confessional Statement to Police – Admissibility – Alleged confession recorded at police station without presence of Magistrate – Entire statement recorded instead of limited disclosure – Recovery allegedly made pursuant to confession not duly proved – Recording contrary to law laid down in Venkatesh @ Chandra – Confession hit by Evidence Act – Cannot form basis of conviction [Paras 35, 37, 40].

Investigation – Lapses – Non-production of inquest report – Non-examination of sketch artist – Failure to medically examine accused after arrest – Unexplained custody for eight days – Serious infirmities in investigation undermining prosecution case – Presumption of innocence remains intact [Paras 35-38, 42].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned judgment of conviction dated 27.01.2023 and order of sentence dated 03.02.2023 set aside – Appellant acquitted of all charges – Appellant to be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case.

Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Suit for Mandatory and Permanent Injunction – Eviction of Son and Daughter-in-law from Self-acquired Property of Mother – Concurrent Findings of Courts Below – Dismissal of Second Appeal

Hindu Law – Self-acquired property of female Hindu – Section 14, Hindu Succession Act – Property purchased under registered sale deed in name of mother and recorded exclusively in her name – Plea that property was purchased from joint family income rejected – Held: When property stands in name of female Hindu, she becomes full owner by virtue of Section 14 – Claim of joint family right by sons untenable in absence of proof – Suit property held exclusive property of Plaintiff [Paras 16, 17].

Benami/Jt. Family Plea – Burden of proof – Defendants alleged purchase out of joint family fund and contribution by sons – No documentary evidence adduced – Mere assertion insufficient to dislodge registered title deed and R.O.R. entries – Concurrent findings upheld [Paras 8, 16, 17].

Shared Household – Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – Whether daughter-in-law can claim right of residence in self-acquired property of mother-in-law – Held: Where property exclusively belongs to mother-in-law and is not joint family property, it cannot be treated as “shared household” against her wishes – Provisions of D.V. Act do not create proprietary rights in self-acquired property of senior citizen – Defendants not entitled to resist eviction on that ground [Paras 13(iii), 17, 19].

Senior Citizens – Eviction of son and daughter-in-law – Right of aged parents to peaceful possession of self-acquired property – Plaintiff aged more than 75 years alleged mental and physical torture – Held: Son, whether married or unmarried, has no legal right to reside in self-acquired property of parents against their wishes – Courts must adopt purposive approach in favour of senior citizens – Decree for eviction and permanent injunction justified [Paras 18, 19].

Mandatory and Permanent Injunction – Eviction from residential house – Plaintiff proved exclusive ownership and unlawful interference – Defendants failed to establish any legal right to remain – Decree directing Defendants to vacate within one month and restraining re-entry upheld [Paras 9, 19].

Decision: Second Appeal dismissed on contest without cost – Judgments and decrees passed in C.S. No.20 of 2019 and R.F.A. No.16 of 2023 confirmed – Eviction decree and permanent injunction in favour of Plaintiff upheld [Paras 19, 20].

Electronic Evidence – Right to Cloned Copy – Hash Value – Fair Trial – Accused in a Prevention of Corruption Act case sought supply of a cloned copy of the original digital voice recording with hash value and production of the original recording device, alleging that only a CD without hash value was furnished, which was not an authenticated copy – Trial Court rejected the applications – Held: Electronic records constitute "documents" within Section 3 of the Evidence Act – Contents of memory card/digital recording device must be furnished to the accused in the form of a cloned copy – Supply of an uncertified CD not prepared through hash-value authentication does not fulfill the statutory mandate under Section 207 CrPC – Denial of cloned copy with hash value impinges upon the accused's right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India – Impugned order quashed to the extent of refusing supply of clone copy – Trial Court directed to provide cloned copy of the original digital recording with hash value to the petitioner.

Section 207 CrPC – Disclosure of Electronic Records – Section 207 CrPC places an obligation on the prosecution to furnish all documents forming part of the investigation record to enable the accused to effectively defend the case – Section 207 does not empower the Court to withhold any document submitted with the police report except where voluminous – For electronic records, the ground of being voluminous ordinarily cannot be invoked – Accused is entitled as of right to a cloned copy of the electronic evidence relied upon by the prosecution [Para throughout].

Electronic Evidence – Forensic Attributes – Authenticity and Integrity – Electronic records possess inherent forensic attributes essential for examining integrity and authenticity – Cloned copy with hash value is necessary to authenticate the chain of electronic record – Without such safeguards it cannot be concluded that electronic material has been preserved and produced in authenticated manner – Denial of cloned copies causes prejudice to accused's right to effective defence [Para throughout].

Decision: Criminal Misc. Petition partly allowed – Impugned order dated 01.09.2025 passed by the Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act Court), Chittorgarh in Criminal Case No. 02/2025 quashed and set aside to the extent of refusing supply of clone copy of the recording – Trial Court directed to provide cloned copy of the original digital recording with hash value to the petitioner – Questions regarding production of original DVR, other documents and manipulation in the CD tendered to be decided at the appropriate stage during trial.