Contempt of Court – Civil Contempt – Interim Stay Order – Wilful Disobedience – Despite being served with the High Court’s stay order dated 07.10.2025 restraining action on the cancellation of the No Objection Certificate (NOC), the respondent-contemnor initiated fresh proceedings under Section 34 of the Disaster Management Act and issued an order dated 24.10.2025 for closure of the petrol pump – Held: This amounted to wilful disobedience and circumvention of the Court’s order – Civil contempt established under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Subsequent order quashed [Paras 15, 16, 18, 20, 23, 25, 28, 32, 36, 39, 40, 41, 43, 44, 46, 47, 48].

Disaster Management Act – Section 34 – Jurisdictional Overreach – Action taken under Disaster Management Act was based on the same reports already forming basis of earlier NOC cancellation order, which had been stayed – Held: The respondent-contemnor acted in excess of statutory powers and bypassed the judicial stay order – Such conduct amounts to colourable exercise of power and is legally unsustainable [Paras 20, 28, 33, 36].

Power of High Court – Article 215 – Setting Aside Executive Action Resulting from Contempt – In exercise of contempt jurisdiction, the High Court can nullify an executive order passed in wilful disobedience of its directions – Court not restricted to punishing contempt alone but can undo the resulting harm to uphold rule of law [Paras 41-47].

Precedent – A Party Cannot Benefit From Breach of Court Order – Reiterated that contemnors should not be permitted to enjoy the fruits of contempt – Order passed in breach of a court’s directive cannot be sustained – Relief under contempt jurisdiction includes restoration of status quo ante [Paras 43-45].

Decision: Contempt petition allowed – Respondent found guilty of wilful disobedience of interim order dated 07.10.2025 – Order dated 24.10.2025 passed under Section 34 of Disaster Management Act quashed – Respondent directed to pay Rs. 2,000/- as costs to the petitioner within 15 days.

Criminal Law – Murder – Circumstantial Evidence – Last Seen – Extra-Judicial Confession – Strangulation – Delay/Withholding of Disclosure by Family Witnesses – Motive Absent – Sudden Provocation – Conviction of Ram Avtar Altered to Section 304 Part-II; Co-accused Visharad Acquitted – Last Seen Alone Insufficient [Paras 29–34, 45–51].

Circumstantial Evidence – Last Seen Together – Proof and Reliability – Evidence of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, PW-9 consistently established that appellants were last seen consuming liquor with deceased on the night before death – proximity of time (death discovered next morning) and absence of explanation by accused sustain last-seen theory – immaterial who first discovered body; distinction between ‘last seen’ and ‘first seen’ emphasized [Paras 29–30, 35–38].

Extra-Judicial Confession – Subsequent Disclosure by Son of Deceased – Acceptability – PW-9’s testimony explaining delay due to emotional turmoil (brother-in-law being culprit, father deceased) found natural and credible – confession made on morning after incident; later revealed in supplementary statement after postmortem clarified cause of death – remained unimpeached in cross-examination – held satisfactorily proved [Paras 31–34, 39–40].

Family Members as Witnesses – Alleged Interestedness – Credibility Upheld – PW-2, PW-3, PW-9 (sons of deceased) not discredited; their youth, emotional conflict and familial ties explained initial silence; no motive to falsely implicate appellants, especially son-in-law of deceased [Paras 22–23, 31–33].

Investigation – Allegations of IO Connivance – Rejected – Non-detaining of sons, absence of fingerprints on neck, and failure to trace informant ‘Sita’ do not vitiate prosecution – IO’s explanation on multiple women named Sita accepted – fingerprints on neck medically improbable – investigation found fair [Paras 37, 41–43].

Medical Evidence – Cause of Death – Strangulation Established – Post-mortem report and PW-4 conclusively show death due to asphyxia by manual strangulation – argument that open/closed eyes contradict strangulation rejected; common cultural practice explained [Paras 19, 23, 44].

Motive Absent – Consumption of Liquor Together – Possibility of Sudden Provocation – No motive proved; parties were drinking together regularly; death by manual strangulation without weapon – held consistent with sudden fight under intoxication rather than premeditated intent to kill [Paras 46–47].

Alteration of Conviction – Section 302 to Section 304 Part-II – Ram Avtar – Considering absence of motive, sudden provocation, manner of assault and long passage of time (24 years), conviction converted to Section 304 Part-II IPC – reliance placed on Dattatraya v. State of Maharashtra, (2024) 14 SCC 286 – sentence reduced to period undergone (~5 years) [Paras 46–48].

Acquittal – Co-Accused Visharad – Last Seen Alone Insufficient – No confession or incriminating circumstance against co-accused; PW-9’s confession only implicates Ram Avtar – last-seen alone insufficient for conviction under Sections 302/34 or 304 Part-II – conviction set aside and acquittal granted [Paras 49–51].

Decision: Appeals partly allowed – Ram Avtar’s conviction altered to Section 304 Part-II IPC with sentence reduced to period already undergone – Visharad acquitted – Bail bonds discharged [Paras 48, 51–52].

Tenancy Law – Protected Tenancy – Ownership Rights under Bombay Tenancy Act – Appellant Krishnabai was recorded as protected tenant in 1957 and issued a sale certificate under Section 32M in 1961 after paying full consideration – Respondent Savitribai filed partition suit in 2002 claiming joint family rights in the same property – Held: Sale certificate and mutation entries perfected Krishnabai’s title under statutory scheme – No evidence that property was joint family or that Krishnabai acted in representative capacity – Civil suit barred [Paras 5.2, 6.1–6.6, 10–12, 14–16, 22–24, 26, 27].

Limitation – Partition Suit – Respondent’s claim based on inheritance from parents who died in 1949 and 1978 – Suit filed in 2002 – No evidence of joint cultivation or exclusion from possession within limitation period – Held: Suit is barred by limitation – No continuous or joint possession proven [Paras 6.5, 7.6, 17, 19, 21, 23].

Civil Procedure – Jurisdiction of Civil Court – Proceedings under Sections 32G and 32M of the Bombay Tenancy Act concluded in 1961 – No challenge made for over 40 years – Civil suit challenging title not maintainable in view of statutory finality and bar under Sections 85 and 85-A – Held: Civil courts cannot reopen title perfected under tenancy law without proof of fraud or misrepresentation [Paras 6.4, 6.6, 7.3, 12–14, 25].

Representative Title – No Enquiry or Consent – No evidence that tenancy rights acquired by Krishnabai were held for benefit of family – Contrast drawn with decision in Ramakant Ganesh Naik – Held: Absent admission or evidence from landlord or tenant that land was under joint cultivation, property cannot be presumed to be joint family asset [Paras 12–14, 22, 24].

Decision: Second Appeal allowed – Judgments of trial and first appellate court set aside – Civil Suit No. 50 of 2002 dismissed – Title of Krishnabai as sole owner upheld based on statutory proceedings and sale certificate.

Service Law – Recovery from Salary – Theft of Stock – Absence of Notice & Enquiry – No Responsibility Fixed – Executive Engineer’s Recommendations Ignored – Principles of Natural Justice – Held: Petitioner cannot be held liable for thefts; unilateral recovery illegal; order quashed; Corporation directed to refund recovered amount with interest [Paras 15–18].

Service Law – Recovery from Employee – Theft of Departmental Materials – Absence of Fixation of Responsibility – Procedural Fairness Mandatory – Petitioner, Junior Engineer in-charge of Central Store, had repeatedly reported thefts, lodged FIRs and pursued investigation – Executive Engineer consistently recommended dropping the outstanding amount and treating stolen items as loss to Corporation – Held, responsibility cannot be fixed merely because thefts occurred during petitioner’s tenure [Paras 9–11, 15].

Natural Justice – Recovery Order Without Notice or Enquiry – Illegality – Opposite Party No.2 issued common order of recovery dated 26.09.2018 without issuing show-cause notice, conducting enquiry, or providing opportunity of hearing – such decision imposes civil consequences and hence is violative of fair play and natural justice [Paras 5, 7.2, 14, 16].

Administrative Law – Internal Recommendations – Selective Acceptance by Authority – Arbitrary Exercise of Power – Corporation rejected earlier recommendations of Executive Engineer treating loss as non-recoverable but relied selectively on subsequent communication dated 18.09.2018 without reasons or notice to petitioner – Court held such selective adoption arbitrary and unsustainable [Paras 12–13].

Employee Not Responsible for Theft – Evidence on Record – Letters dated 03.10.2007, 21.10.2017 and 30.01.2018 demonstrate: (i) severe staff shortage due to VRS, (ii) store guarded by Home Guard, (iii) thefts despite reasonable precautions, (iv) FIRs lodged promptly – held, petitioner fulfilled all duties; Corporation failed to justify liability [Paras 9–11].

Public Money Argument – Cannot Override Due Process – Corporation’s plea that loss being public money justified recovery rejected; recovery must follow established procedure, enquiry, and opportunity to be heard [Paras 6, 16].

Refund of Amount Unlawfully Recovered – Interest Awarded – As entire amount of Rs.1,24,774.20 had been deducted during pendency of writ petition, Court directed refund with 7% simple interest from date of last deduction; failure to refund within four weeks will attract 12% penal interest [Para 18].

Decision:Writ petition allowed – Order dated 26.09.2018 quashed vis-à-vis petitioner – Corporation directed to refund recovered amount with interest – No costs [Paras 17–19].

Electricity – Crop Damage – Strict Liability – Respondent’s wheat crop destroyed by fire due to electrical short-circuit from a Three Phase LT Line passing over his field – Writ Court directed compensation of ₹50,400 with 6% interest – Defence of natural calamity (wind storm) raised by State rejected – No proof of windstorm placed on record – High Court upheld finding that Electricity Department failed in its duty to maintain the electric line safely – Held: Transmission of high-voltage electricity is inherently hazardous – Even without negligence, supplier is strictly liable under law of torts for damage caused by uncontrolled discharge of electric energy – Referenced Supreme Court’s judgment in M.P. Electricity Board v. Shail Kumar and J&K High Court’s ruling in Gittan Ram v. State – Appeal dismissed [Paras 7–16].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Writ Court’s award of ₹50,400 compensation with interest upheld – Doctrine of strict liability applied – State liable irrespective of proven negligence.

False Promise to Marry – Quashing – Long-term Consensual Relationship – No Evidence of Deceitful Intention at Inception – Section 69 BNS Not Attracted – Criminal Intimidation Under Section 351(2) BNS Not Made Out – Criminal Law Not a Tool for Private Relationship Fallouts – Proceedings Quashed [Paras 8–17].

False Promise to Marry – Section 69 BNS – Ingredients – Intention at Inception Essential – Court held that for an offence under Section 69 BNS, prosecution must establish that sexual intercourse was induced by deceit or a promise to marry made without intention to fulfil the same – Mere breach of promise without mala fide intent at inception is not an offence – Reliance placed on Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana (2013) 7 SCC 675 [Paras 6–8, 12].

Prolonged Consensual Relationship – Criminal Liability Diluted – Relationship between parties spanned from 2020 to 2025; such long-term intimacy negates inference of deception – Cited Mahesh Damu Khare v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 INSC 897, holding that prolonged physical relationship renders plea of misconception of fact implausible [Paras 9, 12].

Consensual Relationship Turning Sour – Not Criminal Conduct – Court reiterated that every failed or soured relationship cannot be given criminal colour – Cited Amol Bhagwan Nehul v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 INSC 782, emphasising that misuse of criminal machinery must be curbed [Para 10].

Abuse of Criminal Process – Complaints After Relationship Breakdown – Court relied on Biswajyoti Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal, 2025 INSC 458, reiterating that retrospective branding of consensual relationships as deceitful constitutes abuse of process [Para 11].

Criminal Intimidation – Section 351(2) BNS – Not Attracted When Relationship Was Consensual – Allegation of threats rejected as parties were in a voluntary intimate relationship for several years – Cited Prashant v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2024 INSC 879 – No ingredients of criminal intimidation established [Para 13].

Court’s Observations on Contemporary Personal Relationships – Court observed that premarital intimacy between consenting adults is common; emotional discord cannot be converted into criminal litigation; criminal law is not a tool for moral policing or resolving personal fallouts [Paras 14–16].

Decision – Continuation of Proceedings Would Be Abuse of Process – No material to show deceitful intent at inception; allegations indicate only a breakdown of consensual relationship – Proceedings in PRC No.75/2025 quashed [Para 17].

Rape & Murder of Minor – Circumstantial Evidence – Last Seen – Medical Evidence – Injuries on Accused – FIR Contradictions – Child Witness – Section 106 Evidence Act – Section 29 POCSO – Conviction Upheld – Held: Last-seen circumstance, injuries on accused, medical findings, and recovery of body formed an unbroken chain; discrepancies in FIR immaterial; statutory presumption under POCSO unrebutted – Appeals dismissed – [Paras 10–19, 21–40, 115–118].

Last Seen – Circumstantial Evidence – Section 106 Evidence Act - Victim (10 years old) last seen with appellants who took her on cycle towards corn field – PW-3, PW-4, PW-5 consistent on appellants taking the child – Very short time gap between last seen and recovery of body – Held: Accused bound to explain how and when they parted company; no explanation offered – Non-explanation forms additional incriminating link – Section 106 applicable – [Paras 10–14].

POCSO Act – Presumption under Section 29 - Foundational facts (last seen, medical injuries, recovery of nude body) proved – Statutory presumption of guilt under Section 29 triggered – Accused failed to rebut presumption – Held: Conviction sustainable independently based on Section 29 – [Para 11].

Medical Evidence – Injuries on Accused – Corroboration - PW-7 found injuries on genitalia of both appellants suggesting recent sexual contact – PW-8 found severe perineal tears, anal dilatation, protrusion of rectum, and hemorrhage on child – Held: Injuries on accused, unexplained by them, match injuries found on victim – Strong corroborative circumstance – Chain strengthened – [Paras 13, 15].

Confession Before Villagers – Extra-Judicial Confession – Evidentiary Value - Appellant Bhushan confessed before villagers (PW-1, PW-3, PW-5) that he and others raped and killed the child – Though ordinarily weak evidence, here it aligned with medical findings and last seen – Held: Extra-judicial confession admissible and corroborated – [Paras 21–24].

Contradictions Between FIR and Testimony – Effect - Variance between FIR narrative and depositions of informant not put to witness for contradiction – FIR not substantive evidence – Medical and ocular evidence consistent with prosecution – Held: Discrepancies in FIR neither material nor fatal – Reliance placed on Munna Pandey and Chatra – [Paras 15–17].

Child Witness – Reliability – Tutoring Allegation - Child witness PW-4 admitted to being “taught” – Court applied test from State of MP v. Ramesh – Tutored portions separable from untutored core – Untutored version consistent with PW-3 and PW-5 – Held: Credible, natural, and usable; partial tutoring not ground for wholesale rejection – [Para 18].

Delay in FIR – Whether Fatal - Delay explained: villagers searching, body brought home, police arrived at night, FIR recorded next morning – Held: Delay justified and natural for rural setting and emotionally charged situation – No prejudice to accused – [Paras 7–9].

Place of Occurrence – Proof Despite Inconsistencies - Minor inconsistencies regarding exact spot (mobile tower vs. corn field) not material – Core fact: body recovered from corn field of Dhaneshwar Singh – Supported by multiple witnesses and medical evidence – Inquest witnesses not examined but not fatal – [Paras 7, 20].

Chain of Circumstances – Fully Established - Last seen with accused – Immediate disappearance of child – Recovery of nude body with horrific injuries – Genital injuries on accused – Extra-judicial confession – Conduct of accused absconding – Held: Chain complete and incapable of any inference except guilt – [Paras 10–19, 115–118].

Decision: Conviction and Sentence Upheld - Conviction under Sections 376(A), 376(D)/34 IPC, merged 302 charge, and Section 4 POCSO affirmed – Sentence of imprisonment for remainder of natural life upheld – Appeals dismissed – [Paras 115–118].

Sales Tax – Set-off – Interpretation of Rule 41D(3)(a) of Bombay Sales Tax Rules – Apportionment on Furnace Oil – Assessee claimed full set-off on purchase of furnace oil used in manufacture of goods, some of which were transferred to branches outside State – Tribunal applied pro-rata reduction of 6% under Rule 41D(3)(a) for such branch transfers – Revenue supported apportionment while assessee contended furnace oil should be equated with plant/machinery and exempt from apportionment – Held: Furnace oil is a consumable and not part of plant/machinery – Tribunal’s interpretation upheld – Set-off must be reduced by 6% of purchase price for branch transfers under Rule 41D(3)(a) [Paras 21, 22, 24, 27, 39, 40, 45].

Tax Law – Interpretation – Fiscal Statutes – Strict Construction – Assessee contended that strict construction must exclude furnace oil from reduction provision in Rule 41D(3)(a) – Court held that contextual interpretation of statute allows inclusion of furnace oil under the term “goods which are dispatched” as used in the Rule – Term must be read in conjunction with Sub-Rule 2(iii) – Full set-off not allowable [Paras 41, 51, 52].

Precedent – Larger Bench Decision of Tribunal – Tribunal’s Larger Bench ruling in M/s. Pudumjee Pulp affirmed – Held to have correctly classified furnace oil as consumable with nexus to goods dispatched – View settled by consistent Tribunal decisions – No grounds for High Court to interfere in reference jurisdiction absent perversity [Paras 35, 39, 50].

Assessment – Factual Finding – Apportionment of Set-off – Assessment officer had already done pro-rata apportionment between local sales and branch transfers – Assessee failed to demonstrate impossibility of such apportionment – High Court refused to reopen factual findings in reference jurisdiction [Paras 43–45].

Decision: Reference answered in favour of Revenue – Set-off under Rule 41D must be reduced by 6% for furnace oil used in goods transferred to branches outside the State.

Service Law – BSF – Disciplinary Proceedings – Extra-marital Conduct – Officer engaged in intimate relationship with a female constable while being married – Compromising photographs leaked and circulated on social media – SCOI and ROE conducted – Disciplinary authority found conduct to be unbecoming of an officer in a disciplined force – Held: Relationship, though consensual, constituted grave misconduct warranting action under Rule 20(2) and 20(4)(c) of BSF Rules – Compulsory retirement upheld [Paras 2–6, 18–19, 38–39].

Judicial Review – Scope under Article 226 – Disciplinary Action – High Court reiterates that Court cannot substitute its views unless the decision is illegal, arbitrary, or perverse – Decision to treat holding of GSFC as "inexpedient" is valid if based on material facts and nature of misconduct – Held: No violation of principles of natural justice as officer was heard at multiple stages – No interference warranted under Article 226 [Paras 21–22, 30–31, 34–40].

Interpretation – Rule 20(2) of BSF Rules – Meaning of "Inexpedient" – Court held term "inexpedient" has wider ambit than "not reasonably practicable" – Covers situations where holding GSFC may not be suitable or appropriate to achieve disciplinary objectives – Rule 20(2) intended to give discretion to competent authority in fit cases without mandatory GSFC – Held: Invocation of Rule 20(2) justified in facts of case [Paras 30–37].

Constitutional Law – Distinction from Article 311(2)(c) – Rule 20(2) BSF Rules operates independently and does not require satisfaction on grounds of “security of the State” unlike Article 311(2)(c) – Full Bench decision in Laishram Sushil Singh not applicable to BSF Rule 20(2) – Held: Provisions not pari materia and operate under different legal tests [Paras 28–29].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Court upheld the disciplinary authority’s decision to compulsorily retire the petitioner under Rule 20(4)(c) of the BSF Rules – Held: Decision to invoke Rule 20(2) based on seriousness of misconduct and nature of evidence was lawful – No ground for judicial interference under Article 226 of Constitution of India [Para 41].