Property Law – Title – Ancestral Property – Declaration of Ownership – Burden of Proof – Plaintiff Failed to Prove Exclusive Title – Plaintiff claimed exclusive ownership over 'B' schedule property based on oral partition with his brother and subsequent possession – Defendant contended 1/3rd share through father Natarajan, son of third wife of original owner Sepoy Kali – Trial court decreed suit – First appellate court reversed – High Court held plaintiff failed to discharge burden of proving that Natarajan was not legitimate heir – No independent evidence was led to disprove defendant’s lineage – Existence of patta, death certificates (Ex.B2 & B3), and a prior partition decree in O.S. No.235/2013 in favour of defendant remain unchallenged – Held: Plaintiff’s claim to exclusive title untenable – Appeal dismissed [Paras 7-15].

Evidence Law – Burden of Proof – Relationship and Inheritance – Onus on Party Asserting Non-Existence of Heirship – Plaintiff challenged legitimacy of defendant’s father Natarajan as heir of Sepoy Kali – Held: Burden lies on plaintiff to disprove marriage of Sepoy Kali with Kullammal and legitimacy of Natarajan – Absence of birth or marriage certificates not fatal to defendant’s case when supported by revenue records and unchallenged partition decree – Findings of appellate court not perverse [Paras 8-14].

Civil Procedure – Possession – Injunction – Trespass Allegation Not Proved – Revenue Records Support Defendant – Plaintiff alleged trespass in July 2012 – Suit filed in 2013 – No concrete evidence of trespass or action to remove defendant’s name from revenue records – Defendant’s possession held lawful pending partition – Court refused mandatory injunction and possession relief [Paras 12-14].

Decision: Second Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree of First Appellate Court in A.S. No.1 of 2018 upheld – Plaintiff not entitled to declaration or possession – No costs awarded.

Criminal Law – Rape under Section 376 IPC – POCSO – Leave to Appeal Against Acquittal – Refusal – Child Witness – Material Contradictions – Tutoring Not Ruled Out – Matrimonial Discord Between Parents – Possibility of False Implication – Trial Court’s View Reasonable – Double Presumption of Innocence – No Interference Warranted [Paras 4–7, 10–14, 18–19].

Child Witness – Evidentiary Caution – Multiple Statements (Exs. P-1 to P-3) Contradictory as to Location, Manner of Occurrence, Presence of Family Members – Statements Recorded in Presence of Mother After She Took Custody Amid Matrimonial Litigation – Held, possibility of tutoring established; reliance cannot be placed without corroboration [Paras 4–6, 8–9, 14–17].

Medical Evidence – Torn Hymen – Inconclusive – No Lacerations, No Redness, No Irritation – Cause Could Be Non-Sexual Activities Including Cycling, Trauma – History Provided Mainly by Mother – Held, medical evidence not supportive of prosecution version as alleged [Para 7].

Matrimonial Dispute – Motive for False Implication – Mother living separately for 5 years, multiple cases between spouses, child abandoned—accused was husband’s brother – FIR lodged only after mother forcibly took child – Held, circumstances create serious doubt about prosecution case [Paras 4, 6, 8–13].

Appellate Interference with Acquittal – Principles – Only if Trial Court view is perverse or impossible – Here, appreciation of evidence was proper; discrepancies material; possible view taken – Double presumption of innocence applies – Leave declined [Paras 18–19].

Decision: Application for leave to appeal dismissed – Acquittal affirmed [Para 19].

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Abuse of Process – Petitioners and complainant were co-owners in civil dispute over shared property – Allegations of criminal trespass and outraging modesty found unsubstantiated – No material on record to indicate intention to outrage modesty or exclusive possession by complainant – Held: FIR filed to give civil dispute a criminal colour – Quashing warranted to prevent abuse of judicial process [Paras 24–29]

Indian Penal Code – Section 354 IPC – Outraging Modesty of Woman – Allegation that headgear of complainant (sister-in-law of accused) fell during dragging incident – No evidence to show intent to outrage modesty – Close familial relationship and absence of indecent intent negate applicability of Section 354 IPC – Mere use of force not sufficient without accompanying intent [Paras 20–22]

Indian Penal Code – Section 448 IPC – Criminal Trespass – Alleged unlawful entry into property – Disputed ownership and pending civil suit with status quo order – Petitioners found to be co-owners – Held: Entry into disputed property by co-owner cannot constitute criminal trespass – No exclusive possession proved by complainant – Offence under Section 448 IPC not made out [Paras 23–25]

Criminal Law – Civil Dispute Given Criminal Colour – FIR lodged in context of long-standing civil property dispute – No clear evidence of criminal intent – Citing Md. Ibrahim v. State of Bihar, Supreme Court reiterates misuse of criminal law to pressurize parties – Held: Continuation of proceedings amounts to harassment and misuse of court process [Paras 26–27]

Decision: FIR No. 84/2021 and proceedings arising therefrom quashed – Petition allowed – Case diary directed to be returned to respondent's counsel [Paras 28–30]

Criminal Procedure – PMLA – Stay of Proceedings – Predicate Offence Under Challenge – Trial May Proceed – Petitioner sought deferment of PMLA trial on ground that proceedings in predicate offence (NDPS FIR No.35/2015) remain stayed by Supreme Court – Petitioner had been initially summoned under Section 319 CrPC, which was set aside by Supreme Court – Later nominated as accused on further investigation – Petitioner challenged arrest and chargesheet; SLP pending – Enforcement Directorate opposed deferment, citing settled conviction of co-accused (Gurdev Singh) in predicate offence – Held: Since scheduled offence stands established through conviction of other accused, trial under PMLA not dependent on pending challenge to petitioner’s role in predicate offence – [Paras 6, 7, 8, 9, 11]

PMLA – Independent Offence – Not Contingent on Outcome of Scheduled Offence – Referring to Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, (2023) 12 SCC 1 and Pavana Dibbur v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1586, Court held that offence under Section 3 PMLA is independent – Person accused under PMLA need not be named in predicate offence – What is essential is existence of proceeds of crime and a predicate offence – Acquittal/discharge in predicate offence of all accused may impact PMLA case, but pendency of trial against petitioner does not bar independent prosecution under PMLA – [Paras 8–9]

Criminal Law – PMLA – Trial Not Dependent on Pending Challenge to Predicate Offence – Allegations against petitioner are that he assisted co-accused (already convicted) in laundering proceeds of crime from drug trafficking – Complaint under PMLA preceded supplementary chargesheet in predicate offence – Held: Trial for money laundering can proceed regardless of pendency of SLP or stay of proceedings in predicate offence – [Paras 6–10]

Distinction from Other Cases – Application of Bharti Cement Case Not Applicable – Telangana High Court judgment in M/s Bharti Cement Corporation Pvt. Ltd. v. Directorate of Enforcement distinguished – There, same person was accused in both predicate and PMLA offences – Here, petitioner is accused of laundering proceeds after scheduled offence was committed by co-accused already convicted – Therefore, trial in PMLA case not dependent on fresh adjudication in predicate offence – [Para 10]

Decision: Petition dismissed – No stay granted – Trial in money laundering case (PMLA) may proceed independently of the trial in the scheduled offence.

Constitutional Law – Regulation of Social Media – Challenge to Blocking Orders under IT Act, 2000 – Validity of 2021 IT Rules and Sahyog Portal – Petitioner, a global social media platform, challenged the constitutional validity of blocking orders issued by the Government of India under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and the IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 – Petitioner argued that the blocking orders violate principles of natural justice, free speech, and are ultra vires the parent Act – Court held that the right under Article 19(1)(a) is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) – Petitioner, being a foreign company, cannot invoke Article 19 – Regulation of social media is essential to prevent misuse and crimes, particularly against women and children – Sahyog Portal held to be a valid instrument under Rule 3(1)(d) of 2021 Rules and Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act, aiding the execution of lawful orders – Petition dismissed as devoid of merit [Paras 7.1, 10, 11, 13, 14.4, 17.1, 18.1, 24.2, 25].

Freedom of Speech – Article 19(1)(a) – Scope and Applicability – Foreign Social Media Platforms Not Entitled to Claim Rights under Article 19 – Court reiterated that Article 19 guarantees rights only to citizens of India – Foreign entities operating in India cannot claim fundamental rights under Article 19 – Petitioner’s attempt to invoke Article 19 against take-down orders held untenable – Freedom of speech is not unfettered and must yield to reasonable restrictions imposed in public interest [Paras 14.4, 19, 22.4, 24.2, Summary Point (6)].

Information Technology Act, 2000 – Blocking Orders – Compliance Obligations on Intermediaries – Constitutional Validity of Rule 3(1)(d) and Section 79(3)(b) – Sahyog Portal facilitates due process and enables intermediaries to comply with lawful orders – It is not ultra vires the parent Act – Court held that it serves the statutory purpose of assisting in regulation and monitoring of content on digital platforms – No merit found in the challenge to its validity [Paras 18.1, Summary Point (7)].

Algorithms – Human Agency – Regulation – Court Rejects Argument that Platform is Machine-Driven without Human Involvement – Petitioner argued that its platform is algorithm-driven without human control – Court rejected the argument, holding that algorithms are designed, coded, and managed by humans – Algorithms influence amplification of unlawful content – Therefore, regulatory responsibility cannot be evaded by citing automation [Paras 22.1–22.4].

Social Media Menace – Need for Regulation – Cyber Crimes Against Women and Children – Global Comparative Perspective – TAKE IT DOWN Act (USA) and Indian Regulatory Framework – Court observed that social media platforms facilitate spread of misinformation, hate speech, child sexual exploitation, deepfakes, cyberbullying, and gender-based abuse – Extensively cited global regulations including the TAKE IT DOWN Act in USA, and decisions from Brazil, EU, and Australia – Held that India is equally entitled to enforce regulations to protect public interest and ensure accountability of digital platforms – Regulatory action in India cannot be contested while similar or harsher laws are followed abroad [Paras 20, 23.1–23.10, 24.1–24.3, Summary Points (9), (11), (13)].

Violence Against Women – Technology-Facilitated Gender-Based Violence – Role of Intermediaries – Citing reports from the UN and other international bodies, Court acknowledged the rising incidents of online gender-based violence facilitated by social media – Highlighted threats to safety, privacy, dignity and psychological well-being of women due to deepfakes, sextortion, and online hate – Held that platforms must be accountable and responsive to regulatory directives to mitigate such harms [Paras 23.6–23.7, 23.9, Summary Point (11)].

Comparative Law – Global Regulatory Trends – Digital Services Act (EU), OSA (Australia), Marco Civil (Brazil) – Court referred to international legislative developments like the EU Digital Services Act (2024), Brazilian Supreme Court rulings, and Australia’s Online Safety Act – Noted that petitioner complies with take-down laws in other jurisdictions but challenges Indian laws – Held that such differential treatment is unacceptable – Law must be followed uniformly by intermediaries [Paras 24.1–24.2, Summary Points (9), (13)].

Platform Accountability – Transparency Reports – Petitioner’s Own Data Reveals Non-Compliance with Content Removal Obligations – Petitioner’s August 2025 transparency report showed 31 grievances on child sexual exploitation with zero action taken – Court relied on this to affirm Solicitor General’s submission regarding the petitioner’s habitual non-compliance – Held that this justified regulatory oversight and enforcement actions [Paras 23.10].

Free Speech vs. Regulation – Constitutional Balance – Platforms Cannot Claim Immunity from Regulation in the Name of Free Speech – Court emphasized the delicate balance between protecting free speech and preventing harm – Held that regulation of online content is essential for democratic discourse, public order, and protection of vulnerable groups – Social media cannot become a lawless zone under the guise of free expression [Paras 22.4, 23.9, 24.3, Epilogue].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – Court upheld the constitutionality of take-down orders, Sahyog Portal, and the IT Rules, 2021 – Found that social media platforms must comply with Indian law – Petitioner's non-compliance and selective adherence to foreign regulations found unjustified – Intervener applications also dismissed [Para 25].

Criminal Law – Sexual Assault – POCSO Conviction – Acquittal – Allegation that accused committed sexual assault on 13-year-old girl by hugging and kissing her in a field – Victim’s initial statement to aunt was that she fell down – Complaint made two days later alleging sexual assault – Delay in complaint explained as concern for family honour – Trial court convicted accused under Section 8 of POCSO Act and Section 354A(2) IPC – On appeal, High Court found victim's version had evolved over time with inconsistencies and lacked corroboration – Allegation of enmity arising out of local election dispute supported by defence evidence including medical record showing assault on accused's mother a day prior to the alleged incident – Held: Delay in filing FIR and contradictions in victim’s version made prosecution case doubtful – Conviction unsustainable [Paras 3–5, 13–20, 28–30].

Presumption under Section 29 POCSO Act – Rebuttal – Accused produced evidence of prior assault by victim's family due to local body election rivalry – Accused’s mother injured and admitted in hospital one day prior to alleged assault – Certified medical record (Ex.D2) and testimony of defence witnesses including elected panchayat member (DW2) corroborated the version – High Court held accused had successfully rebutted the statutory presumption under Section 29 – Trial court failed to properly consider defence evidence – Acquittal justified [Paras 21–27, 30].

Criminal Procedure – Appreciation of Evidence – Delay in lodging complaint – Alleged incident on 05.01.2020 but FIR filed on 07.01.2020 – Police station just 10 km away – Delay not properly explained in the context of election violence and counter-allegations – Court held such unexplained delay significant and fatal to the prosecution case in present facts – Tutoring and exaggeration in victim’s statement evident – Held: Trial court erred in convicting by applying presumption without evaluating credibility of evidence [Paras 15–18, 28–30].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Accused acquitted of all charges – Fine to be refunded – Victim compensation not disturbed [Para 31].

Civil Law – Fraudulent Decree – Family Settlement – Registration Requirement – Limitation – Concurrent findings upheld – Decree dated 01.04.1988 held fraudulent as Smt. Ram Bhuli never appeared, signed, or engaged counsel – No pre-existing right in appellant; decree compulsorily registerable – Unregistered consent decree conveys no title – Plaintiffs proved as natural heirs – Suit within limitation under Art. 65 – Fraud vitiates all proceedings – RSA dismissed [Paras 38–48].

Fraud – Proof and Effect – Decree obtained through deception – Evidence showed Smt. Ram Bhuli never appeared in Court, signed pleadings, verified written statement, or engaged counsel – Power of attorney and written statement bore no advocate’s endorsement or verification – Proceedings manipulated behind her back – Held: decree dated 01.04.1988 obtained by fraud; fraud vitiates even the most solemn proceedings – Applies Chengalvaraya Naidu principle [Paras 10, 39–41].

Consent Decree – Requirement of Registration – Where decree purports to transfer immovable property above ₹100 to a person having no pre-existing right, registration is mandatory under Section 17(1)(b) Registration Act – Appellant, a daughter-in-law of brother of Smt. Ram Bhuli, had no antecedent right – Decree operated as instrument of transfer – Being unregistered, conveyed no title – Bachan Singh and Dhian Singh distinguished as involving genuine family settlements between persons with pre-existing rights [Paras 16, 39–40, 42, 46].

Family Settlement – Non-existence – No pleadings or evidence of any family arrangement – Appellant had no pre-existing right; relationship too remote – Alleged settlement an afterthought – Cannot validate a fraudulent or unregistered decree [Paras 39–40].

Limitation – Date of Knowledge – Plaintiffs discovered decree only after death of Smt. Ram Bhuli in 1993 on approaching revenue authorities – Suit filed in 1995 within 12-year period under Article 65 – Void decree need not be cancelled under Article 59 – Follows Shanti Devi v. Jagan Devi, 2025 (SC) – Limitation correctly computed by courts below [Paras 12, 34, 43].

Estoppel – Mutation – No estoppel against statute or fraud – Mutation entries do not confer title – Fraudulent decree being void, all proceedings including mutation fall automatically – Estoppel plea rejected [Para 44].

Heirs – Locus Standi – Once decree found void and property remained vested in Smt. Ram Bhuli, her heirs were entitled to challenge fraudulent decree after her death – Cause of action arose upon gaining knowledge – Plaintiffs held rightful heirs based on oral and documentary evidence including mutation No. 2158 [Paras 9, 12, 45].

Concurrent Findings – Second Appeal – Findings of both courts based on proper appraisal of evidence; no perversity shown – RSA Court declines to interfere – Concurrent findings affirmed [Paras 38, 47–48].

Decision – Regular Second Appeal dismissed – Decree dated 01.04.1988 declared void, unlawful, unregistered; plaintiffs entitled to possession of 1/3rd share – Judgments of Trial Court & First Appellate Court upheld – Pending applications disposed [Paras 48–49].

Civil Writ - Constitutional Law – Right to Property – Article 300-A – Land Taken Without Compensation – TDR Certificates Directed – Petitioners executed gift deed for 405 sq. yards of land in 2014 for road widening—Respondents denied compensation or TDR on ground that land was voluntarily gifted as condition for building permission – Court held there was no record showing waiver of compensation or that gift deed was a pre-condition for permission – Held: Petitioners were entitled to TDR certificates as land was taken for public purpose without due compensation, violating Article 300-A of the Constitution [Paras 1–2, 14–20].

Municipal Law – Land Surrender for Public Purpose – Gift Deed Does Not Bar Compensation – Municipal Corporation relied on the gift deed and petitioners’ development benefits to deny compensation – Court ruled that gift deed cannot be used to override constitutional right to fair compensation for public acquisition – Building permission and constructed area allotted to petitioners were held irrelevant to the compensation claim [Paras 7–9, 15, 19].

Property Law – Voluntariness and Coercion in Development Agreements – Gift Deed Not Truly Voluntary When Conditioned on Official Permissions – Court noted that even if any affidavit or undertaking was taken from the petitioners to waive compensation, such documents would not amount to voluntary consent if extracted as a condition for development approval – Such undertakings were held unenforceable and contrary to constitutional protections [Para 17].

Reliance on Precedents – Compensation for Public Acquisition Must Be Fair and Just – Court relied on Bommadevara Venkata Subba Rao v. State of A.P. and Kolkata Municipal Corpn. v. Bimal Kumar Shah – Reaffirmed that even if right to property is no longer fundamental, it remains a constitutional right—State cannot forcibly acquire land without compensation [Paras 9–10].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Respondents directed to calculate eligibility and issue TDR Certificates to petitioners within 8 weeks – No order as to costs.

Criminal Law – Bail – Cancellation of Bail – Standards of Proof – Allegation of Witness Tampering Not Corroborated – Bail of Accused No.19 (a former investigating police officer) cancelled by trial court based on a complaint by CW-42 alleging inducement – High Court held that cancellation of bail requires proof on preponderance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt – Since CW-42’s testimony was already recorded and no supporting inquiry or corroboration was provided, allegation found insufficient to justify cancellation – Held: Mere apprehension or unverified complaint cannot form basis for revoking bail [Paras 10–13].

Criminal Law – Politically Sensitive Investigation – Abuse of Process – Transfer to CBI – Bail of Other Accused Cancelled – The murder of Yogesh Gouda, allegedly politically motivated, was initially investigated by local police – Later transferred to CBI due to allegations of cover-up involving senior police officers and political figures – Bail of co-accused including sitting MLA cancelled due to evidence of witness tampering – However, petitioner’s case found to be distinguishable due to absence of concrete proof of misconduct [Paras 1, 12].

Evidence – Burden on Prosecution in Bail Cancellation – Referencing State (Delhi Admn.) v. Sanjay Gandhi, (1978) 2 SCC 411, Court reiterated that in cancellation of bail, prosecution must establish tampering or interference with judicial process on balance of probabilities – Relying solely on a witness's letter without inquiry or corroboration does not meet the threshold [Paras 10–11].

Judicial Discretion – Bail Not to be Cancelled on Vague Allegations – Liberty of Accused Requires Careful Balancing – Court emphasized need for caution in interfering with liberty granted by bail – Observed that allowing cancellation based on unverified complaints would open floodgates for misuse – Imposed continued adherence to original bail conditions and liberty to prosecution to seek future cancellation on fresh violation [Paras 8, 13–14].

Decision: Criminal petition allowed – Order dated 15.09.2025 cancelling bail set aside – Bail of petitioner (Accused No.19) restored on earlier terms – Prosecution at liberty to seek cancellation afresh upon future violations.