Civil Law - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Reconstruction Of Record - Non-Availability Of Trial Court Record - Effect On Appeal - Held: The destruction of the Trial Court's record does not automatically warrant the dismissal of the appeal or affirmation of the Trial Court's decree. Where reconstruction is not fully possible due to non-cooperation of respondents, the Appellate Court can proceed based on available documents, pleadings, and the judgment under challenge. A party cannot take advantage of their own wrong in failing to cooperate with reconstruction.

Indian Contract Act, 1872 - Section 16 - Undue Influence - Fiduciary Relationship - Burden Of Proof - Held: A fiduciary relationship exists between an elder brother and a younger brother where the latter reposes confidence in the former. Where a transaction (Relinquishment Deed) appears unconscionable and is between parties in a fiduciary relationship, the burden of proof shifts to the beneficiary (dominant party) to prove the transaction was not induced by undue influence. Inducing a younger brother to execute a deed to "save family honor" against a sister's partition suit constitutes undue influence.

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 92 - Parol Evidence - Sham Documents - Held: The bar under Section 92 (excluding oral evidence to contradict written terms) does not apply when a party pleads that the document was a "sham" and was never intended to be acted upon. Oral evidence is admissible to prove that a transaction recorded in a document was a paper transaction meant to serve a collateral purpose (frustrating a third party's suit) and was not intended to be enforced between the signatories.

Muslim Law - Relinquishment Of Share - Spes Successionis - Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 - Section 6(A) - Held: A "Dastbardari" (Relinquishment Deed) cannot be valid if the beneficiary (transferee) denies the title/share of the transferor in the first place. One cannot relinquish a right that is not admitted to exist. Furthermore, under Section 6(a) of the Transfer of Property Act and Muslim Law, the transfer of spes successionis (chance of succession) is void ab initio. A renunciation of a chance of succession is not valid.

Estoppel - Validity Of Sham Document - Held: A document obtained through undue influence and proven to be a sham (executed solely to defeat a sister's claim in a separate suit) creates no estoppel against the executor. Such a document, which was never acted upon or produced in the relevant partition suit for decades, cannot be enforced.

Decision: Appeal allowed. Judgment and Decree dated 6-1-1973 set aside. The "Dastbardari" dated 23-2-1966 is declared null and void. Parties held entitled to shares as per the preliminary decree in the connected partition suit (2/5th share each to brothers).

Cybercrime – Bail Denied – Elderly Victims – Digital Arrest – Accused impersonated Cyber Police officials and placed 84-year-old couple under illegal 'digital arrest' – Extorted ₹2.02 crore between 30.04.2025 and 08.05.2025 – Petitioners received ₹45 lakh – Bail applications rejected due to gravity and corroborated financial trail – Court finds petitioners’ claims false and unsupported [Paras 1–8].

Cybercrime Investigation – Structural Weakness in Policing – Court criticises inadequate cyber investigation skills among police – Investigating Officers lack technical training and fail to track layered money trail and crypto transfers – Recommends specialized cybercrime units and IT-qualified Inspectors [Paras 9–17.1].

Judicial Directions – Institutional Reforms – Court orders creation of Rajasthan Cyber Crime Control Centre (R4C) akin to I4C – Directs recruitment of IT Inspectors with technical qualifications – Mandates establishment of accredited digital forensic labs and regular audits of digital transactions in government departments [Paras 26–30].

Public Policy – Regulation of Digital Infrastructure – Court issues 31-point action plan addressing cybercrime across banks, SIM issuance, BPOs, e-commerce platforms, gig economy workers, social media users and children’s phone usage – Emphasises mandatory registration, KYC, AI tools, verification, and accountability to combat digital fraud [Paras 27–38].

Digital Threat – National Challenge – Highlights exponential increase in cyber complaints (from 26,000 in 2019 to over 20 lakh in 2024) with poor FIR conversion – Recognises MHA and I4C’s efforts but urges Rajasthan to build its own cyber defence infrastructure independent of Centre’s support [Paras 17.2–24].

Decision: Bail applications dismissed – Petitioners to remain in judicial custody – Court directs urgent, multi-level reform across Rajasthan’s investigative, prosecutorial, financial, and social sectors to address growing threat of cybercrime and ensure digital safety

Criminal Law – Quashing of Proceedings – Inordinate Delay – Article 21 Constitution of India – Context of the 19.02.2009 clash between lawyers and police in the Madras High Court campus – FIR registered in 2009, Charge Sheet filed in 2010, but Cognizance taken only in 2025 (16 years delay) – Held: Right to speedy trial is an inalienable fundamental right. The delay was administrative/procedural and not attributable to the accused. Continuation of proceedings after 16 years would be an abuse of process and an exercise in futility. [Paras 17, 22, 24].

Criminal Law – Vicarious Liability/Obedience to Orders – Police Action – Context where junior police personnel were charged for lathi-charging lawyers under orders of superiors – Held: The petitioners were in the lowest rank of the police force and acted under the orders of superiors to disperse an unruly mob. They had no personal animosity. Obedience to superior orders in a chaotic situation where the police station was set on fire cannot be the sole basis for prosecution after such a lapse of time. [Paras 6, 18].

Evidence – Identification of Accused – Absence of Test Identification Parade – Context where accused were identified solely based on blurred media photographs/videos without a TIP – Held: Identification based on subjective interpretation of blurred photographs, where police were wearing helmets with visors, and without a certificate under the IT Act or a proper Test Identification Parade, is insufficient to sustain a criminal prosecution. [Paras 14, 21].

Decision: Criminal Original Petitions allowed. Proceedings in C.C. Nos. 622, 623, 624, 625, and 626 of 2025 on the file of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, are quashed. Petitioners acquitted.

Civil Law - Specific Performance – Readiness and Willingness – Conduct of Plaintiff – Held: The plaintiff-appellants took divergent stands at different stages: initially claiming part of the land was acquired, then claiming the agreement was cancelled, and subsequently asserting the plot was not identifiable. Such contradictory stands negate the plea of readiness and willingness to perform the contract. The defendant-respondent was proven to be present at the Sub-Registrar’s office with necessary documents, whereas plaintiffs failed to perform their part. [Paras 8-9].

Concurrent Findings of Fact – Scope of Interference under Section 100 CPC – Held: Both the Trial Court and First Appellate Court concurrently found that the plaintiffs were not ready and willing. In the absence of any reliable evidence to the contrary or any substantial question of law, the High Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact. [Paras 8-9].

Decision: Appeal dismissed. Pending applications disposed of. [Para 9].

Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 – Section 12 – Bail to Child in Conflict with Law (CCL) – Gravity of Offence vs. Statutory Mandate – Held: While the alleged offence (RPG attack on Police Station) is grave, Section 12 mandates bail as a rule for juveniles, irrespective of the nature of the offence (bailable or non-bailable) – Bail can only be denied if there are reasonable grounds to believe that release would bring the person into association with known criminals, expose them to moral/physical danger, or defeat the ends of justice – Mere apprehension by the State without material evidence on record regarding such association or danger is insufficient to deny bail. [Paras 8, 10]

Bail – Parity and Academic Career – Held: Co-accused (adults) facing similar charges were granted bail – Continued detention of juveniles would serve no purpose and adversely affect their academic career (one appellant being a B.A. student) – No criminal antecedents shown apart from the instant case – Appeals allowed; bail granted. [Paras 9-10]

Decision: Appeals allowed. Impugned orders set aside. Appellants ordered to be released on bail.

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Section 528 BNSS – Scope of Judicial Interference – Petition sought quashing of FIR alleging that the petitioner, as Channel Head of Zee Rajasthan, extorted money and threatened vendors with adverse news coverage – Held: Allegations in FIR prima facie disclose cognizable offences – Court cannot evaluate evidence or conduct a “mini-trial” at FIR stage – Investigation must proceed unhindered – Quashing power to be exercised sparingly and in rare cases [Paras 9–11, 13–18].

Media Ethics – Abuse of Position by Journalist – Extortion and Coercion – FIR alleged that petitioner misused company’s platform to solicit money through threats of defamatory broadcasts – Such acts, if proven, constitute gross abuse of media authority and harm to public trust – Allegations require full investigation and cannot be nullified as employer-employee dispute [Paras 7.1–7.2, 22–23].

Freedom of Press – Limits and Responsibility – Court reiterated that press freedom is integral to democracy but carries duty of fairness, accuracy, and integrity – “Freedom of Press is imperative for a functioning democracy; however, misuse of such freedom through coercion or blackmail cannot be tolerated” [Preface; Paras 7–9].

Bhajan Lal Principles – Applicability – Case does not fall within any of the exceptional categories enumerated in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 – Allegations not absurd, improbable, or mala fide on their face – Investigation must determine truth of allegations [Paras 2.1–2.4, 23].

Judicial Review – Stage of Investigation – Precedents Cited – Reaffirmed principles in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 19 SCC 407; Kaptan Singh v. State of U.P., (2021) 9 SCC 35; Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel v. State of Gujarat, (2018) 3 SCC 104; Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 18 SCC 191 – High Court’s interference limited to cases where FIR does not disclose any cognizable offence [Paras 10–20].

Decision: FIR No. 257/2025 discloses cognizable offences – Investigation to continue uninhibited – Petition for quashing dismissed – Petitioner at liberty to approach Investigating Officer for fair-investigation concerns; IO to act as per law and issue notice under Section 35 BNSS if required [Paras 22–25].

Employees’ Compensation – Employer–Employee Relationship – Total Lack of Evidence – Commissioner relied solely on FIR/FIS without oral proof – Appellant specifically denied employment – Held: Existence of jurisdictional fact must be proved; matter remanded for fresh evidence; substantial question of law arises [Paras 7-10].

Employees’ Compensation – Jurisdictional Fact – Proof of Employment – Death of worker in quarry – Claimants produced only FIR/FIS and three other documents, no oral evidence – Commissioner accepted employer–employee relationship solely on basis of FIR/FIS – Held: Initial burden to prove relationship lies on claimants; lack of evidence on jurisdictional fact raises substantial question of law [Paras 2, 4, 7].

Evidence – FIR/FIS Not Substantive Proof – FIR/FIS marked without objection, but no witness examined to prove employment – Appellant denied relationship in written statement – Absence of oral evidence is fatal; mere marking of documents does not discharge burden – Commissioner’s reliance on FIR/FIS misplaced [Paras 4, 7].

Precedents – Distinction with Gangan v. Christin Raj – Division Bench decision relied upon by Commissioner held applicable only where adequate evidence is produced – Present case involves no such evidence; hence Commissioner’s reading incorrect [Para 7].

Substantial Question of Law – When Arises – Whether there is total lack of evidence regarding jurisdictional fact is a substantial question of law – Court follows earlier ruling in MFA(ECC) No. 18 of 2024 – Examination of total absence of evidence does not amount to re-appreciation of evidence [Paras 8-9].

Remand – Fresh Consideration Needed – As FIR/FIS and documents were marked without objection, claimants may have believed no further evidence required – Interest of justice and object of the Act require remand to give parties full opportunity to adduce evidence on employer–employee relationship [Paras 9-10].

Decision – Impugned award set aside – Matter remitted to Employees’ Compensation Commissioner – Parties to appear on 15.12.2025; evidence to be completed within four months; Commissioner to pass fresh order within six months – Deposited amount to remain intact till disposal [Para 10].

Tenancy Law - Rent Control Act – Co-owner’s Right to Evict Tenant – Ownership Dispute – Tenant’s Purchase of Co-owner’s Share – Tenant claimed ownership by virtue of sale deed dated 15.12.2016 executed by landlord’s sister (co-owner) after eviction petition was filed – Held: Sale pendente lite hit by doctrine of lis pendens – No merger of tenancy under Section 111(d) TPA unless entirety of lessor’s and lessee’s rights vest in one person – Purchase of one co-owner’s undivided share does not extinguish tenancy – Eviction maintainable by any co-owner without consent or NOC from others [Paras 19–23, 25–26].

Delhi Rent Control Act – Section 14(1)(e) – Bona Fide Requirement – Maintainability by One Co-owner – Landlord need not obtain prior consent or affidavit of other co-owners to file eviction – Petition by one co-owner valid unless another co-owner actively opposes – Mere impleadment application under Order I Rule 10 CPC by co-owner does not constitute objection [Paras 25–27].

Transfer of Property – Section 111(d) – Merger Doctrine – Effect of Partial Transfer – Tenant acquiring interest from one co-owner does not result in merger of lease and ownership – Ownership remains joint until partition by metes and bounds – Tenant continues to be bound by original tenancy [Paras 20–22].

Lis Pendens – Sale During Pendency of Eviction Proceedings – Sale deed executed by co-owner in favour of tenant during subsistence of eviction petition voidable and subject to outcome of pending proceedings – Transaction lacks bona fides where tenant aware of litigation and proceeds without disclosure to court [Paras 28–29].

Landlord–Tenant Relationship – Estoppel Against Denial of Title – Tenant, having admitted tenancy in written statement and deposition, estopped from disputing landlord’s title – ARC not competent to adjudicate ownership title disputes in eviction proceedings [Paras 24–25].

Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction – Section 25B(8), Delhi Rent Control Act – High Court’s interference confined to exceptional cases of jurisdictional or procedural error – Findings of ARC based on proper appreciation of law and evidence upheld – No ground for interference made out [Paras 30–31].

Decision: Revision dismissed – Eviction order dated 13.08.2024 upheld – Stay on execution vacated – Tenant directed to hand over possession of two shops (6’4” x 10’6” and 6’10” x 14’5”) at property No. 6165/1, Basti Regar, Dev Nagar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi – Benefit of six months under Section 14(7) of DRC Act held to have lapsed [Paras 31–33].

Service Law – Wrongful Pay Fixation – Recovery – Group-D staff performing Group-C duties granted higher pay scale since 2004 – Recovery directed after 10–14 years – Applying Syed Abdul Qadir and Rafiq Masih – Held: Recovery from Group C/D employees, long-delayed and without misrepresentation, is inequitable and arbitrary; impugned memo/order quashed; refunds directed [Paras 23-26].

Service Law – Excess Payment – No Misrepresentation – Petitioners appointed as Rent Collectors (Group-D) but made to discharge Group-C duties due to staff shortages – Municipality granted Group-C scale from 01.08.2004, increments also paid – Held: Excess payment was not a result of any misrepresentation or fraud by petitioners; higher scale was granted by competent authorities and enjoyed for over a decade [Paras 3-8, 13].

Recovery of Excess Salary – Applicability of Supreme Court Precedents – Court relied on Syed Abdul Qadir, Rafiq Masih, and Jogeswar Sahoo – Laid down exceptions where recovery is impermissible: (i) employees in Group C/D; (ii) payments continued over five years; (iii) employees made to work on higher posts; (iv) recovery causing hardship – Held: Present facts squarely covered by all three conditions—recovery impermissible [Paras 15-18, 23-24].

Equity & Hardship – Long-Delayed Recovery – Petitioners received higher scale for 10–14 years; recovery initiated only in 2013/2017 after decades – Such recovery would be iniquitous, harsh, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 – Particularly because many petitioners were near retirement or had retired; hardship outweighs employer’s right to recover [Paras 23-24].

Refund of Amounts Recovered – Court invoked parity principle – Employees who had already refunded excess amounts must be reimbursed, following Syed Abdul Qadir which mandated refund of amounts earlier recovered by mistake – Directed refund within three months [Para 25].

Administrative Action – Legal Validity – Memo dated 27.05.2013 of Director of Local Bodies and Order dated 01.11.2017 of Chairman, Tarakeswar Municipality directing recovery and re-fixation of pay held illegal and set aside – Orders inconsistent with binding Supreme Court law and principles of fairness [Para 26].

Decision – WPA allowed – Impugned memo and order quashed – No recovery to be made; any recovered amounts to be refunded; all connected applications disposed; interim orders vacated [Paras 26-30].