Criminal Law - Discharge Application – Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Prima Facie Involvement – Discharge Denied – Petitioner, a retired Milk Chilling Centre Incharge, sought discharge citing lack of prima facie evidence and delay in filing of charge-sheet post-retirement – Held: Petitioner was not entitled to discharge at this stage since allegations concerning embezzlement of Rs. 1,07,198/- remained inadequately investigated and warranted further probe [Paras 1, 4–5, 9].

Further Investigation – Suo Moto Power of Magistrate Under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. – Legally Sustainable – Magistrate directed further investigation to clarify whether milk sold in transit was lawfully accounted for and deposited in Government Treasury – Held: Such direction is legally permissible even post-cognizance as per Supreme Court ruling in Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya v. State of Gujarat – Article 21 requires fair and complete investigation to uphold justice [Paras 10–12].

Misappropriation and Embezzlement – Transit Sale of Milk and Non-Accounting of Revenue – Further Scrutiny Ordered – Allegation that petitioner sold milk in transit without record or remittance to Treasury prompted further investigation into TR-V deposit records – Held: Trial Court rightly sought further investigation into financial discrepancies affecting public funds [Para 13].

Delay in Investigation and Prosecution – Not Sufficient Ground for Discharge – Public Interest in Full Inquiry – Though charge-sheet was filed after five years of retirement and initial FIR dates back to 2002, the need for full investigation into misuse of public resources overrides concerns of procedural delay – Held: Justice mandates substantive inquiry over expedience [Paras 3, 9].

Decision: Revision Petition Dismissed – No Interference Warranted – Trial Court’s Direction for Further Investigation Upheld – The High Court found no merit in challenge to Trial Court’s order; held that the directive for further probe was within judicial bounds and necessary for arriving at truth – Petition dismissed [Paras 14].

Anticipatory Bail – Sections 302, 323, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Role Introduced via Supplementary Statement – No Injury Attributed – Bail Granted – The petitioner, aged 67, was not named in the FIR and was later implicated for allegedly catching the victim’s beard and inciting his co-accused to assault – No injury attributed to the petitioner and he was unarmed – Court held that custodial interrogation was not justified based on the minor role, absence of overt act, and age – Anticipatory bail granted with conditions [Paras 4, 7, 9].

Criminal Procedure – Pre-trial Incarceration – Principle of Least Intrusion – Arrest Not Required – Court emphasized that pre-trial custody should not mimic punishment and that bail jurisprudence requires restraint unless justified – Reopening old neighborhood disputes without substantial evidence against petitioner did not justify arrest – Held: Continued liberty ensured through anticipatory bail [Paras 8-9].

Anticipatory Bail – Conditional Bail – Compliance and Cooperation Mandated – Bail granted subject to compliance with investigation and mandatory disclosure of identification details – The Court noted petitioner must cooperate fully and avoid influencing witnesses – Breach of conditions would entitle prosecution to seek cancellation [Paras 11-17].

Decision – Anticipatory Bail Allowed – Given the absence of direct assault, lack of prior criminal record, and the supplementary nature of allegations, anticipatory bail granted with directions to join investigation and comply with conditions – Petition allowed [Paras 9, 20].

Civil Writ - Marriage Protection Petitions – Misuse of Judicial Process – Large-Scale Fraud Detected – The Court found that several petitions filed for police protection by runaway couples were based on forged certificates and fabricated identity documents – Noted that touts and unregistered institutions are exploiting court jurisdiction through manipulated filings – Held: Writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked by fraudulent means to bypass statutory law [Paras 5–9, 12–13].

Forgery and Fake Documents – FIRs Against Bogus Trusts – Organized Racketeering – Multiple FIRs filed in Ghaziabad and Prayagraj reveal an organized racket of fake Arya Samaj trusts issuing forged certificates – Police seized digital evidence and arrested operators of photocopy shops involved in document forgery – Held: Fraudulent solemnizations undermine legal sanctity and public trust [Paras 24–26.7].

Marriage Registration Reforms – Directions Issued – The Court directed amendment to the U.P. Marriage Registration Rules, 2017 – Ordered mandatory video recordings of ceremonies, physical presence of Purohits, verification of Aadhaar and educational documents, and strict residency jurisdiction – Interim directions to remain in force until new rules are notified [Paras 28–30, 33–34.5].

Fundamental Right to Marry – Not a License for Illegality – Reaffirmed that while adults have a right to choose partners under Article 21, this right must be exercised within the boundaries of law – Forged documents and false identities cannot form the basis for invoking constitutional protection [Paras 13, 21, 30].

Administrative and Institutional Failure – Collusion or Negligence – Found large-scale registration of marriages in districts like Ghaziabad despite no residence connection of parties – Strong indications of police and registrar complicity – Directed comprehensive inquiry and monthly compliance monitoring [Paras 17–19, 31].

Final Directions – Petitions Disposed – Court disposed of all petitions with liberty to petitioners to approach concerned Senior Superintendent of Police – Directed verification and protection on merits – Ordered transmission of judgment to Chief Secretary and concerned officials for compliance [Paras 36–38].

Criminal Law - Rape of Minor – Promise of Marriage – Section 376 IPC – Acquittal Upheld – Prosecution alleged that the accused induced a 16-year-old girl into a sexual relationship on false promise of marriage resulting in pregnancy and suicide – Court noted absence of corroborative medical or forensic evidence, including DNA analysis – Oral evidence of complainant found insufficient and riddled with contradictions – Held: Guilt not proved beyond reasonable doubt, acquittal sustained [Paras 6.1, 6.2, 13.1–13.3].

Abetment of Suicide – Lack of Proximate Instigation – Section 306 IPC – Accused alleged to have provoked deceased to commit suicide – Court noted no concrete act of incitement or instigation in close proximity to suicide – Absence of direct link between accused’s alleged statements and suicide held fatal to prosecution – Held: Mere refusal to marry does not establish mens rea for abetment – Acquittal justified [Paras 13.4–14].

Criminal Appeal – Scope of Interference with Acquittal – Double Presumption in Favour of Accused – Reaffirmed that appellate court must interfere only if trial court’s view is perverse or unsupported by evidence – Acquittal further reinforces presumption of innocence – Held: Trial court's findings neither perverse nor unreasonable – No justification to overturn acquittal [Paras 10–11, 15–17].

Judicial Precedents – Standard in Acquittal Appeals – Reliance on Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar and Prakash v. State of Maharashtra – Reiterated that in cases of suicide, direct or indirect incitement must be established through cogent evidence – Court emphasized need for proximity between instigation and act of suicide – Held: In absence of such proximity, benefit of doubt rightly given to accused [Paras 13.6, 14].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Acquittal Confirmed – Prosecution failed to prove charges under Sections 376, 306, 506(2) IPC – View taken by trial court found plausible and consistent with legal standards – High Court found no compelling ground to interfere – Appeal dismissed, trial court’s acquittal order upheld [Paras 16–18].

Land Acquisition Compensation – Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Solatium and Interest – Applicability of Tarsem Singh Judgment – Benefits Granted - Petitioners whose lands were acquired under the National Highways Act were denied statutory benefits of solatium and interest by the Arbitrator – Relying on the binding precedent in Tarsem Singh, the High Court held Petitioners entitled to full statutory benefits – Held: Petitioners are to be granted solatium and interest per the 2013 Act within four months [Paras 3, 5, 13, 20].

Alternate Remedy – Availability Under Section 37 of Arbitration Act – Not a Bar – Inefficacious Remedy - High Court rejected NHAI’s objection that Petitioners should have approached the appellate forum under Section 37 – Held: Where such forum is incapable of granting the relief due to settled precedent (Rishabhkumar), Article 226 jurisdiction can be invoked directly [Paras 6-10, 17].

Binding Precedent – Application of Supreme Court Judgment – Articles 141 and 144 of the Constitution – Mandate to All Authorities - The Court reaffirmed that law declared in Tarsem Singh is binding on all courts and authorities under Articles 141 and 144 – Rejection of Misc. Application by the Supreme Court to limit applicability further strengthens entitlement from original acquisition date [Paras 15, 19].

Judicial Discretion – High Court's Jurisdiction Under Article 226 – Writ Entertained Despite Arbitration Proceedings – Statutory Reliefs Only – Since claim was limited to statutorily mandated solatium and interest, no factual disputes involved – Writ jurisdiction rightly exercised despite pending or concluded arbitral proceedings [Paras 12, 16-18].

Decision – Writ Petitions Allowed – Direction to Pay Solatium and Interest – The Court allowed the writ petitions and directed the competent authority and NHAI to compute and disburse 100% solatium and interest at 12% p.a. on compensation amounts within a period of four months – Non-compliance would entail interest at 6% p.a. beyond the stipulated period [Paras 20-21].

Taxation Law - Export Supply – Compensation Cess – Exemption Denied – Levy Deferred – Petitioners challenged the levy of Compensation Cess at 160% on supply of branded tobacco to merchant exporters for export, which was otherwise taxed at a concessional GST rate of 0.1% under Notification Nos. 40/2017 and 41/2017 – Held: Though no separate exemption notification was issued under the Compensation Cess Act, such supply qualifies as “export of goods” and is zero-rated under Section 16 of the IGST Act – The levy is revenue-neutral as merchant exporters are entitled to refunds – Government directed to refer the issue to GST Council – Operation of impugned order kept in abeyance [Paras 94-118].

Interpretation of Export Supply – Supplies to Merchant Exporters Considered Exports – Court held that the movement of goods from factory to port for direct export by merchant exporters, without diversion, constituted a continuous chain of export – Cited Apex Court decisions in Amritsar Sugar Mills and Lord Krishna Sugar Mills to support the principle that more than one leg in a transaction may qualify as “export” – Such supplies are entitled to zero-rated benefits [Paras 97-99, 111].

Revenue Neutrality – Refund Mechanism – Levy Held Unjustified – Petitioners contended that any Compensation Cess paid would ultimately be refunded to merchant exporters, making the levy redundant and burdensome – Court agreed and held that levy causing working capital blockage undermines the policy of tax-free exports – Refused to apply exemption narrowly to exclude Compensation Cess while applying it to GST [Paras 100-107].

Judicial Direction – GST Council to Reconsider Compensation Cess Exemption – Although no exemption notification was issued under the Compensation Cess Act, Court invoked Section 11 of the Act, which applies GST and IGST provisions mutatis mutandis – Strongly urged GST Council to recommend exemption for Compensation Cess in line with existing exemptions under Notifications 40/2017 and 41/2017 – No coercive recovery till decision by Council [Paras 114-119].

Decision – Impugned Orders Kept in Abeyance – Petitions Disposed – The Court held that supply of goods by petitioners to merchant exporters constitutes zero-rated export supply – Impugned demand for Compensation Cess at 160% stayed and referred to GST Council for policy recommendation – Respondents restrained from initiating recovery if petitioners comply with exemption notification conditions and submit undertaking to deposit cess if the Council decides otherwise – Rule made absolute to this extent [Paras 116-120].

Service Law – Voluntary Resignation – Acceptance by Commandant – Held Valid – Petitioner submitted resignation from post of Constable on 11 July 2018 citing domestic problems—Resignation supported by affidavit and accepted the same day—High Court held: Resignation voluntary and acceptance lawful—Claim of coercion by militants raised only later; unsupported by any prior record—Petitioner’s plea dismissed [Paras 3–8].

Police Act – Section 10 – Notice Period Not Mandatory When Leave Granted – Petitioner argued that resignation should be deemed “intention to resign” requiring two months' notice—Court clarified: Rule prohibits resignation without prior notice unless leave is granted—Here, Commandant accepted resignation immediately, rendering notice period inapplicable [Paras 9–11].

Conduct of Petitioner – Pattern of Disinterest in Service – Petitioner had previously absented twice during training and was censured—After training, served only two months before resigning—Court found pattern indicative of lack of interest in police service—Rejected suggestion of compelled resignation [Paras 3–4, 8].

Tribunal Decision – Found to Be Just and Legal – No Grounds for Interference – Tribunal had rejected petitioner’s challenge in OA No. 693/2022—High Court concurred with reasoning based on Supreme Court’s precedent in Wing Commander T. Parthasarathy—Held: No interference warranted under Article 226 [Paras 5–7].

Decision – Writ Petition dismissed – Resignation found voluntary and valid – No coercion or procedural illegality proved – No costs awarded [Para 12].

Civil Procedure – Order 11 Rule 1 of the CPC - Interrogatories – Permissible Even at Advanced Trial Stage – No Prejudice Found – Plaintiff sought to deliver interrogatories in a partition suit—Earlier application was dismissed as not pressed—Trial Court later allowed a second application—Held: Leave for interrogatories may be granted even at advanced stage if no prejudice caused—Plaintiff's queries relevant to title and partition rights—Order upheld [Paras 6–8, 24–25].

Discovery – Interrogatories Cannot Be Fishing Expeditions – Must Relate to Matters in Question – High Court held that interrogatories must support the applicant’s own case and relate to key facts in dispute—Questions related to gift deed, title, and possession were deemed material and not speculative or irrelevant—Scope of interrogatories clarified with reference to precedents [Paras 13–17, 20–22].

Earlier Application Not Pressed – Not a Bar to Subsequent Application – First application under Order XI Rule 1 CPC was dismissed as not pressed—Second application filed on new factual developments—Court held: No legal bar exists against second application in such scenario—No implied concession or waiver by plaintiff [Paras 18, 26–27].

Partition Suit – Lost Decree Records – Right to Interrogatories Reinforced – Final decree records from 1971 were reported missing—Plaintiff entitled to interrogate defendant who claimed exclusive possession—Held: In absence of records, interrogatories are a legitimate method to clarify disputed title and possession [Paras 3–5, 22–23].

Decision – Original Petition dismissed – Impugned order allowing interrogatories affirmed – No evidence of prejudice or legal bar – Trial to proceed with interrogatories as ordered [Final Para].

Taxation Law - Capital Gains – Timing of Transfer under JDA – Section 2(47)(v) – Substantive Assessment from A.Y. 2007–08 – Not Taxable in A.Y. 2006–07 - Held: The transaction under the unregistered Joint Development Agreement dated 23.11.2005 did not amount to “transfer” under Section 2(47)(v) read with Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act in A.Y. 2006–07 as there was no development activity in that year – Capital gains to be computed in subsequent assessment years based on actual transfer of constructed property [Paras 1–4, 50–53, 104–105].

Section 80IB(10) Deduction – Applicability of Section 80AC – Deduction Allowed for A.Y. 2006–07 Only - Held: Benefit of deduction under Section 80IB(10) could not be denied for A.Y. 2006–07 as Section 80AC was not yet in force – However, for A.Ys. 2007–08 onwards, deduction not allowable as no claim was made in returns filed under Section 139(1) as mandated by Section 80AC – Remedy left open for collateral challenge to Section 80AC in separate proceedings [Paras 12, 90–104, 118–120].

Bogus Expenditure – Cost of Improvement – Remanded for Fresh Verification – Held: Assessee failed to substantiate Rs. 4.52 crore cost claimed via M/s. Takshil Trading Pvt. Ltd., a suspected hawala operator – Tribunal rightly remanded issue to Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, noting procedural lapses and non-disclosure of documents to assessee [Paras 25, 64–65, 71–72].

Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) – Justified Reduction – Tribunal's Discretion Upheld - Penalty for concealment of income reduced from 300% to 100% by CIT(A) and upheld by ITAT – High Court found no perversity in exercise of discretion by lower authorities [Paras 28, 39–41].

Suppression of Income – Re-routing via Related Party – Assessee Found Liable - Managing Director’s son introduced as partner in Developer Firm received Rs. 25 crore consideration – Held: This was diversion of company’s capital gains, not substantiated in returns – Tribunal correctly upheld substantive assessments in A.Y. 2007–08 onwards [Paras 16–20, 62–63, 73–74].

Decision – Partial Relief to Assessee – Deduction allowed for A.Y. 2006–07 – Dismissal of appeals for A.Ys. 2007–08 to 2011–12 – Appeals of Department allowed for statistical purposes – Assessee given liberty to challenge Section 80AC separately under Article 226 [Paras 120–124].