Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act – Section 17(2) – Custody of Rescued Minor – Mother Allegedly Complicit in Prostitution – Child Welfare Committee Has Primacy – Petition Rejected – Victim girl (aged 17 years at time of rescue) was rescued from a prostitution racket in Crime No.395/2025 and placed in a Child Welfare Home – Mother filed application under Section 17(2) seeking custody claiming daughter had attained 18 years – However, investigation revealed that the mother had earlier also been involved in a similar crime (Cr.No.332/2024) and had again placed her daughter in the prostitution racket after her prior release – Held: When prima facie material shows the mother used her daughter for prostitution, the child cannot be handed over to the custody of such mother – Relying on Delhi High Court in Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee vs. Union of India, 2014 SCC OnLine Del 4101 and Division Bench of Bombay High Court in Prerana vs. State of Maharashtra, 2002 SCC OnLine Bom 984, held that notwithstanding Section 17 and Section 17A of the IT Act, by virtue of Sections 31(1) and 39(3) of the JJ Act, it is only the Child Welfare Committee which has final authority in respect of custody and restoration of a child victim – Petition dismissed [Paras 9-12]

Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act vs. Juvenile Justice Act – JJ Act Has Primacy for Persons Under 18 Years – A person under 18 years rescued from a prostitution racket under Sections 15 and 16 of the IT Act must be treated as a "child in need of care and protection" under the JJ Act and not as a "juvenile in conflict with law" – If produced before a Magistrate and found to be under 18 years, the Magistrate must forthwith transfer the case to the Child Welfare Committee – JJ Act being a later and special enactment for children prevails over the general provisions of the IT Act – Bombay High Court in Prerana directed that any juvenile rescued from a brothel should be released only to a parent/guardian found fit by the Child Welfare Committee; if found unfit, rehabilitation procedure under the JJ Act must be followed [Paras 11-12]

Decision: Criminal Petition dismissed – Order dated 15.11.2025 rejecting custody application upheld – Child not to be handed over to mother who is prima facie alleged to have used the daughter in the prostitution racket.

Writ of Mandamus – Requirement of Legal Right – Petitioners sought direction not to close alleged 30-feet road connecting colonies – Held, issuance of mandamus requires establishment of a judicially enforceable legal right and corresponding public duty – Petitioners failed to demonstrate existence of road through cogent material – Mere assertion insufficient – No mandamus can be issued in absence of proof of right [Paras 11-14, 20, 29].

Pleadings in Writ Proceedings – Burden of Proof – In writ jurisdiction, not only facts but supporting evidence must be pleaded and annexed – Petitioners relied only on photographs which did not establish existence of road – No village map or revenue record produced – No rejoinder filed to counter affidavit – Petitioners failed to discharge burden [Paras 15-19].

Suppression of Material Facts – Clean Hands Doctrine – Court found inconsistencies in pleadings and lack of supporting material – Petitioners approached Court without full and candid disclosure – Applying doctrine of suppressio veri, expressio falsi, discretionary relief declined [Paras 20-23].

Public Trust Doctrine – Protection of Water Bodies – Subject land classified as Vagu Poramboke reserved for natural water flow and flood protection – Banks/bunds of water bodies integral part of natural resource – State holds such resources in trust for public and future generations – Encroachments or diversion impermissible – Flood protection works cannot be stalled without proof of lawful right [Paras 24-28].

Vakalatnama – Importance of Attestation – Three petitioners initially denied signing vakalat – Court examined procedural safeguards under Appellate Side Rules and Order III Rule 4 CPC – Attestation not mere formality but mandatory safeguard to prevent impersonation and unauthorised litigation – Registry directed to verify attestation scrupulously – Advocates cautioned to mention name and Bar Council enrolment number while attesting [Paras 31-39, 42].

Incidental Enquiry – Denial of Signature – Registrar (Judicial) conducted enquiry – Report indicated petitioners signed document though alleged ignorance of contents – Court declined to delve deeper but issued caution to Bar and Registry [Paras 36-38].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – Petitioners failed to prove existence of alleged road or establish enforceable legal right – No costs – Registry directed to ensure proper scrutiny of vakalatnamas – Pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

Civil Writ - Recruitment Examination – Alleged Paper Leak and Mass Copying – Systemic Malaise – Petitioners sought quashing of entire recruitment process alleging circulation of OMR sheets on social media, identical wrong answers, geographical concentration of toppers and collusion – Held: Mere suspicion, conjecture or post-result dissatisfaction is insufficient to vitiate a recruitment process – Heavy onus lies on petitioners to establish systemic fraud going to the root of the selection [Paras 1, 12, 15].

Judicial Review – Recruitment Process – Limits of Interference – Court reiterated that interference is warranted only when sanctity of examination is compromised at a systemic level rendering segregation of tainted and untainted candidates impossible – Where allegations rest on disputed questions of fact and are examined by a fact-finding inquiry, courts should exercise restraint [Paras 10, 12–13].

Inquiry by Retired High Court Judge – Evidentiary Value – Respondents placed sealed inquiry report prepared by a retired Judge of the High Court – Inquiry exhaustively examined allegations relating to regional concentration, prior poor performance, age of candidates, familial relationships and identical wrong answers – Forensic examination of OMR sheets ruled out common authorship and impersonation – Inquiry report upheld fairness and transparency of examination – Held: Such report deserves due deference in absence of perversity or mala fides [Paras 2, 11, 16].

Objective-Type Examination – Similar Wrong Answers – Evidentiary Appreciation – Allegation that top candidates chose identical incorrect answers – Held: Similarity in wrong answers can arise from common preparation material, elimination techniques and exam stress – In absence of evidence of tampering, communication devices or access to answer keys, such similarity does not establish malpractice [Paras 11(e), 16].

Geographical Concentration of Successful Candidates – Effect – High number of toppers from particular districts alleged to indicate cheating nexus – Inquiry found candidates appeared at different centres with no roll-number or seating proximity – Held: Regional concentration by itself cannot give rise to presumption of collusion or unfair means [Paras 11(a), 16].

Cancellation of Examination – Doctrine of Proportionality – Court relied on Supreme Court jurisprudence to hold that cancellation of an examination is an extreme measure – Where no systemic breach is demonstrated and it is possible to segregate tainted candidates, cancellation would be disproportionate – Facts of Tanvi Sarwal and Sachin Kumar distinguished as involving proven large-scale and organized malpractice [Paras 14–17].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Recruitment process under Advertisement No. 6 of 2023 upheld – Interim order vacated – Inquiry report accepted and returned – No direction for fresh examination or criminal investigation warranted [Paras 18–21].

Criminal Law – Recall of Witness – Section 311 Cr.P.C. / Section 348 BNSS – Petitioners sought recall of PW-1 for further cross-examination – Trial court dismissed application holding no sufficient cause for earlier non-cross-examination – PW-1’s testimony earlier closed with remark “Nil. Opportunity given” when accused were unrepresented – Held: Order resulted in gross injustice warranting interference under inherent jurisdiction [Paras 1, 5–6].

Criminal Procedure – Interlocutory Orders – Bar of Revision – Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. / Section 438(2) BNSS – Dismissal of application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. ordinarily interlocutory and revision barred – Held: Bar on revision does not oust inherent powers where interlocutory order results in gross injustice – High Court duty-bound to invoke inherent powers to prevent miscarriage of justice [Para 4].

Fair Trial – Right to Legal Representation – Accused compelled to cross-examine prosecution witness in absence of counsel – Accused being lay persons unable to conduct effective cross-examination – Held: Denial of legal assistance strikes at the core of fair trial and vitiates trial proceedings – In the name of expeditious trial, fairness cannot be sacrificed [Paras 5, 7–8].

Criminal Courts – Duty of Trial Court – Absence of Defence Counsel – Proper Course – Held: Where accused are unrepresented, trial court should appoint amicus curiae or seek legal aid counsel instead of compelling accused to cross-examine – Trial court may also exercise power to put questions to witness to reach truth – Emphasis on purity and fairness of trial [Paras 6, 8].

Inherent Powers – Ends of Justice – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – High Court set aside impugned order refusing recall of witness – Trial court directed to grant fresh opportunity to accused through counsel to cross-examine PW-1 – Directions issued for systemic compliance and circulation among criminal courts to avoid recurrence [Paras 9–10].

Decision: Petition allowed – Impugned order dated 28.08.2024 set aside – Trial court directed to permit further cross-examination of PW-1 through counsel – Matter remitted for continuation of trial in accordance with law [Paras 9–10].

Real Estate Law – RERA – Delay in Possession – Statutory Interest – Mandatory Obligation – Allottee did not withdraw from project despite delay – Proviso to Section 18(1) of RERA Act mandates that promoter shall pay interest for every month of delay till handing over possession – Obligation is automatic and not contingent upon demand by allottee – Promoter liable to pay interest from committed date of possession till actual physical possession [Paras 22–25].

Private Settlement – Waiver of Statutory Rights – Invalidity – Builder relied upon private settlement stating no delay and waiver of claims – Held that private contract or settlement cannot override statutory rights and obligations created under RERA Act – Any agreement seeking to defeat or circumvent proviso to Section 18(1) is void ab initio – Settlement contrary to statute unenforceable [Paras 31–34, 46–47].

One-Sided / Dotted-Line Agreements – Duress – Public Policy – Cyclostyled settlement drafted by promoter with allottee required to sign on dotted line – “Take it or leave it” situation for allottee who had invested life savings – Such agreements ordinarily executed under compulsion and economic duress – Held to be unfair, one-sided and opposed to public policy – Cannot bind allottee [Paras 26, 29–30, 43–45].

Indian Contract Act – Section 23 – Agreements Defeating Law – Agreement whose object defeats provisions of law is unlawful – Settlement aimed at waiving statutory compensation under RERA defeats legislative mandate – Such agreement void under Section 23 of Contract Act, 1872 [Paras 37–39].

RERA – Object and Purpose – Consumer Protection – RERA Act enacted to ensure accountability, transparency and consumer protection – Rights under Sections 18 and 19 are absolute and unqualified – Promoter cannot contract out of statutory liability by private settlement – Statute prevails over contract [Paras 20, 33–36].

Proceedings under Chapter VIII – Penal Consequences – Failure of promoter to discharge mandatory obligation to pay interest exposes promoter to proceedings under Chapter VIII of RERA Act – Direction of Tribunal to initiate proceedings upheld [Paras 25, 40].

Appellate Interference – Scope under Section 58 RERA – Tribunal correctly appreciated facts and law – No illegality or perversity found – No substantial question warranting interference – Appeal dismissed at admission stage [Paras 48–50].

Decision: RERA Appeal dismissed – Judgment and order dated 01.04.2025 passed by U.P. Real Estate Appellate Tribunal affirmed – Allottee entitled to interest at MCLR + 1% for delay – Costs upheld.

Family Law - Child Custody – Habeas Corpus Proceedings – Intra-court Appeals by Both Parents – Paramount Consideration of Welfare of Minor – Multiple proceedings between estranged spouses including habeas corpus, contempt and guardianship – Held: Custody issues finally settled earlier by High Court and affirmed by Supreme Court – No emergent circumstances warranting change of custody at appellate stage [Paras 60–61, 72–78].

Parens Patriae Jurisdiction – Scope and Limits – High Court empowered to mould relief in best interest of child – However, such power to be exercised with circumspection and not to unsettle stable custody arrangements in absence of compelling change in circumstances – Welfare, stability and continuity of child’s environment to be given primacy [Paras 59, 62–64, 76–77].

Custody of Minor – Mother vs Father – Child living with mother since infancy except for period of forcible removal by father – Custody restored to mother pursuant to habeas corpus order affirmed by Supreme Court – Child settled in school and environment at Lucknow – Held: No material indicating neglect, abuse or toxic atmosphere with mother – Custody with mother not to be disturbed [Paras 72–77].

Visitation Rights – Father’s Right to Access Child – Detailed visitation order dated 06.01.2022 – Subsequent modification dated 07.04.2023 introducing seasonal and time-segmented visitation – Court finds original visitation order adequate – Modification unnecessary when primary order itself not complied with – Held: Original visitation order dated 06.01.2022 restored and to be strictly adhered to [Paras 83–85].

Shared Parenting – Desirability vs Practical Feasibility – While shared parenting beneficial in theory – Persistent acrimony between parents rendered arrangements unworkable – Court cannot enforce ideal parenting model in hostile matrimonial conflict at cost of child’s mental peace [Paras 64–65].

Boarding School – Prayer to Remove Child from Mother’s Custody Indirectly – Father’s plea to send child to residential school at his expense – No expert psychological evaluation or material to show necessity – Child aged about 7 years, settled with mother – Held: Sending child to boarding school not justified merely to resolve visitation difficulties – Liberty reserved for Family Court to consider on evidence [Paras 79–81].

Guardianship Proceedings – Proper Forum – Substantive proceedings under Guardians and Wards Act pending before Family Court – Habeas corpus not a substitute for guardianship adjudication – Direction issued for expeditious disposal of guardianship case with priority [Paras 82, 78].

Final Directions – Appeals Disposed – No change in custody – Original visitation order dated 06.01.2022 to operate – Family Court directed to decide guardianship proceedings expeditiously – Observations not to prejudice merits before Family Court [Paras 85–86].

Decision: Special Appeal No.221 of 2023 and Special Appeal No.225 of 2023 disposed of – Custody of minor to continue with mother – Modification order dated 07.04.2023 set aside – Visitation to be governed by order dated 06.01.2022 – Parties to bear their own costs.

Public Servant – Quasi-Judicial Functions – Criminal Prosecution – Protection under Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 – Executive Officer of Municipal Corporation passed an order staying mutation proceedings pending decision of civil title suit – Allegation of collusion and conspiracy in passing stay order – Held: Passing of stay order was in discharge of quasi-judicial functions and squarely protected under Sections 2 and 3 of the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 – Criminal prosecution on such basis amounts to abuse of process [Paras 20–27, 30–31].

Inherent Powers – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Quashing of FIR and Proceedings – FIR and charge-sheet arose solely from judicial/quasi-judicial order passed by petitioner – No specific allegation of extraneous consideration, corruption or acts beyond jurisdiction – Held: Continuation of criminal proceedings would be malafide and oppressive – FIR and all consequential proceedings quashed [Paras 27, 31, 33–34].

Sanction for Prosecution – Section 197 Cr.P.C. – Non-Application of Mind – Impugned sanction order granting approval to prosecute petitioner found cryptic and non-speaking – Sanctioning authority failed to consider statutory protection available to petitioner under Judges (Protection) Act – Held: Sanction order invalid and unsustainable in law – Consequential proceedings liable to be quashed [Paras 28–29, 32].

Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 – Scope – Meaning of “Judge” – Revenue / Municipal Officers – Executive Officer empowered to pass definitive orders in mutation proceedings falls within wide definition of “Judge” under Section 2 of the Act – Protection extends to acts done or purported to be done in discharge of official or judicial duty – Remedy against erroneous order lies in appeal and not criminal prosecution [Paras 21–25, 30].

Mutation Proceedings – Civil Dispute – Criminal Colour – Dispute essentially related to title and mutation of property already subject matter of civil suit – Mutation effected years prior to petitioner’s posting – Held: Criminal law cannot be invoked to settle property disputes or challenge administrative orders passed in good faith [Paras 12, 20–21, 31].

Sanction – Safeguard to Public Servants – Object of Law – Sanction is not an idle formality – Must reflect independent application of mind and consideration of material – Mechanical sanction vitiates entire prosecution – Reliance placed on Robert Lalchungnunga Chongthu v. State of Bihar and Gurmeet Kaur v. Devender Gupta [Paras 29–32].

Decision: Criminal Miscellaneous Application allowed – FIR in Kadamkuan P.S. Case No. 238 of 2014, charge-sheet and sanction order dated 28.12.2020 quashed qua the petitioner – All consequential proceedings set aside [Paras 33–34].

Public Employment – Recruitment by Public Service Commission – Mandatory Timelines – Submission of Documents – Cut-off Date – Advertisement No. 17/2022 for Assistant Professor (Botany) – Petitioner provisionally selected in written examination but failed to submit verification documents within stipulated time and even within extended periods granted with late fees – Subsequent representation citing illness rejected – Held: Conditions of advertisement and Appendix-1 regarding timelines are mandatory and binding – Non-compliance results in automatic cancellation of candidature – Commission becomes functus officio after expiry of final cut-off date – No relaxation permissible in absence of enabling provision [Paras 11–16, 22–24].

Service Law – Vigilance Expected from Candidates – Obligation to Monitor Official Website – Advertisement clauses casting duty on candidates to regularly check Commission’s website for updates – Disclaimer of responsibility for individual communication – Held: Responsibility to remain vigilant lies solely on candidate – Plea of ignorance or non-checking of website cannot be accepted [Paras 11–13, 22].

Service Law – Relaxation of Conditions – Medical Grounds – Equitable Considerations – Petitioner pleaded illness (Mixed Connective Tissue Disease) as reason for delay – No contemporaneous medical proof produced for relevant period – Advertisement did not provide for relaxation on medical or personal grounds – Held: In absence of statutory or advertised power of relaxation, no equity or sympathy can override mandatory recruitment conditions – Grant of individual relaxation would violate Articles 14 and 16 [Paras 17–18, 23–24].

Service Law – Interim Orders – Participation in Selection Process – No Vested Right – Petitioner permitted to appear in interview pursuant to interim order with result kept in sealed cover – Held: Participation under interim protection does not confer any vested or enforceable right – Candidate participates at own risk – On dismissal of petition, interim order stands merged with final decision [Paras 19, 25].

Judicial Review – Scope under Article 226 – Recruitment Matters – Concluded Selection Process – Interference at Belated Stage – Selection process finalized and recommendations already forwarded to State – Held: Court should not unsettle a concluded selection process in absence of illegality or arbitrariness – Interference would prejudice rights of duly selected candidates and undermine certainty in public recruitment [Paras 21, 24].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – No direction to accept documents beyond cut-off date – Interim order dated 16/12/2024 stands vacated – No relief granted to petitioner.

Criminal Law – Murder and Robbery – Conviction based on Circumstantial Evidence – Appeal against conviction under Sections 302/34 and 394 IPC – Trial court convicted appellant relying on alleged recovery of weapon and money – One co-accused died during pendency of appeal resulting in abatement against him – Held: Prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction unsustainable [Paras 1–2, 82–84].

Circumstantial Evidence – Chain of Circumstances – Requirement of Completeness – Law reiterated that circumstances must be fully established and consistent only with guilt of accused – Any missing link entitles accused to benefit of doubt – Held: Chain not complete as recovery of weapon, money and ornaments not proved – Conviction set aside [Paras 66–74].

Recovery of Weapon – Seizure Witnesses Turning Hostile – Knife allegedly recovered pursuant to disclosure – Seizure witnesses (P.W.6 & P.W.7) did not support prosecution and stated signatures obtained at police station – Recovery from place pointed out by accused not proved – Held: Alleged recovery unreliable and cannot be basis of conviction [Paras 51–54, 71].

Recovery of Stolen Property – Money allegedly recovered from appellant and co-accused – Seizure witnesses (P.Ws.8, 10, 11 & 12) either hostile or admitted that money was shown at police station – No recovery proved from possession of appellant – Held: Recovery not established beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 55–59, 72].

Hostile Witness – Evidentiary Value – Law summarized that testimony of hostile witness is not to be discarded in toto and may be relied upon to extent corroborated – However, where hostile witnesses do not support recovery and no corroboration exists, prosecution version fails – Applied to facts of case [Paras 59–64].

Medical Evidence – Proof of Homicidal Death – Post-mortem showed incised wound on neck causing hemorrhage and shock – Death homicidal proved – However, medical evidence alone insufficient to link appellant without reliable circumstantial chain [Paras 33–34, 73].

Benefit of Doubt – Criminal Jurisprudence – Where two views possible, view favourable to accused must be adopted – Prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Held: Serious doubts arise due to lapses in investigation and unreliable recovery evidence – Appellant entitled to benefit of doubt [Paras 77–81].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of conviction dated 20.09.1997 and sentence dated 22.09.1997 set aside – Appellant acquitted of charges under Sections 302/34 and 394 IPC – Bail bonds discharged – Trial court records directed to be returned – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 83–86].