Criminal Law - Separation of Trial - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Sections 323 and 482 - Applicant sought setting aside of order rejecting separation of trial in a complaint case involving an absconding co-accused - The complaint case was a cross-case to a Sessions Trial where the husband of the applicant was the accused - Sessions Judge returned the complaint case to the Magistrate as one co-accused remained absconding - Magistrate rejected the application for separation noting the applicant failed to take steps for process execution under Section 204(4) CrPC - High Court observed that the Supreme Court had mandated a strict six-month timeline for concluding the main Sessions Trial - Held - Magistrate was justified in rejecting separation when the complainant defaulted in taking steps for execution of NBW and Section 82 CrPC proceedings - Any interference at this stage would violate the spirit of the time-bound trial directions issued by the Supreme Court - Application dismissed - [Paras 1-18].

Criminal Law - Cross Cases and Clubbing - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 323 - Magistrate power to commit - Case returned by Sessions Court due to absconding co-accused - Applicant moved for separation of trials to facilitate immediate commitment - Held - Unless compliance reports for process against absconding accused are obtained the Magistrate cannot proceed with separation or commitment solely to accommodate a cross-case trial - Statutory duty of complainant under Section 204(4) CrPC is paramount - [Paras 11-17].

Decision: Application dismissed – No illegality found in the trial court order – Applicant directed to comply with trial court directions for process execution.

Writ Law - Service Law - Regularization of Guest Lecturers - Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 16 - State challenged Single Judge order quashing G.O. (Ms). No. 247 and 248 (2022) - Petitioners were working as Guest Lecturers in Government Arts and Science Colleges appointed through college-level committees - Government initially proposed regularization of 1146 lecturers under G.O. (Ms). No. 56 (2020) through a special test - Subsequent 2022 policy mandated a written competitive examination for 4000 posts and canceled earlier notifications - Single Judge quashed 2022 G.O.s holding that rules of selection cannot be altered mid-process - Division Bench found that original appointments were made through walk-in interviews at the college level without State-wide advertisement - No final selection list was ever published under the 2020 policy - Principle of changing rules of the game applies only when selection is concluded or final list is published - Held - Single Judge order set aside - Writ petitions dismissed - Guest Lecturers have no fundamental right to be absorbed in service - Mere receipt of salary or provident fund does not equate to legal appointment - [Paras 1-63].

Constitutional Law - Public Employment - Open Competitive Process - Article 14 - Definition and Requirements - Court examined the validity of college-level recruitment for public posts - Open competitive process requires widely published and circulated advertisements - equal opportunity for all qualified persons under Article 14 - objective selection based on marks rather than pick-and-choose method - and transparent independent conduct - Held - College-level selection committees do not constitute an open competitive process - State-wide publication is mandatory for regular recruitment to substantive vacancies - [Paras 30-36, 42].

Service Law - Policy Revision - Rules of the Game - State of Bihar Vs. Mithilesh Kumar distinguished - Distinction between completed recruitment and ongoing policy change - In Mithilesh Kumar the candidate was recommended by the Public Service Commission before the policy changed - In the present case the regularization process under G.O. 56 was only underway and no final list was published - Held - Government is entitled to change its policy especially when informed by Supreme Court directions in Dr. K. Ragu case - Changes in recruitment rules cannot be equated with change in policy of regularization - [Paras 45-55].

Service Law - Regularization vs Recruitment - Right to Absorption - State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi (III) applied - Differences in goals and legal status - Recruitment is rule-based filling of substantive vacancies through statutory methods - Regularization is a remedial measure for irregular appointments - Held - Contractual employees cannot claim equality with regular employees - No fundamental right to claim absorption for those employed on daily wages or contractual basis - [Paras 37-41, 80-82].

Decision: Writ Appeals allowed – Single Judge order set aside – Writ petitions dismissed – State directed to notify additional 1292 posts to reach the original 4000 vacancies – Selection to be made through open competitive process – Guest Lecturers to be granted maximum 15 weightage marks based on experience and age relaxation – Guest Lecturers not to be ousted from service until fresh recruitment process is completed.

Criminal Law - Additional Accused - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 319 - Petitioner challenged the order dated 22.08.2019 passed by ADJ-7 Bhagalpur summoning him to face trial for murder under Sections 302 and 34 IPC and Section 27 of Arms Act - FIR was lodged regarding the killing of Bishwanath Kumar Gupta without naming the petitioner - Petitioner was implicated three months later based on a confession made under duress - Investigation was initially handled by a Senior Superintendent of Police who was related to the petitioner and involved in property disputes - Supervision was subsequently handed over to a DIG rank officer - Investigating officer SHO Kumod Kumar was penalized by the National Human Rights Commission and in departmental proceedings for wrongful investigation - Trial Judge Vinay Kumar Mishra was allegedly involved in corrupt practices and punished in disciplinary proceedings by the High Court - Out of eleven witnesses produced by the prosecution ten were declared hostile or provided irrelevant testimony - Mother of the deceased claimed petitioner paid the killers but admitted in cross-examination that she obtained this information from newspapers - High Court found that the summoning order was based on extraneous materials and lacked the strong and cogent evidence required by law - Held - Summoning order quashed as it was actuated by malafide at many levels and the materials were extremely insufficient - [Paras 1-29].

Evidence Law - Hearsay - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 319 - Testimony of mother of deceased alleging petitioner paid money to killers - Witness admitted knowledge was based on newspaper reports - Trial Court failed to consider the cross-examination - Held - Newspaper reports do not constitute strong and cogent evidence required for summoning under Section 319 - Such material would not even suffice to frame charges - [Paras 21-28].

Evidence Law - Nature of Statement - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Sections 164 and 319 - Trial Court relied extensively on Section 164 statements of five witnesses - Held - Section 164 statements are not substantive evidence and are recorded during investigation - They can only be used to corroborate or contradict testimony given on oath during trial - Power under Section 319 must be triggered by evidence produced during trial itself - [Paras 22-23].

Criminal Law - Judicial Discretion - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 319 - Principles for exercise of power - Power is extraordinary and should be used sparingly to achieve criminal justice - Satisfaction level must be higher than a prima facie case at the time of framing charges - Evidence must be such that if unrebutted it would lead to conviction - Held - Courts must not exercise power mechanically or in a casual and cavalier manner - [Paras 23-27].

Decision: Criminal Miscellaneous petition allowed – Order dated 22.08.2019 passed in Sessions Trial Case No. 492 of 2015 quashed.

Criminal Law - Culpable Homicide and Murder - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Sections 302 and 304 Part II - Appellant challenged conviction for throwing two minors into a well resulting in one death - PW2 mother of victims testified as an injured eyewitness that appellant harassed her and threw her children into the well when she resisted - Trial Court convicted for murder - High Court observed that while the act was imminently dangerous the motive appeared to be frustration of bad intentions towards the mother rather than a premeditated plan to kill the children - Held - Prosecution failed to prove specific intent to kill but established knowledge that the act was likely to cause death - Conviction modified from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part II IPC - Sentence of ten years rigorous imprisonment awarded - [Paras 1-62].

Evidence Law - Injured Eyewitness - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Section 323 - Reliability of related witness - Mother of the deceased children identified appellant as the person who pressed her neck and kicked her before throwing the children into the well - Medical evidence corroborated injuries to her leg and the presence of liquid in the stomach of the deceased - Held - Testimony of an injured witness is accorded high status and cannot be discarded solely on account of being a related witness - Evidence found consistent and convincing - [Paras 21-32].

Criminal Law - Attempt to Murder - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Section 307 - Act of throwing infant into well - Appellant threw a one-year-old girl into a well who survived but sustained eye injuries - Held - The act of throwing a toddler into a well is inherently dangerous and demonstrates the requisite knowledge and act for an attempt to murder conviction - Conviction under Section 307 IPC upheld - [Paras 54-57].

Criminal Law - Atrocities Against SC/ST - Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 - Section 3(ii)(v) - Requirement of caste-based motive - Victims belonged to Scheduled Caste community - Trial Court acquitted appellant of this charge - Held - To attract Section 3(ii)(v) the offence must be committed on the ground that the person is a member of the Scheduled Caste - Since the act was a result of a different immediate confrontation and lack of enmity the acquittal under this section is sustained - [Paras 36, 46].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Conviction under Section 302 IPC modified to Section 304 Part II IPC – Sentence of 10 years RI and fine of Rs 50000 imposed – Convictions under Sections 307 and 323 IPC affirmed.

Criminal Law - Murder - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Sections 120(B) 302 and 457 - Appellant convicted for murder of junior teacher for purpose of robbing stipend money - Conviction primarily based on judicial confessions recorded under Section 164 CrPC and circumstantial evidence - High Court observed that the alleged weapon of offence was neither produced nor exhibited during trial - Forensic evidence including bloodstains and fingerprints were entirely absent - Alleged motive of robbery was undermined by witness testimony stating the money was kept in safe custody elsewhere - Prosecution failed to establish the last seen together circumstance by cogent evidence - Chain of circumstances found incomplete - Held - Suspicion however grave cannot take the place of proof - Prosecution failed to prove charges beyond reasonable doubt - Conviction set aside - Appeal allowed - [Paras 1-49].

Evidence Law - Judicial Confession - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 164 - Admissibility and reliability - Confessions recorded after several days in police custody - Recording Magistrate failed to provide specific details regarding the reflection time granted to the accused - Testimony of Magistrate indicated only a vague practice of granting half an hour for reflection - Judicial confession is not substantive evidence and requires material corroboration as a rule of prudence in serious cases - Both accused made substantially similar confessions without independent corroborating evidence - Held - Unsafe to sustain conviction solely on uncorroborated confessional statements - [Paras 24-28, 41].

Evidence Law - Discovery and Seizure - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 27 - Non-production of material exhibits - Investigating Officer failed to exhibit seized daggers and torchlight before the Trial Court - Seizure witnesses relating to recovery turned hostile or were not examined - Failure to send alleged weapon for forensic examination to link it to the crime - Investigating Officer admitted omission of disclosure statements in seizure memos - Held - Recovery evidence loses probative value in the absence of proper proof and exhibition - Lapses in investigation materially weakened the prosecution case - [Paras 29-32, 42-47].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of conviction dated 29.05.2023 and order of sentence dated 30.05.2023 set aside – Appellant acquitted of all charges and directed to be released forthwith.

Writ Law - Custodial Torture - Public Humiliation - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Police Misconduct - Petitioner alleged that after arrest he was subjected to custodial assault - forcibly shaved - dressed in women’s clothing - and paraded through a crowded marketplace - Photographs and videos were circulated on social media causing irreparable damage to reputation and dignity - Police authorities contended petitioner was apprehended in female attire while trying to evade arrest and no acts of forced dressing or shaving occurred - Court found the police explanation implausible and contrary to ordinary human conduct - Held - The conduct reflects a palpable overreach of authority not sanctioned by law - Police cannot assume the role of a judge or engage in acts that resemble judicial determination - Petition disposed of with mandatory directions - [Paras 1-18].

Constitutional Law - Right to Dignity - Constitution of India - Article 21 - Institutional Humiliation - The right to life is not merely a physical existence but encompasses the right to live with dignity free from humiliation and unwarranted public exposure - Parading an accused before the media and capturing images within police stations constitutes a systematic erosion of individual reputation - Such acts leave indelible scars on the psyche even if the person is eventually acquitted - Held - Institutional humiliation is wholly inconsistent with the constitutional promise of dignity and is incompatible with the tenets of constitutional morality - [Paras 15-16].

Criminal Law - Media Trial - Role of Police - Presumption of Innocence - The phenomenon of media trial by police through press conferences and orchestrated disclosures seeks to project an accused as culpable before due process of law - Such conduct violates the bulwark against arbitrary State action - Presumption of innocence remains a cherished right until a finding of guilt is established through due process - Held - Investigative officers must refrain from prematurely informing media of breakthroughs to claim investigational credit as it jeopardizes the integrity of the investigation - [Paras 14-16].

Criminal Law - Police Powers - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Section 53 - Extra-legal Punishment - The power to investigate does not encompass the power to declare guilt or inflict punishment - Police role is confined strictly to investigation and maintenance of law and order - Statutory framework exhaustively prescribes the nature and extent of punishments that may be imposed solely by the Judiciary - Held - Subjecting an accused to public parading or social media condemnation orchestrated by police is an extra-legal penalty not recognized by law and amounts to an unwarranted usurpation of judicial function - [Paras 17-18].

Decision: Writ Petition disposed of – Court issued mandatory directions for strict adherence to SOPs – Prohibited public parading or disrobing of individuals lacking serious criminal antecedents – Declared social media condemnation orchestrated by police as an unauthorized form of punishment – Directed display of Do’s and Don’ts at all police stations – Reserved liberty for petitioner to pursue civil remedies for damages.

Writ Law - Maintainability of Special Appeal - Allahabad High Court Rules 1952 - Chapter VIII Rule 5 - Bar on special appeal against orders passed in exercise or purported exercise of appellate or revisional jurisdiction - Assistant Registrar passed a composite order under Sections 25(2) and 4-B of the Societies Registration Act 1860 - Commissioner entertained an appeal and set aside said order - Single Judge in writ petition set aside Commissioner’s order but remanded the matter back to Commissioner to decide the appeal qua Section 25(2) - Maintainability of special appeal challenged on ground that it arose from an appellate order - Held - Special appeal is maintainable if the statute itself does not provide for an appeal to the lower authority - Jurisdiction is a creation of statute and cannot be conferred by consent or by a court's remand - If an authority lacks inherent jurisdiction - its exercise of power cannot be termed 'purported exercise' of appellate jurisdiction under Rule 5 - The bar on special appeals only applies where the lower authority has statutory jurisdiction to entertain an appeal or revision - [Paras 7-26].

Civil Law - Societies Registration - Societies Registration Act 1860 - Sections 25(1), 25(2) and 25(1)(d) - Appellate jurisdiction of Commissioner - Assistant Registrar passed order under Section 25(2) declaring society defunct and calling for meetings - Single Judge remanded matter to Commissioner to decide appeal against Section 25(2) order - Held - Section 25(1)(d) provides for an appeal to the Commissioner only against orders passed under Section 25(1) by the Prescribed Authority - No statutory provision exists for an appeal against an order passed by the Assistant Registrar under Section 25(2) - Direction for remand is improper as it seeks to confer jurisdiction upon the Commissioner which the statute does not provide - Order of Commissioner being without jurisdiction is a nullity - [Paras 13-14, 27-32].

Civil Law - Membership List - Societies Registration Act 1860 - Sections 4 and 4-B - U.P. Amendment Act 2021 (U.P. Act No. 8 of 2022) - Section 4(1-A) - Scope of Appeal - Challenge to Single Judge's finding that no appeal lies against an order passed under Section 4-B - Appellants contended that Section 4(1-A) provides an appeal against any order under Section 4 - Held - Section 4(1-A) was inserted specifically after Section 4(1) and is confined to orders related to the Committee of Management - Section 4-B is a distinct and independent provision dealing with lists of members of the General Body - The legislature did not provide any appeal against orders passed under Section 4-B - Single Judge's conclusion that such appeal is not maintainable affirmed - [Paras 34-42].

Decision: Special Appeal No. 371 of 2026 is allowed - Special Appeal Defective No. 337 of 2026 is dismissed - Order dated 13.03.2026 passed by Single Judge regarding remand is set aside - Order of Commissioner dated 13.02.2026 is set aside as being without jurisdiction.

Family Law – Contempt – Child Custody – Visitation – Wilful Disobedience of Family Court Orders – Petitioner alleged non-compliance with multiple orders dated 02.12.2022 to 25.07.2023 passed by Family Court, North-West, Rohini in GP No. 109/2022 directing visitation rights in favour of the father qua minor daughter – During pendency of contempt petition, Family Court vide order dated 21.03.2025 transferred interim custody to the father, noting that the mother had repeatedly shifted between countries, failed to provide stability, had no record of the child's schooling, had previously lived in UK as a refugee, and had consistently violated court orders – High Court directed that all Family Court orders, including the custody order dated 21.03.2025, shall be immediately enforceable and enforced under supervision of the Family Court [Paras 1–5, 13–14].

Interim Visitation Arrangement – Child Counsellor's Report – Orders dated 15.04.2026 and 06.05.2026 passed by the High Court with consent of parties directed interim visitation on alternate days as an arrangement to avoid abrupt implementation of the custody order – Subsequently modified to visitation once in every three days with exemption on examination days – Child Counsellor's report dated 25.05.2026 noted initial resistance from child towards father but observed gradual improvement and willingness to interact during later sessions – Said interim arrangement held to have served its purpose and discontinued [Paras 6–11].

Review Petition – Scope of Contempt Orders – Review petitioner objected that directions in orders dated 15.04.2026 and 06.05.2026 went beyond the scope of the orders of which contempt was alleged – Held: Review petition disposed of in terms of discontinuation of the interim visitation arrangement — necessary implication being that all Family Court orders become immediately enforceable [Paras 10–12].

Contempt – Enforcement – Family Court's Duty – Family Court directed to ensure immediate compliance and enforcement of its subsisting orders without any delay – Mere pendency of applications shall not afford justification for continued wilful disobedience – In case of non-compliance by either party, Family Court entitled to make appropriate reference for action under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 [Paras 14–16].

Decision: Contempt petition and Review Petition No. 220/2026 disposed of – Interim visitation arrangement under orders dated 15.04.2026 and 06.05.2026 discontinued – All subsisting Family Court orders including custody order dated 21.03.2025 declared immediately enforceable and directed to be enforced under supervision of Family Court – All rights and remedies of parties reserved [Paras 12–17].

Commercial Courts Act – Jurisdiction – Section 2(1)(c)(vii) – Immovable Property Used Exclusively in Trade or Commerce – Plaintiff permitted defendant (his elder brother) to use commercial/industrial shed at Okhla Industrial Area for running business activities without consideration – Trial Court returned plaint holding the dispute to be a commercial dispute under Section 2(1)(c)(vii) – Held: The suit property is admittedly a commercial/industrial shed and as per the plaint itself, the defendant was permitted to use it for running business activities – The arrangement has a commercial character and concerns immovable property used for commercial purposes – Alleged permissive gratuitous use does not render the agreement non-commercial for the purpose of applicability of the Commercial Courts Act [Paras 8, 11].

Gratuitous Licence – Commercial Character – Section 52, Indian Easements Act – Payment of licence fee or consideration is not an essential attribute for the subsistence of a licence under Section 52 of the Indian Easements Act – A licensor can permit a person to enter property without any consideration – Gratuitous licence is legally valid – However, the issue in the present case is not the validity of a gratuitous licence but whether the arrangement possesses the commercial character contemplated under Section 2(1)(c)(vii) of the Commercial Courts Act – Gratuitous nature of the arrangement does not negate its commercial character [Paras 10–11].

Return of Plaint vs. Transfer – Section 24 CPC – Section 12-A Compliance – Where a suit filed prior to the Supreme Court's declaration of prospective applicability in Patil Automation (P) Ltd. vs. Rakheja Engineers (P) Ltd. ought to have been filed as a commercial suit, the abrupt remedy of return of plaint under Order VII Rule 10 CPC is not the appropriate course – In order to avoid loss of all proceedings before the earlier court, recourse to Section 24 CPC empowering transfer to the competent court is a more appropriate remedy – Section 24 CPC is not amended by the Schedule to the Commercial Courts Act and continues to apply in full force – Question of Section 12-A compliance is kept open for the transferee court [Paras 13–16, 18].

Commercial Dispute – Definition – Strict Construction – The expression "used exclusively in trade or commerce" in Section 2(1)(c)(vii) refers to property actually being used for commercial purposes and not property merely ready for use or likely to be used in future – Strict construction of the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act is required, as any liberal interpretation would defeat the object of speedy disposal of high-value commercial disputes – For a dispute to qualify as a commercial dispute, the transaction must carry a commercial flavour encompassing elements of trade and business [Paras 8–9].

Decision: Appeal disposed of – Impugned order returning the plaint set aside – Suit transferred in exercise of powers under Section 24 CPC to be listed before the concerned Principal District and Sessions Judge on 06.07.2026 for directions – Question of compliance of Section 12-A kept open for the transferee court to decide in accordance with law [Paras 17–19].