Criminal Law - Criminal Contempt - Contempt of Courts Act 1971 - Section 2(c) - Scandalising the Court - Interference with administration of justice - A large group of individuals unlawfully assembled at Kiran Sankar Roy Road and blocked the entrance to the building housing advocates chambers - Protesters wrongfully restrained advocates and litigants while shouting abusive and provocative slogans - Photographs of a sitting Judge were displayed on placards and trampled upon in public view - Contemnors C-1 to C-7 admitted to the acts but cited frustration over delayed teacher recruitment appointments as justification - Held - Frustration or emotional outbursts do not justify scurrilous attacks on the judiciary - The acts lowered the majesty of the Court and sanctity of its orders - Stamping on a Judge's photograph is a manifest act of desecration striking at the root of judicial authority - [Paras 1-8, 68-75].

Criminal Law - Maintainability of Suo Motu Proceedings - Constitution of India - Article 215 - Contempt of Courts Act 1971 - Section 15 - Inherent Power - Alleged Contemnor No. 8 challenged maintainability arguing that proceedings initiated on private affidavits required written consent of the Advocate General - Contended that the Chief Justice could not assign the entire matter to a Special Bench via administrative order - Held - Article 215 preserves the inherent power of the High Court as a Court of Record to punish for contempt of itself - This power is absolute and cannot be curtailed by procedural technicalities of the 1971 Act - Section 15 is not the source of power but a procedural safeguard to filter frivolous complaints - The Court has discretion to treat information from private informers as the basis for suo motu action - The Chief Justice as Master of Roster possesses plenary power to assign any matter to any Bench - Procedural rules are handmaids of justice and not its mistress - [Paras 11, 15-16, 25-32, 40-54].

Criminal Law - Liability of Non-Present Contemnor - Contempt of Courts Act 1971 - Section 2(c) - Imputing Bias - Contemnor No. 8 (Kunal Ghosh) was not physically present at the protest site but gave a media interview - Alleged that the sitting Judge was partisan and swayed by specific political and legal camps - Claimed his remarks were political rebuttals to advocate-politicians - Held - Physical presence at the scene of occurrence is not an essential ingredient of criminal contempt - Imputing improper or dishonest motives to a Judge in a media interview constitutes scandalising the Court - Such statements undermine public confidence in the impartiality and independence of the judiciary - The statements were not fair criticism but calculated imputations - [Paras 11-13, 19-20, 76-79].

Criminal Law - Acceptance of Apology - Contempt of Courts Act 1971 - Section 12 - Justification - Contemnors tendered apologies while simultaneously justifying their conduct and challenging the jurisdiction of the Court - Held - A true apology must be unconditional- sincere and genuine- reflecting real contrition - Apology and justification cannot go hand in hand as they are mutually exclusive - Using an apology as a second line of defense when a challenge to maintainability fails is not acceptable - The "slap and say sorry" practice cannot be countenanced - [Paras 36, 74-75, 80-81].

Decision: All alleged contemnors found guilty of criminal contempt - Fine of Rs. 1000/- imposed on Contemnor Nos. 1 to 7 each - Fine of Rs. 2000/- (maximum) imposed on Contemnor No. 8 - Default sentence of 3 days simple imprisonment ordered - Prayer for stay of judgment refused.

Writ Law - Maternity Benefits - Constitution of India - Articles 14, 15, 21 and 42 - Denial of pay during maternity leave - Petitioners engaged as Senior Residents/Tutors under 2020 Academic Arrangement Rules - Respondents withheld salaries during maternity leave citing tenure status and Finance Department advice claiming petitioners were out of assignment - Petitioners contended that Government Order dated 08.07.2024 explicitly extended maternity leave benefits as per existing rules - Respondents argued that tenure-based appointments preclude parity with permanent employees - High Court observed that maternity benefits are an extension of the right to live with dignity under Article 21 - Court noted that to strip emoluments at a vulnerable hour is a profound constitutional injury - Held - The Finance Department lost sight of constitutional bounds in its anxiety to prune public spending - Penalizing a mother based on the technical nature of employment contract while biological reality is identical to regular employees constitutes an egregious infraction of equality - Communication dated 14.10.2025 quashed - [Paras 1-14].

Writ Law - Statutory Mandate - J&K Civil Services (Leave) Rules 1979 - Rule 41(1) - Leave salary entitlement - Government Order No. 451-JK (HME) of 2024 directed that female Senior Residents/Tutors shall be allowed maternity leave as per Government rules and regulations - Rule 41(1) as amended via SRO 353 of 2015 mandates 180 days maternity leave with full leave salary equal to last-drawn pay - Respondents attempted to deny pay alleging absence of public service rendered - Held - Right to full emoluments is an organic corollary of the right to leave itself - Rules explicitly include apprentices and tenure-based posts under the definition of 'post' in Rule 2(c) of the 2020 Rules - State cannot blow hot and cold by granting leave but withholding salary - [Paras 4-13].

Decision: Petition allowed – Communication dated 14.10.2025 quashed – Respondent No. 1 directed to grant full pay and allowances to petitioners during maternity leave and the corresponding extended period of residency.

Matrimonial Law - Maintenance - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 125 - Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act 1956 - Section 20(3) - Maintainability for major unmarried daughter - Petitioner father challenged Family Court order awarding interim maintenance of Rs 2000 per month to his major daughter - Contended that under Section 125 CrPC a major daughter is not entitled to maintenance unless she suffers from a disability - Family Court had denied maintenance to the wife on prima facie grounds but granted it to the daughter - High Court observed that a joint application was filed under Section 125 CrPC - Held - Family Court has jurisdiction under both Chapter IX CrPC and Section 20 of the HAM Act - Following Supreme Court precedents it was held that quoting a wrong provision of law does not vitiate the exercise of power if the source of power exists elsewhere in law - Since the Family Court had the jurisdiction to grant maintenance under the HAM Act the order cannot be set aside merely because the application cited Section 125 CrPC - Revision dismissed - [Paras 1-16].

Family Law - Maintenance - Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act 1956 - Section 20(3) - Criteria for major daughter - Petitioner argued disability is a prerequisite for maintenance for a major child - Court analyzed the statutory framework of Section 20 of the HAM Act - Held - Section 20(3) creates an obligation to maintain an unmarried daughter so long as she is unable to maintain herself out of her own earnings or property - Unlike Section 125 CrPC there is no requirement under Section 20(3) of the HAM Act for the major unmarried daughter to be suffering from any physical or mental disability to be eligible for maintenance - Requirement of the provision fulfilled as daughter showed she was unable to maintain herself - [Paras 10-12].

Procedure - Maintenance Application - Conversion of provision - Technical objections - Petitioner raised technical objection regarding the filing of the application under the wrong statute - Court noted that the application was filed jointly by the wife and major daughter - Held - To remove technical objections the respondents may pray for correction or conversion of the pending application into a joint application under Section 125 CrPC and Section 20(3) of the HAM Act - Mere mentioning of a wrong provision does not come in the way of justice - [Paras 8-15].

Decision: Criminal Revision dismissed – Family Court directed to take strict action for recovery of maintenance dues including striking out the defense if arrears are not cleared – Respondents permitted to seek conversion of the application.

Criminal Law - Bigamy with concealment - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Section 495 - Appellant married respondent in 1984 under Hindu rites unaware of his prior marriage to one Manabi Roy in 1983 under the Special Marriage Act - Respondent was later dismissed from police service following departmental proceedings for bigamy - Trial Court acquitted respondent citing failure to prove first marriage via registry officials and failure to examine the second priest for the second marriage - High Court found the findings preposterous and de hors the evidence - High Court noted that the marriage certificate was exhibited and no suggestion was made by the defence challenging the first marriage during cross-examination - Held - ingredients of Section 495 IPC involving second marriage during subsistence of first and active concealment were proven beyond reasonable doubt - acquittal reversed and respondent convicted - [Paras 1-32].

Evidence Law - Proof of Public Documents - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Sections 63 and 65 - Marriage Certificate - Trial Court refused to accept the marriage certificate between respondent and first wife because officials from the registry were not examined - High Court held that production of a copy of the Certificate of Marriage under the Special Marriage Act is sufficient proof of a previous marriage especially when the fact was corroborated by the respondent's dismissal from service for bigamy and lack of challenge in cross-examination - Held - Trial Court laid unnecessary and excessive emphasis on the requirement of oral proof for an exhibited document - [Paras 17-19].

Criminal Procedure - Limitation - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 468 - Delay in filing complaint - Complaint filed in 1990 for marriage contracted in 1984 and discovered in 1985-86 - Trial Court held the delay to be fatal - High Court clarified that an offence under Section 495 IPC provides for imprisonment up to ten years and therefore attracts no period of limitation under Section 468 CrPC - Held - delay in filing a complaint does not extinguish or dilute the offence - [Para 20].

Family Law - Hindu Marriage - Presumption of validity - Proof of rites - Trial Court held the second marriage unproved as the priest who conducted ceremonies on the second day was not summoned - High Court held that once witnesses depose to the performance of Hindu rites and the wife is accepted into the matrimonial home as a lawful daughter-in-law a presumption of a valid marriage follows - Held - insisting on the production of every priest involved stretches the degree of proof beyond rational and legal limits - [Paras 21-23].

Evidence Law - Scope of Deposition - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 200 - Omissions in complaint - Trial Court found depositions of witnesses to be wider than the initial complaint - High Court held the object of examination is to enable witnesses to depose as freely and widely as possible - Held - there is always scope for bringing in new facts during oral examination which cannot be suspected merely for being absent in the formal complaint - [Para 24].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of acquittal set aside – Respondent convicted under Section 495 IPC – Sentenced to three years simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000 to be paid to the appellant as compensation – In default of fine further simple imprisonment of one year – Respondent directed to be taken into custody forthwith.

Writ Law - Disqualification of Elected Representative - Odisha Gram Panchayat Act 1964 - Sections 25(1)(n) and 26(3) - Petitioner assailed the order of the Collector-cum-District Magistrate Sambalpur disqualifying him as Naib Sarpanch - Disqualification was triggered by a complaint from the Sarpanch alleging the Petitioner's illegal participation in tenders for construction of a GPLF Building and Mukhyamantri Sabha Ghar - Enquiry reports by the Block Development Officer confirmed the Petitioner held a C Class Contractor registration valid during his tenure - Petitioner primarily challenged the order on grounds of violation of principles of natural justice alleging non-receipt of the complaint copy and enquiry reports - State filed an affidavit demonstrating that notices were issued to the Petitioner on multiple dates including 01.11.2025 17.12.2025 and 15.01.2026 which were duly acknowledged but not acted upon - Petitioner chose to remain absent on consecutive hearing dates - Held - The Collector independently applied his mind to the materials on record including the reports of the SDPO and DPO - There is no infirmity in the appreciation of evidence - The Petitioner having been afforded repeated opportunities which he chose not to avail is estopped from raising grievances regarding natural justice - Petition dismissed as an abuse of the process of law - [Paras 1-16].

Writ Law - Principles of Natural Justice - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Conduct of Petitioner - Petitioner claimed the disqualification order was non est due to procedural irregularities - Court found that the Petitioner was served with notices for hearing on 12.12.2025 and 09.01.2026 but failed to participate or place any material on record to justify his absence - Held - Principles of natural justice cannot be invoked by a party who deliberately chooses to stay away from a lawful proceeding despite notice - Such a conduct precludes the party from later challenging the decision on the ground of denial of opportunity - [Paras 12-14].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – All interlocutory applications including I.A. No. 12494 of 2026 for stay of election stand dismissed – No costs.

Writ Law - Freezing of Bank Account - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 - Sections 106 and 107 - Petitioner company challenged the lien placed on its bank account by the police during an investigation into an FIR for cheating and forgery involving a business dispute between Rah Infotech Pvt. Ltd. and Goel Group - Investigation revealed that part of the alleged proceeds of crime amounting to Rs. 32,09,907/- was transferred to the petitioner’s account from the accused entities - Petitioner contended that the police had no authority to directly freeze the account and should have followed the procedure for attachment through a Magistrate under Section 107 BNSS - Respondents argued that the power to seize property under Section 106 BNSS includes the power to place a lien on bank accounts where suspicion of criminal activity exists - High Court analyzed the definition of proceeds of crime under Section 111(c) and the scope of Section 106 which is akin to Section 102 of the old CrPC - Held - Police officers are legally authorized under Section 106 BNSS to freeze or prohibit the operation of a bank account if it is suspected to be property derived from the commission of an offence - The requirement of attachment through a Court under Section 107 does not override the immediate investigative power of the police to seize or freeze property under Section 106 - Point of determination answered against the petitioner - [Paras 1-45].

Criminal Law - Seizure of Property - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 - Section 106 - De-freezing of Account - Ratio Decidendi - While the police have the authority to freeze accounts under Section 106 BNSS to prevent the dissipation of proceeds of crime during investigation - the Court must harmonize the rights of a potentially bona fide business entity with the rights of the complainant - Protracted freezing of accounts without final adjudication amounts to attachment before judgment - Held - To ensure a win-win situation for both the petitioner and the victim of the alleged fraud - the account shall be de-frozen subject to the petitioner furnishing security bonds equivalent to the frozen amount to the satisfaction of the Jurisdictional Magistrate/Trial Court - [Paras 46-49].

Decision: Petition disposed of – Removal of lien directed subject to the petitioner furnishing security bonds equivalent to the frozen amount (Rs. 32,09,907/-) – Investigating Agency to withdraw the lien within three working days of receiving intimation from the Magistrate.

Writ Law - Disputed questions of fact - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Dispute regarding title and mutation based on alleged forged documents and unregistered sale deeds - Petitioner claimed land fell to his share in family partition and respondents fabricated a partition deed to grab the land - Revenue Divisional Officer initially set aside the mutation in favour of respondents and remanded the matter - Revisional authority being the Special Tribunal reversed the order and directed the parties to approach the competent civil court as the matter involved disputed questions of fact regarding ownership and validity of documents - High Court upheld the Special Tribunal order noting that the petitioner approached the authorities after an unexplained delay of 11 years - Held - Rival contentions raising pure questions of fact require examination of evidence and material documents which cannot be decided in writ jurisdiction - Parties directed to approach the competent civil court - Writ Petition dismissed - [Paras 7-15].

Writ Law - Scope of writ jurisdiction - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Adjudication of disputed facts - Allegations of forged partition deeds and sale of land without title - Veracity of documents needs to be examined under the provisions of the Evidence Act - Held - Matter involving disputed question of fact about the ownership of the land in question could not be decided in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India - High Court is justified in directing the parties to approach the civil court for resolving such dispute - [Paras 10-12].

Decision: Writ Petition is dismissed – Petitioner is at liberty to approach the competent Civil Court for redressal of his grievance.

Criminal Law - Kidnapping and Abduction - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Sections 361, 363 and 366 - Acquittal - State appeal against the acquittal of the respondent accused of kidnapping a minor girl with intent to compel marriage - Prosecution alleged that the accused threatened to upload victim's photographs on the internet to coerce her into joining him - Trial Court acquitted the accused after finding that the victim voluntarily accompanied him - High Court re-appreciated evidence noting that the victim (PW3) in her cross-examination admitted the accused never slapped her and that she never gave him any photographs - Evidence revealed the victim travelled with the accused in public buses and visited crowded terminals at Anand Vihar and Haridwar without seeking help from police or public officials present - High Court observed such conduct is inconsistent with a person being taken under coercion or threat - Essential ingredients of taking or enticing under Section 363 IPC not established as there was no clear evidence of inducement or active participation by the accused in forming the victim's intention to leave her home - Held - No interference called for with the trial court's order of acquittal - appeal dismissed - [Paras 1-19, 21-22].

Criminal Law - Sexual Harassment - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012 - Section 12 - Essential Ingredients - Accused charged with sexual harassment under Section 12 POCSO Act - Victim (PW3) specifically deposed that the accused neither had sexual intercourse with her nor sexually assaulted or touched her in any manner - Allegation of threat to upload photographs was rendered speculative as the victim admitted she never provided such photographs to the accused - In the absence of reliable evidence establishing any act constituting sexual harassment within the meaning of Section 11 of the POCSO Act - Held - The offence under Section 12 is not made out beyond reasonable doubt - [Paras 2, 15, 18, 20].

Criminal Procedure - Procedural Compliance - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 232 - Non-compliance of hearing - Trial court omitted to conduct a hearing as contemplated under Section 232 CrPC after questioning the accused under Section 313 CrPC - High Court held that non-compliance of the said provision does not ipso facto vitiate the proceedings unless it resulted in serious and substantial prejudice to the accused - Respondent-accused did not raise any case of prejudice - Held - The trial proceedings were not vitiated by this technical omission - [Para 7].

Criminal Law - Kidnapping from Lawful Guardianship - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Section 361 - Distinction between taking and allowing to accompany - High Court applied the principle established in S. Varadarajan v. State of Madras - Distinguished between the act of taking and merely allowing a minor of sufficient understanding to accompany a person - Where a minor voluntarily leaves the protection of a guardian without inducement or active participation by the accused - it cannot be said that the accused has taken the minor - Held - Prosecution failed to provide independent evidence corroborating threats or coercion - [Paras 13, 19].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment of acquittal dated 28.11.2014 passed by the Trial Court affirmed.

Criminal Law - Murder and Robbery - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Sections 302, 34, 394 and 411 - Appellant Dharmendra Singh and co-accused Charan Singh were tried for the murder and robbery of a businessman who had collected Rs. 1,25,000 from local traders - Prosecution case established that Sher Singh (deceased) shot the victim while Dharmendra Singh snatched the suitcase and was caught red-handed by police personnel on a railway bridge - Suitcase containing specific currency bundles with signatures/seals of traders and personal effects was recovered from him - Trial Court convicted both appellants - High Court found that while fact witnesses turned hostile, they admitted the date, time, and factum of the incident - Dharmendra Singh's apprehension with the loot was corroborated by consistent police testimony - Evidence against Charan Singh found insufficient due to lack of arrest at the spot or incriminating recovery - Held - Conviction of Dharmendra Singh under Sections 302/34, 394, and 411 IPC affirmed - Charan Singh granted benefit of doubt and acquitted - [Paras 1-66].

Evidence Law - Hostile Witnesses - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 154 - Evidentiary value of hostile witnesses and First Information Report - Informant (PW-2) and several eyewitnesses turned hostile and resiled from statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC - Informant claimed FIR was dictated by police - Court relied on settled law that testimony of a hostile witness is not rejected in toto and can be used to the extent it supports the prosecution - FIR relevance is not lost merely because the informant turns hostile if the registration is proved and it forms part of official records - Date, time, and nature of incident were established through admissions of hostile witnesses - Held - Relevancy and sanctity of FIR maintained - conviction sustainable despite hostility of fact witnesses - [Paras 25-38, 53].

Evidence Law - Police Witnesses - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 3 - Reliability of recovery witnesses - Contention that no independent public witness supported the recovery of the looted suitcase - Prosecution relied solely on police personnel who caught the accused red-handed - Court held that there is no rule of law requiring discarding of police testimony merely due to their official status - Presumption that every person acts honestly applies to police officials - No evidence of enmity or motive for false implication was adduced by the defense - Held - Conviction can be safely recorded on the reliable testimony of police witnesses if it inspires confidence - [Paras 46-51].

Criminal Law - Arms Act - Arms Act 1959 - Section 25 - Proof of workability - Country-made pistol and cartridges recovered from Dharmendra Singh - Investigating Officer (PW-9) admitted in evidence that the weapon was not sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for expert examination - No personal testing conducted to prove the weapon was in workable condition - Failure to connect the weapon with the alleged crime - Held - Conviction under Section 25 of the Arms Act is bad in law and contrary to settled principles - conviction set aside - [Paras 56, 58].

Decision: Criminal Appeal No. 2075 of 2008 (Charan Singh) allowed – Appellant acquitted of all charges. Criminal Appeal No. 2718 of 2008 (Dharmendra Singh) partly allowed – Conviction under Sections 302/34, 394 and 411 IPC affirmed – Conviction under Section 25 of the Arms Act set aside – Appellant directed to surrender to serve remaining sentence.