Matrimonial Law - Maintenance – Wife Living Separately – Sufficient Cause – Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. – Family Court denied maintenance to wife on ground that she refused to return to matrimonial home during proceedings under Section 9 HMA – Held, refusal to resume cohabitation despite restitution proceedings does not by itself disentitle wife from maintenance – Disqualification under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. wrongly applied – Impugned finding unsustainable [Paras 8–9].

Maintenance – Cruelty and Dowry Demand – Proof – Family Court held absence of dowry or cruelty complaints fatal to wife’s claim – Held, non-filing of criminal complaint cannot be sole basis to deny maintenance – Conduct of husband in denying paternity of minor child indicative of matrimonial discord – Approach of Family Court held erroneous and hyper-technical [Paras 8–10].

Maintenance – Earning Capacity of Wife – Educational Qualification – Gainful Employment – Family Court rejected wife’s claim on ground of concealment of education and alleged earning capacity – Held, mere qualification or potential to earn not sufficient to deny maintenance – No cogent evidence of actual gainful employment produced by husband – Capacity to earn distinct from actual earning – Statutory right to maintenance cannot be defeated on speculative grounds [Paras 10, 11, 15–16].

Maintenance – Minor Child – Quantum – Adequacy – Maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- per month awarded to adolescent son held grossly inadequate – Father’s admitted gross salary of Rs. 48,350/- per month ignored – Excessive deductions towards loans wrongly permitted – Principles laid down in Rajnesh v. Neha requiring fair and realistic assessment overlooked [Paras 11, 17].

Maintenance – Social Justice – Object of Section 125 Cr.P.C. – Courts must adopt humane and practical approach – Maintenance provision intended to prevent destitution and ensure dignified life for wife and child – Mere ability to work or earn meagre income insufficient to deny relief – Wife entitled to live with dignity consistent with husband’s status [Paras 11–14].

Criminal Revision – Interference with Family Court Order – Family Court misconstrued evidence and misapplied settled legal principles – Order found legally unsustainable – Matter remanded for fresh determination of maintenance in accordance with law and Supreme Court guidelines [Paras 15–18].

Decision: Criminal Revision allowed – Order dated 03.10.2024 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bulandshahr set aside – Matter remanded to Family Court for fresh determination of maintenance payable to wife and minor son – Family Court directed to pass a reasoned order within one month – All rights and contentions of parties kept open.

Criminal Law – Section 482 – Inherent Powers – Quashing of FIR and Charge-sheet – Scope – FIR registered under Section 188 IPC read with Section 14(i) of Arunachal Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupant) Act, 2003 – Held: High Court can quash FIR even after filing of charge-sheet if continuation of proceedings amounts to abuse of process of Court [Paras 12–18, 26].

Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 188 – Cognizance – Bar under Section 195 CrPC – Mandatory Compliance – FIR lodged by public servant before police instead of written complaint to Magistrate – Police registered case and filed charge-sheet – Held: Prosecution for offence under Section 188 IPC can be initiated only on complaint in writing of public servant before Magistrate – FIR and charge-sheet to that extent void ab initio – Proceedings liable to be quashed [Paras 29–32].

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 195 – Nature and Effect – Object – Protection against frivolous prosecution – Held: Any violation of mandatory procedure under Section 195 CrPC vitiates entire proceedings relating to offence under Sections 172 to 188 IPC – Cognizance taken contrary to statute unsustainable in law [Paras 30–31].

Arunachal Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupant) Act, 2003 – Section 14(i) – Penal Consequences – Cognizable Offence – Section 15 – Applicability of CrPC – FIR Maintainable – Held: Act provides both civil and penal consequences – Section 14 creates offence of unauthorized occupation – Section 15 expressly applies CrPC treating offence as cognizable – No statutory bar against lodging FIR for offence under Section 14 – Criminal proceedings to that extent valid [Paras 33–37].

Public Premises – Unauthorized Occupation – Eviction Proceedings and Criminal Liability – Distinction – Held: Civil remedies such as eviction, demolition and appeal under the Act are independent of penal prosecution under Section 14 – Availability of civil remedies does not bar criminal action where statute so permits [Paras 33–35].

Section 482 CrPC – Exercise of Power – Partial Quashing – Severability – Held: Where FIR discloses multiple offences and statutory bar applies only to one, proceedings can be quashed partially – FIR and charge-sheet quashed only to extent of offence under Section 188 IPC while allowed to continue for offence under Section 14 of 2003 Act [Paras 38–39].

Decision: Criminal petition partly allowed – FIR dated 14.08.2019 and Charge-sheet No. 02/2020 quashed to extent of offence under Section 188 IPC – Criminal proceedings under Section 14(i) of the Arunachal Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupant) Act, 2003 upheld – Trial to proceed in accordance with law – Petition disposed of [Paras 38–40].

Service Law – Disciplinary Proceedings – Post-Retirement Action – Jurisdiction – Petitioner voluntarily retired w.e.f. 20.01.2003 – Charge memo issued on 26.08.2003 after cessation of employer-employee relationship – Held: Disciplinary proceedings can be continued after retirement only if initiated prior to retirement – Proceedings initiated after retirement are without jurisdiction and void [Paras 13, 20–21].

Service Regulations – Applicability – Officer Employee – Conduct and Discipline Regulations – Definition of “Officer Employee” restricts applicability to serving employees – No provision extending applicability to retired employees – Held: Conduct Regulations and DA Regulations cannot be invoked against a person who ceased to be employee on date of initiation of proceedings [Paras 19–21].

Pension Regulations – Regulations 45 and 48 – Scope – Withholding or Withdrawal of Pension – Pension Regulations do not independently create disciplinary jurisdiction – They operate only upon valid departmental or judicial proceedings and subject to strict compliance – Mandatory consultation with Board before recovery – Non-compliance renders penalty unsustainable [Paras 17–18, 25].

Disciplinary Penalty – Withdrawal of One-Third Pension – Source of Power – Penalty not enumerated under Regulation 4 of DA Regulations – Authority has no inherent power to devise penalties not prescribed by rules – Held: Penalty imposed is ultra vires, illegal, and violative of Article 14 [Paras 23, 25].

Grave Misconduct – Distinction from Misconduct – Pension Regulations – Expression “grave misconduct” stands on higher pedestal than “misconduct” under Conduct Regulations – No specific enquiry or finding of grave misconduct as contemplated under Pension Regulations – Recovery of alleged pecuniary loss impermissible without determination and Board approval [Paras 24–25].

Alternative Remedy – Appeal and Review – Bar to Writ Jurisdiction – When action is ex facie without jurisdiction, availability of alternative remedy is no bar to exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 – Objection rejected [Para 22].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Charge memo dated 26.08.2003/02.09.2003 and punishment order dated 21.04.2006 quashed – Disciplinary proceedings declared illegal and without jurisdiction – Respondent bank directed to release all pensionary and retiral benefits within two months after adjustment of amounts already paid – No costs [Paras 26–27].

NDPS Act – Quashing of Proceedings – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Accused implicated only on basis of voluntary/confessional statements recorded under Section 67 NDPS Act – No independent corroborative material linking petitioner to offence – Continuation of prosecution held to be abuse of process of law [Paras 8, 11].

Section 67 NDPS Act – Evidentiary Value – Confessional statements recorded by NCB officers inadmissible – Officers under Section 53 NDPS Act deemed “police officers” – Bar under Section 25 Evidence Act attracted – Reliance placed on Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu and followed consistently – Confession of accused or co-accused cannot form sole basis for prosecution [Paras 9–11].

Co-accused Confession – Limited Evidentiary Worth – Confession of co-accused cannot, by itself, justify prosecution or framing of charge – Strong suspicion must be founded on admissible material capable of being translated into evidence at trial – Mere statements under Section 67 insufficient [Paras 9–11].

Controlled Delivery – Section 50A NDPS Act – Mandatory Compliance – Controlled delivery undertaken without authorisation by Director General or authorised officer – Non-compliance vitiates identification of accused through controlled delivery – Proceedings against similarly placed co-accused already quashed – Parity applicable [Paras 7–8].

Parity – Earlier Quashing of Proceedings – Proceedings against Accused No.2 quashed on identical facts in Abhay Kumar v. Union of India – Petitioner stands on equal or better footing – No distinguishing incriminating material against petitioner [Paras 4, 7–8].

NDPS Prosecution – Foundational Facts – Prosecution failed to establish conscious possession, knowledge, or role of petitioner – No recovery from petitioner – Burden under Sections 35 and 54 NDPS Act never shifted to accused [Paras 8–11].

Decision – Criminal Petition Allowed – Proceedings in Special C.C. No.2932/2023 quashed qua petitioner – Clarification that observations confined to petitioner and shall not affect trial of other accused [Paras 11–12].

Environmental Law – National Green Tribunal – Writ Jurisdiction – Maintainability – Alternative Remedy – Writ petition under Article 226 challenging NGT order keeping Environmental Clearance (EC) in abeyance – Existence of statutory appeal under Section 22 of NGT Act – Held: Alternative remedy is not an absolute bar – Writ petition maintainable and entertained where challenge is on grounds of lack of jurisdiction, violation of natural justice and long pendency of proceedings [Paras 29, 85(A)].

National Green Tribunal – Jurisdiction – “Person Aggrieved” – Section 16 NGT Act – Appeal before NGT by private respondent challenging grant of EC – Contention that appellant before NGT lacked locus standi – Held: Appellant before NGT was a “person aggrieved” within meaning of Section 16 – NGT order not without jurisdiction [Paras 44–47, 85(B)].

Environmental Clearance – Mining Project – Power of NGT to Keep EC in Abeyance – NGT directing EC dated 16.04.2020 to be kept in abeyance and remitting matter for fresh consideration – Allegations of procedural violations, lack of detailed study and non-compliance with Sustainable Sand Mining Management Guidelines, 2016 – Held: NGT justified in exercising preventive and remedial jurisdiction – No perversity or illegality in keeping EC in abeyance pending reconsideration [Paras 56–58, 85(C)-(D)].

Natural Justice – Opportunity of Hearing – Remand by NGT – Petitioner contending that adverse grounds were not put to it – Held: No violation of principles of natural justice – Petitioner participated in proceedings and NGT passed reasoned order considering environmental concerns [Paras 49–50, 85(C)].

Environmental Jurisprudence – Suo Motu Powers of NGT – Sections 14 and 15 NGT Act – Held: NGT’s role not confined to adjudication of lis between parties – Tribunal empowered to take cognizance of environmental threats and violations even beyond grounds urged by parties [Paras 58–59].

Ex Post Facto Environmental Clearance – Scope – Question of grant of EC, whether ex post facto or otherwise, left open – Authorities directed to reconsider EC in light of NGT directions and latest Supreme Court judgment in CREDAI v. Vanashakti – Held: Issue to be decided by competent authority in accordance with law [Paras 82–84].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – Order of NGT dated 15.11.2021 upheld – Respondent authorities directed to reconsider grant of Environmental Clearance in accordance with NGT directions and latest Supreme Court pronouncements – Opportunity of hearing to be afforded to petitioner and private respondent – No order as to costs.

NDPS Act – Bail – Commercial Quantity – Rigours of Section 37 – Applicants sought bail under Section 483 BNSS in FIR registered under Sections 21 and 29 NDPS Act – Recovery of 468.380 grams of Chitta (Heroin) effected from co-accused – Quantity admittedly commercial – Held: Once offence involves commercial quantity, mandatory twin conditions under Section 37 NDPS Act must be satisfied – Bail is exception and refusal is rule [Paras 14–17].

Bail – Reasonable Grounds – Standard of Satisfaction – Court must record satisfaction that accused is not guilty and unlikely to commit offence while on bail – “Reasonable grounds” means something more than prima facie case – Applicants failed to demonstrate substantial probable cause to believe they were not guilty – Held: Statutory threshold under Section 37 not met [Paras 18–19].

Criminal Conspiracy – Section 29 NDPS Act – Financial Transactions as Linking Evidence – Prosecution relied upon disclosure statements, bank account transactions running into lakhs and crores, CDRs, mobile phone data and WhatsApp chats – Applicants alleged to be part of organised interstate drug syndicate – Held: Financial trail and electronic evidence prima facie establish nexus attracting Section 29 NDPS Act [Paras 11.12–11.46].

Parity – Bail Granted to Co-Accused – No Automatic Right – Applicants sought parity with co-accused earlier enlarged on bail by Special Judge – Held: Bail orders passed without recording mandatory findings under Section 37 NDPS Act are per incuriam – Parity cannot be claimed on basis of illegal or flawed bail orders [Paras 20–23].

Judicial Discipline – Binding Nature of Supreme Court Precedent – Special Judge granted bail to co-accused without considering Section 37 NDPS Act – High Court deprecated approach as contrary to binding law laid down in Mohit Aggarwal and Kashif – Held: Courts are duty bound to strictly comply with Section 37 before granting bail [Paras 21–23].

Investigation Completed – Filing of Charge-Sheet – No Ground for Bail – Though charge-sheet filed, seriousness of offence, societal impact and statutory bar under Section 37 override usual considerations for bail – Held: Completion of investigation does not dilute rigours of Section 37 NDPS Act [Paras 11.47–11.48, 24].

Societal Impact – Drug Menace – Youth at Risk – Alleged drug racket capable of affecting thousands of persons – Organised trade exceeding ₹5 crores alleged – Held: Gravity of offence and societal repercussions are relevant considerations against grant of bail [Paras 11.45–11.46].

Decision: Bail applications dismissed – No case made out for grant of bail under Section 483 BNSS – Observations confined to bail stage and not to affect merits of trial.

Pre-emption – Co-sharer’s Right – Superior Right – Plaintiff proved to be co-sharer at time of sale and institution of suit – Suit land forming part of joint holding and not partitioned – Held: Co-sharer in unpartitioned land has superior right of pre-emption over vendee [Paras 5–7, 15–16].

Pre-emption – Gair Mumkin Bara – Section 5(b) Punjab Pre-emption Act – Exclusion of reclaimed waste land – Mere entry of land as Gair Mumkin Bara does not automatically attract bar under Section 5(b) – No evidence that land was reclaimed waste land by vendee – Held: Suit land remains pre-emptable [Paras 14–15].

Partition – Effect on Right of Pre-emption – Private partition mutation relied upon by vendee – Mutation related only to agricultural land – No proof of partition of Bara portion – Bara continued to remain joint – Held: Plaintiff continued as co-sharer retaining right of pre-emption [Paras 15–16].

Improvements – Claim by Vendee – Expenditure on improvements – Plea of spending ₹4,500/- on raising boundary walls – No cogent evidence produced – Self-serving plea rejected by courts below – Findings affirmed [Paras 5–7].

Concurrent Findings – Scope of Regular Second Appeal – Trial Court and First Appellate Court concurrently held plaintiff entitled to decree of pre-emption – Findings based on proper appreciation of evidence – No substantial question of law arising – Held: No interference warranted under Section 100 CPC [Paras 16–17].

Decision: Regular Second Appeal dismissed – Judgments and decrees dated 22.07.1992 and 27.07.1993 passed by the Courts below upheld – Concurrent findings affirmed – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 17–18].

Criminal Law – Sexual Offences Against Child – Conviction Based on Sole Testimony of Victim – Sufficiency of Evidence – Appellant convicted for wrongful restraint, outraging modesty and rape of a minor girl – Victim gave a clear, cogent and consistent account of sexual assault involving digital penetration and sexual acts – Cross-examination failed to discredit her testimony – Held: Conviction can be safely based on sole testimony of prosecutrix when it inspires confidence [Paras 14–17, 22].

Evidence – Minor Contradictions and Omissions – Effect – Defence highlighted omissions in statements under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC and discrepancies regarding disclosure of incident – Held: Minor omissions which do not affect the core of prosecution case are inconsequential and do not undermine credibility of victim’s testimony [Paras 16, 23–24].

Medical Evidence – Absence of Injuries – Not Fatal – Medical examination conducted after lapse of time showed no genital injuries – Doctor opined that injuries could heal within 7–10 days – Held: Absence of medical corroboration does not discredit otherwise trustworthy testimony of victim – Medical evidence not sine qua non for conviction in sexual offence cases [Paras 20–22].

Delay in Lodging FIR – Sexual Offences – Explained – FIR lodged after victim disclosed incident to friend and family – Delay satisfactorily explained due to fear, trauma and social stigma – Held: Delay in sexual offence cases cannot be equated with other crimes and does not vitiate prosecution case [Paras 22].

Non-Examination of Certain Witnesses – Adverse Inference – When Not Warranted – Defence argued non-examination of daughter of appellant and other relatives – Held: When evidence on record is overwhelming and unimpeachable, non-examination of some witnesses is not fatal and does not warrant adverse inference [Paras 36].

Rape – Section 375(b) IPC – Digital Penetration – Act of inserting finger into private part of minor squarely falls within Section 375(b) IPC – Consent irrelevant as victim was a minor – Offence of rape clearly made out [Paras 41–42].

Goa Children’s Act – Grave Sexual Assault – Acts proved constituted “grave sexual assault” under Sections 2(y)(i) & (ii) punishable under Section 8(2) – Conviction under special statute justified [Paras 43–44].

Sentence – Age of Accused – No Mitigation in Child Sexual Offence – Appellant aged above 80 years sought leniency – Held: Advanced age of accused not a mitigating factor in offences involving sexual assault on a child – Protection of child and societal conscience paramount [Paras 50–52].

Decision: Criminal Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentences imposed by Children’s Court affirmed – Appellant directed to surrender forthwith – Prayer for stay rejected.

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – Discharge and Framing of Charge – Scope of Judicial Review – Petitioner, Director of contractor company, challenged rejection of discharge and framing of charge under Section 3 PMLA – Allegations of submission of 26 fake and forged bitumen invoices leading to generation of proceeds of crime worth Rs. 1,08,95,583/- – Investigation revealing receipt, layering and investment of proceeds of crime through subsidiary and associate companies controlled by petitioner – Held: At stage of discharge and framing of charge, court required only to see existence of prima facie material and not conduct a mini trial – Strong suspicion founded on material sufficient to frame charge – No perversity or illegality in impugned orders [Paras 20–21, 56–60, 100].

Money Laundering – “Proceeds of Crime” – Interpretation of Section 2(1)(u) PMLA – Explanation inserted by Act 23 of 2019 – Scope widened to include property directly or indirectly derived or obtained from criminal activity relatable to scheduled offence – Held: Proceeds generated through fake invoices and subsequently invested in subsidiaries constitute proceeds of crime – Identification of exact amount sufficient at prima facie stage [Paras 25–29, 98–100, 114].

Offence under Section 3 PMLA – Continuing Nature – Involvement Not Limited to Predicate Offence – Petitioner not only linked with scheduled offence but also actively involved in acquisition, possession, use and projection of proceeds of crime as untainted – Held: Person need not be named as accused in predicate offence to be prosecuted under PMLA – Knowingly assisting or being party to laundering activity sufficient [Paras 102–108, 112–113].

Criminal Conspiracy – Role of Director – Vicarious Liability under Section 70 PMLA – Evidence showing petitioner as key decision-maker and controller of day-to-day affairs of parent and subsidiary companies – Statements under Section 50 PMLA and documentary evidence relied upon – Held: Prima facie case of consent, connivance and active role established against petitioner as Director [Paras 93–97].

Discharge – Legal Principles – Court Not to Act as Post Office – Defence Not to be Considered – Revisional Court’s Limited Jurisdiction – Held: Revisional jurisdiction cannot be equated with appellate power – Interference justified only in rare cases of patent illegality or jurisdictional error – No ground made out to interfere with rejection of discharge or framing of charge [Paras 117–123].

Economic Offences – Need for Full Trial – Serious Allegations of Money Laundering – Reliance on Supreme Court Precedents – Held: Economic offences having deep-rooted conspiracies and financial ramifications require thorough trial – Discharge at nascent stage impermissible [Paras 115–116].

Decision: Criminal Revision No. 648 of 2025 and Criminal Revision No. 529 of 2025 dismissed – Orders rejecting discharge and framing charge under Sections 3 and 4 PMLA affirmed – Pending interlocutory applications disposed of.