Criminal Law – Quashing - Cruelty under Section 498-A IPC – Taunts, Abuses and Alleged Assaults – Prima Facie Offence Made Out – Petition Dismissed – Wife alleged repeated physical and mental harassment including beatings, sexual violence, and dowry-related abuse – Court held that these allegations, if proven, could attract Section 498-A IPC and require adjudication in trial – Held: Petition to quash criminal proceedings dismissed [Paras 25-32].

Jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC – Limited Scope – Interference Not Warranted – Allegations Raise Triable Issues – Court reiterated that power to quash proceedings should be exercised sparingly and only in rare cases – In view of detailed allegations and pending trial, interference under Section 482 CrPC and Article 227 of Constitution was not justified – Held: Petition premature and devoid of merit [Paras 31, 33-36].

Exoneration by Army Inquiry – Not Binding on Criminal Proceedings – Different Standards Apply – Petitioner relied on exoneration by Army authorities on similar allegations – Held: Such inquiry not judicial in nature, not conducted under evidentiary standards required in criminal law – Does not preclude prosecution under IPC and DV Act [Paras 38-41].

Domestic Violence Allegations – Triable Case Exists – Complaint Not an Abuse of Process – Petitioners challenged DV proceedings citing contradictions and lack of medico-legal evidence – Court held that sustained taunts, threats, and control over household resources may constitute domestic violence – Held: Sufficient basis exists to proceed with complaint under DV Act [Paras 27-30].

Decision – Petitions Dismissed – No Grounds to Quash FIR or DV Complaint – Court emphasized need to test veracity of allegations at trial and not under pre-trial jurisdiction of High Court – Held: No abuse of process established, both petitions dismissed [Paras 43].

Criminal Contempt – Advocate’s Disruption in Court – Six-Month Imprisonment Imposed – Suo motu contempt proceedings initiated against advocate for entering courtroom without uniform, unbuttoned shirt, using abusive language, and calling judges "goondas" – Court found repeated misconduct on earlier dates including barging into courtroom without summons and defying decorum – Held: Conduct amounts to scandalizing the court and interfering with justice administration – Contemnor sentenced to six months' imprisonment and Rs. 2000 fine, with further one-month jail on default [Paras 1-3, 20-22, 30-31].

Contempt by Repeated Defiance – Pattern of Misconduct – Prior Offences Considered – Court reviewed history of contemnor’s past contempt proceedings from 2003 to 2017, including earlier three-month sentence and two-year entry ban to court premises – Held: Persistent contemptuous behavior shows no remorse; warrants exemplary punishment to uphold public confidence in judiciary [Paras 15-18, 27-30].

Contempt Jurisdiction – Section 14(2) Interpretation – Trial by Successor Bench Permissible – Contemnor argued contempt could only be tried by original initiating bench – Held: Since original judges were transferred, successor bench assigned contempt roster had jurisdiction to proceed – Preliminary objection dismissed [Paras 11-14].

Judicial Record – Sanctity of Court Proceedings – Challenge to Judicial Observation Rejected – Court reiterated that facts recorded by judges during hearings are conclusive and cannot be challenged through affidavits or oral assertions – Held: No counter filed by contemnor; record binding and accepted [Paras 18-19].

Advocate’s Duty – Ethics and Decorum in Courtroom – Professional Misconduct Highlighted – Court emphasized that lawyers must maintain dignity, decorum, and are not entitled to unfounded personal attacks on judiciary – Held: Freedom of expression subject to limits under contempt law; abuse of judicial platform cannot be tolerated [Paras 22-23].

Decision – Contempt Upheld – Debarment Proceedings Initiated – In addition to sentence, notice issued under Chapter XXIV Rule 11(3) of Allahabad High Court Rules to debar contemnor from practicing for 3 years – Contemnor directed to reply by 01.05.2025 and be present on next hearing date [Paras 31-36].

Criminal Law – Release of Seizure of Cash – Economic Offence – Conditional Release Directed – The Court allowed the release of ₹15 lakhs seized from the petitioner during CBI investigation in a financial scam case – Held: While the petitioner’s entitlement remains disputed, prolonged retention of cash undermines economic activity – Directed release with safeguards preserving evidentiary value [Paras 1-3, 9-11].

Judicial Discretion – Sections 451 and 457 Cr.P.C. – Seized Property Can Be Released – Court invoked principles from Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai and Manjit Singh to hold that property, including currency, should not stagnate in judicial custody without compelling reason – Mandated detailed panchnama, photographic documentation, and financial security as preconditions for release [Paras 5-6, 9-11].

Economic Utility vs Investigative Integrity – Balance Achieved by Safeguards - Cash to remain available if required during trial – Ordered bank guarantee for 50% amount and other financial security for remainder – Petitioner required to submit undertaking affirming return of funds if directed by court [Paras 11, 14-15].

Guidelines Issued – Comprehensive Framework for Disposal of Seized Property – Court issued broad guidelines for handling and disposal of various types of seized assets, including cash, gold, vehicles, narcotics, electronic devices, and perishable goods – Emphasized minimization of custody time and utility maximization [Paras 12-13, 16-24].

Decision – Revision Allowed – Cash Ordered to be Released with Conditions - Trial court’s rejection of release application set aside – High Court directed release subject to documentation and security measures [Para 13].
 

Criminal Law - Juvenile Justice – Trial of Juvenile as Adult – Mandatory Two-Stage Assessment – Trial Held Invalid – Appellant, aged 17, was tried as an adult based solely on preliminary assessment by Juvenile Justice Board – Held: Under Sections 15 and 19 of the JJ Act, trial of juvenile as adult requires two distinct assessments – Children’s Court must conduct independent judicial scrutiny – No such assessment done in this case – Trial process invalidated [Paras 23–33].

Procedural Law – Duty of Children’s Court – Section 19(1) JJ Act – Not an Empty Formality – Held: Sessions Judge merely endorsed Board’s report without giving reasons or evaluating appellant’s mental and physical capacity or understanding of consequences – Statutory obligation of Children’s Court not discharged – Decision to try appellant as adult illegal and caused prejudice [Paras 28–31].

Guidelines – Compliance with SC Mandate – Preliminary and Judicial Assessments Must Be Informed – Referring to Barun Chandra Thakur v. Bholu and Ajeet Gurjar v. State of M.P. – Held: Board’s assessment must be specific, and Children’s Court must apply mind afresh – Guidelines of NCPCR though later in time, reflect mandatory safeguards embedded in statute – Summary approval of Board’s assessment impermissible [Paras 14–22, 29].

Remand – Fresh Determination Required – Judgment Set Aside – Held: Since independent assessment was absent, matter remanded to Children’s Court for fresh inquiry under Section 19 JJ Act – If Court concludes appellant to be tried as adult, it may proceed with pronouncement based on existing evidence – No de novo trial required [Paras 34–35].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction set aside – Case remanded to Children’s Court for conducting proper inquiry under Section 19(1) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 – Preference directed for early disposal [Paras 34–36].

Criminal Law – Challenge Conviction – POCSO Act - Juvenile Justice – Preliminary Assessment under Section 15 JJ Act – Improper Compliance – Conviction Set Aside - The Court held that the preliminary assessment by the Juvenile Justice Board was conducted without fully considering the mandatory criteria, and the Children's Court failed to perform an independent judicial assessment as required under Section 19(1)(i) of the JJ Act, causing serious prejudice to the appellant [Paras 17-29].

Children’s Court – Independent Assessment – Mandatory under JJ Act – Procedural Deficiency – The Children’s Court merely relied on the Board’s report without detailed assessment of the appellant’s physical and mental capacity or understanding of consequences, violating the statutory requirement for a fresh evaluation before trying as an adult [Paras 28-33].

Juvenile Tried as Adult – Impact of Procedural Violations – Matter Remanded - Given the grave procedural defects impacting the appellant’s right under the JJ Act, the conviction was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the Children’s Court for fresh inquiry and assessment under Section 19 of the Juvenile Justice Act [Paras 34-36].

Taxation Law – VAT - Tax Classification – Mobile Chargers as Accessories – Differential VAT Rate Justified – Tribunal erred in treating mobile chargers bundled with phones as part of the phone and applying 5% VAT – Held: Mobile chargers are not composite parts of phones but accessories – As per Supreme Court's ruling in State of Punjab vs. Nokia India Pvt. Ltd., they are independently marketable and not essential to operate a phone – VAT at 13.75% correctly applied by Assessing Authority [Paras 3-5, 13-19, 39].

Precedent – Binding Nature of Nokia India Case – Applicability to HP VAT Act – Provisions of the Himachal Pradesh VAT Act being pari materia with Punjab VAT Act – Tribunal failed to correctly apply the law laid down by the Supreme Court – Decisions of Allahabad and Karnataka High Courts distinguished due to different statutory provisions under UP VAT and Karnataka VAT [Paras 8-22, 25-28, 39].

Essential Character and Composite Goods Test – Rule 3(b) Inapplicable – Court rejected reliance on Rule 3(b) of the General Rules for Interpretation under Customs Tariff Act – Since phones and chargers have distinct HSN codes, they are to be taxed separately – Composite packaging does not alter legal classification [Paras 30-33].

Office Memorandum Dated 30.11.2015 – No Statutory Force – Clarification suggesting same rate for bundled accessories not legally binding – Absence of legislative amendment in HP VAT Act makes memo ineffective in altering tax treatment [Para 34-35].

Dominant Nature Test – Not Applicable to Pure Sale of Goods – Dominant nature test relevant in composite contracts involving services – In present case, mobile and charger are distinct goods sold in a single package – Tax to be applied based on individual classification [Paras 36-37].

Decision – Civil Revision Allowed – Tribunal’s order set aside – VAT at 13.75% on mobile chargers upheld – Tribunal misapplied law and failed to appreciate statutory provisions and precedent – Assessment order restored [Para 39].

Temple Management – Hereditary Archakship – Civil Court Decrees Binding – Petitioners Entitled to Perform Karaga – Petitioner established his hereditary rights through R.A. No.46/1983 and R.S.A. No.412/1984 – Held: Tahsildar’s repeated orders permitting rival claimant to perform Karaga on rotation basis are contrary to binding court decrees – Petitioners’ right to perform Karaga recognized and affirmed by High Court and upheld by Supreme Court – Orders permitting rotation quashed [Paras 6, 15–20].

Administrative Overreach – Tahsildar Exceeded Jurisdiction – Performance of Rituals Beyond Scope of Revenue Officer – Held: Tahsildar repeatedly disregarded judicial orders and passed whimsical decisions without authority – Right to perform religious rituals, if established, cannot be nullified by administrative expediency – Conduct of Tahsildar deprecated for generating litigation despite clear judicial directions [Paras 14, 17–19].

Succession of Ritual Duties – Right of Legal Heirs – Petitioner’s Sons Permitted – Due to advanced age of original petitioner, relief sought to allow his sons to perform Karaga – Held: Children of hereditary archak are rightful successors unless disqualified – Directed Tahsildar to permit second petitioner Ramesh to perform Karaga with responsibility and conditions – Performance of Karaga subject to future conduct [Paras 10, 16, 20(ii)].

Challenge by Rival Claimant – Claim of Vahinkula Seva Sangha Rejected – Respondent No.6 not in archak lineage – Held: Sangha’s claim has no legal basis – Performance by 6th respondent earlier was unauthorized and contrary to law – Writ petition filed by respondent No.6 dismissed – Recognition not sustainable without archak lineage or supporting judicial order [Paras 7, 12–13, 20(iii)].

Litigation History – Consistent Judicial Findings Favor Petitioners – Multiple rounds of litigation from 2011 to 2025 consistently upheld petitioners’ hereditary rights – Supreme Court dismissed SLP and directed fair hearing – Held: Earlier judgments cannot be diluted by administrative action – Reiterated finality of settled civil rights through decrees [Paras 8, 15, 18–19].

Decision:

W.P. No.13103 of 2022 allowed – Impugned orders quashed – W.P. No.9045 of 2025 partly allowed – Tahsildar directed to permit petitioner’s son Ramesh to perform Karaga, subject to conduct – W.P. No.7092 of 2025 filed by rival Sangha dismissed – Pending applications disposed [Para 20].

Matrimonial Law - Maintenance – Enforcement of Judicial Orders – Non-Attraction of Section 92(i) AFA – Petitioner sought deduction of maintenance from salary under Air Force Act – Held: Since civil courts had already granted maintenance and respondent was complying, such recovery cannot be enforced under Section 92(i) – Air Force guidelines (AFO 24/2000) bar parallel deductions when civil decree exists – Petitioner advised to pursue enforcement under CrPC, not through writ [Paras 5.5, 6.1–6.2, 5.14].

Marital Status – Entry in Service Records – Writ Not Maintainable – Disputed Facts – Petitioner’s prayer to record her as wife in service book opposed based on talaqnama and subsequent marriage of respondent – Held: Disputed questions of marital status not suitable for adjudication in writ jurisdiction – Remedy lies before competent civil/family court – Writ to alter service records or declare marital status not permissible under Article 226 [Paras 5.13–5.14, 7.1–7.3].

Talaq – Validity and Recognition – Certificate Found Genuine – Respondent produced talaqnama dated 01.09.2009 recorded by Qazi and verified by Air Force – Subsequent marriage to Sahista Parwin solemnized under Special Marriage Act – Held: Authority accepted validity of talaq after verification – No challenge made by petitioner before appropriate forum – Legal recognition of second marriage cannot be disturbed in writ [Paras 4.2–4.4, 5.3–5.4].

Marriage by Notary – Not Recognized in Law – Agreement Executed before Notary Invalid – Petitioner relied on marriage agreement dated 12.12.2008 before Notary – Held: Notaries have no authority to perform or certify marriage/divorce – Reiterated that execution of marriage deed by Notary has no legal sanctity – Such acts declared illegal by multiple High Courts and Ministry of Law circulars – Professional misconduct if done by Notaries [Paras 5.6–5.12].

Relationship in Nature of Marriage – Relief under PWDV Act Valid – Courts below granted maintenance considering domestic relationship akin to marriage – Held: Relationship established through cohabitation and social acknowledgment, even without formal marriage – Protection under PWDV Act justified – Order of maintenance upheld across judicial tiers [Paras 5.1–5.3].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – No mandamus can be issued for salary deduction under Air Force Act when judicial maintenance order exists – Petitioner’s status not fit for declaration under writ – Directed to seek relief before appropriate civil court if aggrieved – Name of respondent’s second wife validly recorded based on verified documents and legal marriage [Paras 5.14, 6.2, 7.3].

Criminal Law – Discharge - Medical Negligence – Delay in Filing Complaint – Barred by Limitation – Cognizance Not Justified – Complaint filed four years after patient's death alleging medical negligence – Held: Offence under Section 304-A IPC carries a limitation of three years – No satisfactory explanation offered for delay – Trial Court’s assumption of jurisdiction under Section 473 CrPC flawed – Cognizance beyond limitation not sustainable without judicial justification [Paras 9–10].

Criminal Law – Absence of Prima Facie Case – Discharge Allowed – Charges under Sections 418, 420, 304(A), and 120(B) IPC – Held: No allegations of wrongful gain, inducement, or rash/negligent act by petitioner – No material to indicate criminal intent – Referral to another doctor after diagnostic tests does not amount to offence – Charge-sheet silent on petitioner’s role – Discharge warranted [Paras 7, 11–15].

Standard of Criminal Liability in Medical Negligence – No Recklessness or Gross Negligence Attributed – Citing Dr. Suresh Gupta and Jacob Mathew – Held: Mere adverse outcome in treatment not criminal offence – Criminal liability arises only on gross negligence or recklessness – In present case, no such finding exists – Petitioner may be liable in civil law, but not in criminal [Paras 16–17, 20].

Impact of Consumer Forum Orders – Not Binding on Criminal Court – Held: Proceedings before Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission operate on preponderance of evidence, not proof beyond reasonable doubt – Finding of negligence by forum has no bearing on criminal prosecution – Independent judicial scrutiny required for criminal liability [Paras 18–19].

Discharge Under Section 239 CrPC – Judicial Scrutiny Required – Citing Sanjay Kumar Rai – Held: Trial Court erred in mechanical dismissal of discharge petition – Court is not a post office – Required to evaluate material and assess legal sufficiency of allegations – High Court found no ground to proceed to trial [Para 21].

Decision: Criminal Revision Case allowed – Order of Trial Court dated 01/04/2024 set aside – Petitioner discharged from all offences in C.C. No.1304 of 2014 – Pending miscellaneous applications closed [Para 22].