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.

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].

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 - Money Laundering – Discharge under Section 227 CrPC – Scheduled Offence – Section 467 IPC included as scheduled offence w.e.f. 01.06.2009 – Accused discharged by Special PMLA Court on ground that alleged predicate offence was committed prior to inclusion of Section 467 IPC in Schedule – Held: Approach erroneous – Offence under Section 3 PMLA is independent and concerned with process or activity connected with proceeds of crime – Date of commission of scheduled offence not determinative if laundering activity continues after enforcement of Act or amendment – Money laundering is a continuing offence so long as proceeds of crime are possessed, used or projected as untainted property [Paras 19–29, 34].

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – Retrospective Application – Article 20(1) of Constitution – Special Court held PMLA has no retrospective operation – High Court held that proceedings were not based on retrospective criminalisation of predicate offence – Penal consequence attaches to continuing laundering activity post-amendment – Application of PMLA in such circumstances does not violate Article 20(1) [Paras 26, 29].

Scheduled Offence – Necessity and Scope – Existence of scheduled offence is sine qua non for PMLA proceedings – Conviction in predicate offence not mandatory at stage of charge – Material indicating derivation of property from criminal activity relating to scheduled offence sufficient to proceed – Discharge at threshold held unsustainable [Paras 28–32].

Attachment of Property – Section 5(1) PMLA – Nature of Proceedings – Special Court set aside attachment treating proceedings as penal – Held: Attachment and confiscation proceedings are civil and preventive in nature – Not invalid merely because predicate offence predates amendment, so long as proceeds of crime subsist and are traceable [Paras 30–31].

Precedent – Binding Nature – Reliance placed by accused on Obulapuram Mining Company case – Held: Not persuasive as judgment under challenge and cannot override authoritative pronouncement in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary – Supreme Court decision binding and squarely applicable [Paras 33–34].

Decision: Criminal Revision allowed – Order of discharge dated 15.12.2017 set aside – Trial Court directed to proceed with trial in accordance with law – Interim orders vacated [Paras 35–36].

Criminal Law – Appeal Against Conviction – Appreciation of Evidence – Benefit of Doubt – Five accused convicted by Trial Court for offences under Sections 342, 365, 376(f) & (g) and 506 IPC – High Court reappreciated entire evidence in appeal – Held: Prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction unsustainable [Paras 21–25].

Rape – Testimony of Prosecutrix – Reliability – Contradictions and Improbabilities – Prosecutrix alleged kidnapping and repeated gang rape for two consecutive days – Material inconsistencies between testimony of prosecutrix, her parents and FIR regarding confinement, rescue and movement of victim – Version not free from doubt – Sole testimony insufficient to sustain conviction in absence of reliable corroboration [Paras 21–22].

Kidnapping and Wrongful Confinement – Conduct of Victim – Opportunity to Escape – Alleged place of confinement was not isolated – Room situated among several occupied rooms with common staircase and toilet – Victim had opportunity to raise alarm or escape – Failure to do so rendered prosecution version doubtful [Paras 21–22].

Medical Evidence – Alleged Repeated Gang Rape – Absence of Injuries – Medical examination revealed no external or internal injuries consistent with allegation of repeated rape by five persons over two days – Though absence of injuries alone not decisive, in facts of present case medical evidence did not corroborate ocular testimony – Prosecution case weakened [Para 23].

Independent Witnesses – Non-Examination – Adverse Inference – Several independent witnesses allegedly present at time of rescue and apprehension of accused – None examined by prosecution – Call detail records of alleged ransom calls not produced – Unexplained omissions created serious doubt about prosecution story [Para 21].

Age of Prosecutrix – Inconsistencies – Conflicting evidence regarding age of prosecutrix – School record, MLC, FIR and witness statements inconsistent – Though Court assumed prosecutrix to be minor for argument’s sake, prosecution still failed to establish offences beyond reasonable doubt [Para 20].

Criminal Jurisprudence – Standard of Proof – Presumption of Innocence – Where evidence creates suspicion but does not conclusively establish guilt, accused entitled to benefit of doubt – Courts must guard against conviction on conjectures or moral suspicion [Paras 22–24].

Decision – Appeals allowed – Conviction and sentence dated 11.12.2017 and order on sentence dated 18.12.2017 set aside – Appellants acquitted of all charges – Appellants directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case – Bail bonds cancelled [Paras 25–26].

Criminal Law – Quashing – Section 528 BNSS – Scope – Applicants sought quashing of charge-sheet and proceedings for offences under Section 69 BNS and Sections 3/4 POCSO Act on plea of consensual relationship and false implication – High Court held that at the stage of consideration under Section 528 BNSS, only prima facie satisfaction is required and disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudicated – Held: No case made out for quashing [Paras 8–10, 16].

Sexual Offences – Minor Victim – Consent – Legal Position – Victim’s matriculation certificate showed date of birth as 01.01.2008 – Applicant admitted sexual relationship – Held: Consent of a minor is no consent in the eye of law – Sexual intercourse with a girl below 18 years squarely attracts penal consequences irrespective of alleged consent [Paras 6, 10, 13].

Section 69 BNS – Sexual Intercourse on False Promise of Marriage – Applicability – Provision introduced under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Sexual intercourse induced by deceitful means including false promise of marriage punishable even if not amounting to rape – Allegations and admissions disclosed prima facie offence under Section 69 BNS [Paras 11–14].

Rape – Statutory Rape – Section 63 BNS – Even though charge-sheet not filed for rape, Court observed that sexual intercourse with a girl under 18 years falls within definition of rape irrespective of consent – Prima facie applicability of aggravated penal provisions noted [Para 13].

Age Determination – Evidentiary Value – Matriculation Certificate – Argument that victim was major rejected – Held: Matriculation certificate carries primacy for determination of age at preliminary stage – Claim of “certificate age” without material evidence unsustainable [Para 10].

Admissions by Accused – Evidentiary Relevance – Applicants admitted physical relationship with victim in affidavit – Such admission strengthened prosecution case at threshold and negated plea of false implication at quashing stage [Para 7].

False Promise of Marriage – Distinction – Breach vs. Deceit – Reliance placed on Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra – False promise made without intention to marry attracts criminal liability – Allegations indicated promise was false since inception [Para 14].

Section 175(3) BNSS – Complaint Proceedings – Effect of Withdrawal – Earlier complaint withdrawn at pre-cognizance stage after registration of FIR – Revision dismissed as infructuous – Held: Section 233 BNSS (bar against parallel proceedings) not attracted – No illegality in continuation of prosecution [Para 15].

POCSO Act – Prima Facie Case – Continuous sexual exploitation of minor alleged – Investigation resulted in charge-sheet – Held: Serious allegations involving protection of child cannot be scuttled at threshold [Paras 9–10, 16].

Decision: Application dismissed – No ground made out for quashing of charge-sheet, summoning order or criminal proceedings – Trial to proceed in accordance with law [Para 16].

Anticipatory Bail – Cyber Crime – Misuse of Social Media and Digital Identity – Petitioner sought anticipatory bail apprehending arrest in Cyber P.S. Case No.14/2025 involving serious allegations under BNS, 2023 and Information Technology Act, 2000 – Allegations of creation of fake email and Instagram accounts in the name of informant, circulation of obscene photographs, defamatory emails sent to employer, and threats of blackmail – Held: Prima facie materials collected during investigation disclose grave and serious offences – Discretion under Section 438 CrPC / Section 482 BNSS declined [Paras 2, 6–9, 15].

Consensual Relationship – Limits of Consent – Right to Privacy and Dignity – Defence of consensual extra-marital relationship raised by petitioner – Court held that prior consensual relationship does not confer any right to violate dignity, privacy, or autonomy of the informant – Exploitation of vulnerability under guise of friendship or intimacy impermissible in law [Paras 9–10, 13–14].

Cyber Offences – Prima Facie Evidence from Case Diary – Investigation revealed petitioner’s mobile number used for creation of fake email and Instagram accounts – Obscene photographs sent even after registration of FIR to Vice-Chancellor of informant’s workplace – Independent witness supported allegations of threats, blackmail, and demand of Rs.25,00,000/- – Strong prima facie case made out against petitioner [Paras 6–8, 11].

Threats, Blackmail and Obscenity – Seriousness of Allegations – Allegations included threats to circulate obscene material, demand for money or divorce, and attempts to sabotage informant’s employment – WhatsApp chats revealed use of abusive and sexually explicit language – Such conduct held to transcend boundaries of lawful interaction and attract penal consequences [Paras 8, 14].

Anticipatory Bail – Extraordinary Discretion – Principles Governing Exercise – Power under Section 438 CrPC / Section 482 BNSS is extraordinary and not to be exercised routinely – Court relied on Supreme Court precedents holding that pre-arrest bail should not be granted where it may impede investigation in serious and organised offences – Grant of anticipatory bail in such circumstances would adversely affect investigation [Paras 12, 15].

Investigation at Crucial Stage – Pre-Arrest Bail Likely to Hamper Probe – Digital evidence, cyber trail, and electronic devices required custodial interrogation – Grant of anticipatory bail would impair effective investigation and unearthing of full conspiracy – Public interest and victim’s rights weighed against petitioner [Paras 12, 15].

Decision: Anticipatory bail application dismissed – Interim protection earlier granted vacated – Court declined to exercise discretion under Section 438 CrPC / Section 482 BNSS in favour of petitioner.

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.

Commercial Law – Lease of Immovable Property – Jurisdiction of Commercial Court – Suit for recovery of mesne profits arising out of lease of immovable property used exclusively for commercial purposes – Property situated in commercial complex (Ansal Bhawan) and consistently used for commercial activities – Dispute squarely covered under Section 2(1)(c)(vii) of Commercial Courts Act – Mere involvement of Government as lessee does not oust jurisdiction – Held: Commercial Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit [Paras 23–28].

SAFEMA – Bar of Civil Jurisdiction – Scope of Sections 14 and 23 – Property earlier forfeited under SAFEMA – Forfeiture proceedings subsequently quashed by High Court for lack of jurisdiction – Civil suit did not challenge forfeiture but sought mesne profits for unauthorised occupation – Section 14 SAFEMA does not bar independent civil claims for damages/mesne profits once forfeiture proceedings are annulled – Section 23 protection unavailable where continued occupation lacks bona fides after quashing of forfeiture – Held: Suit not barred by SAFEMA [Paras 29–35].

Government as Tenant – Liability for Mesne Profits – Government continued in possession without payment of rent after forfeiture order and even after quashing thereof – Continued occupation without authority or payment held unjustified – Government liable to compensate owners for unauthorised use and occupation [Paras 35, 37].

Civil Procedure – Abatement – Death of Plaintiff – One of the plaintiffs died during pendency of suit – Legal representative brought on record – Right to sue survived as suit concerned joint ownership and monetary relief – No abatement of suit – Objection held technical and meritless [Para 36].

Mesne Profits – Limitation – Continuing Wrong and Recurring Cause of Action – Claim for mesne profits governed by Article 51 of Limitation Act – Each month of unauthorised occupation gives rise to recurring cause of action – Plaintiffs bona fide pursued writ remedy for possession and arrears – Limitation cannot be applied mechanically to defeat substantive justice [Paras 38–42].

Limitation Act – Section 14 – Exclusion of Time Spent in Writ Proceedings – Time spent in prosecuting writ petition for restoration of possession liable to be excluded – Writ proceedings treated as “civil proceedings” prosecuted in good faith – Plaintiffs entitled to exclusion till possession restored – Consequently, mesne profits restricted to three years prior to institution of writ petition [Paras 43–49].

Assessment of Mesne Profits – Methodology – Market rent determined on basis of contemporaneous lease deeds of comparable properties – Rate per sq. ft. applied to area of suit property – Method adopted by Single Judge upheld as sound and reasonable – However, recalculation required due to limitation [Paras 50–52].

Decision – Partial Allowance of Appeal – Decree for mesne profits upheld on merits but modified on limitation – Plaintiffs entitled to mesne profits only for period 23.09.2016 to 02.07.2020 – Amount recalculated at ₹67,13,340/- with interest @ 6% p.a. – Appeal partly allowed to limited extent – Impugned judgment otherwise affirmed [Paras 53–54].