Criminal Procedure – Quashment of FIR – Scope of Section 528 BNSS (Old Section 482 CrPC) – Inherent powers to be exercised sparingly – FIR cannot be quashed at threshold when allegations, taken at face value, disclose commission of cognizable offences – High Court cannot conduct mini-trial or evaluate defence material at investigation stage [Paras 6–11].

Dowry Harassment – Cruelty by Husband and In-laws – FIR Allegations – Specific allegations of demand of ₹30 lakhs, ₹50 lakhs, jewellery, physical assault, threats to life and misappropriation of stridhan – Allegations disclose continuing offence – Prima facie case made out – Quashing declined [Paras 2, 4, 11].

Criminal Investigation – Stage of Interference – Investigation Pending – Charge-sheet not filed – Courts should ordinarily refrain from interfering during investigation unless FIR discloses no offence at all – Reliance placed on Neeharika Infrastructure principles – FIR not an encyclopaedia [Paras 9–11].

Section 188 CrPC – Offences Allegedly Committed Outside India – Sanction of Central Government – Sanction not required at stage of registration of FIR or investigation – Requirement arises at stage of cognizance/trial – Allegations disclose commission of offences partly in India as well – FIR not liable to be quashed on this ground [Paras 12–13].

Inherent Jurisdiction – Defence Pleas – Delay in FIR – Alleged Omnibus Allegations – Foreign Residence – Defence contentions regarding photographs, mediation, notices, travel history and alleged extortion – Held: Disputed questions of fact – Matters for trial – Not grounds for quashing FIR [Paras 3–4, 14].

Maintainability – Section 528 BNSS – Quashing of FIR – Petition sought quashing of FIR alone without placing charge-sheet or cognizance order on record – As per Supreme Court in Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni v. State of Maharashtra – Once cognizance is taken, FIR can be quashed under Section 528 BNSS only if charge-sheet and cognizance order are specifically assailed – Petition held not maintainable [Paras 15–17].

Suppression of Material Facts – Conduct of Petitioners – Respondents alleged suppression of proceedings under Domestic Violence Act and divorce petition – Court noted lack of bona fides but primarily declined relief on merits and maintainability [Para 4.1].

Decision: Petition dismissed – FIR No.198/2025 not quashed – Investigation to proceed in accordance with law – Observations not to influence trial Court.

Death Penalty – Post-Mercy Judicial Review – Article 21 – Even after confirmation of death sentence and rejection of mercy petitions under Articles 72 and 161, the fundamental right to life and human dignity continues to subsist – Constitutional Courts are empowered to examine supervening circumstances affecting fairness, humanity and constitutionality of execution – Scope of judicial review confined to post-conviction events without reopening guilt [Paras 25–27, 52].

Solitary Confinement – Illegal Segregation Prior to Finality of Sentence – Appellants kept in separate cells from 21.12.2006 to 2009 before exhaustion of judicial and constitutional remedies – Such segregation held illegal and violative of Article 21 – Section 30(2) of Prisons Act applicable only when death sentence becomes final, conclusive and executable – Reliance on Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration – Illegal solitary confinement itself a valid ground for commutation [Paras 28–33, 39–43, 53(i)].

Punjab Jail Manual – Statutory Segregation – Constitutional Limits – Provisions permitting confinement “apart from other prisoners” cannot be enforced to impose complete social and sensory isolation – Jail authorities lack power to add punitive solitary confinement beyond judicial sentence – Any segregation resulting in denial of sight and communication with fellow prisoners held unconstitutional [Paras 29–31, 43].

Delay in Disposal of Mercy Petitions – Executive Apathy – Mental Torture – Unreasonable and unexplained delay of more than four years attributable to State authorities at multiple stages – Failure to inform appellants of right to file mercy petitions and denial of legal aid post dismissal of review – Misrouting of mercy petitions, prolonged inaction despite repeated reminders by MHA, erroneous reliance on Sriharan judgment, and one-year delay in communicating rejection by Governor – Held: Delay caused severe mental agony and violated Article 21 [Paras 34–37, 44–49, 53(ii)].

Mercy Petition – Procedural Safeguards – Mandatory Compliance – MHA guidelines requiring immediate intimation to convicts and legal assistance for preparation of mercy petitions are binding – Non-compliance vitiates post-conviction process – Making convicts sign multiple mercy petitions without legal aid held impermissible – Procedural lapses constitute relevant supervening factor for commutation [Paras 44–50].

Gravity of Crime – Irrelevance in Post-Mercy Proceedings – Heinous nature of offence and brutality involved cannot be considered at post-mercy stage – Focus confined to delay, prison conditions, dignity, and fairness – Reliance on Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India [Paras 11, 36, 52].

Long Incarceration on Death Row – ‘Death Row Phenomenon’ – Appellants incarcerated for over twenty years under constant threat of execution – Prolonged uncertainty and psychological trauma recognised as infringement of Article 21 – Mental suffering outweighs relevance of physical health alone [Paras 35–37, 51, 53(iii)].

Maintainability – Letters Patent Appeal – Writ Based on Mercy Delay – Proceedings challenging delay in mercy petitions are independent of original conviction – Intra-court appeal maintainable against dismissal of such writ petitions – Supreme Court remand settled maintainability issue [Paras 7–8].

Sentence – Commutation – Life Imprisonment for Remainder of Natural Life – Cumulative effect of illegal solitary confinement, inordinate delay, prolonged incarceration and procedural lapses warranted commutation – Death sentence substituted with life imprisonment for remainder of natural life – No remission or premature release permissible – Balance struck between constitutional rights of convicts and societal interests [Paras 22, 54].

Decision: Letters Patent Appeals partly allowed – Death sentence commuted to life imprisonment for remainder of natural life – Impugned judgment of Single Judge modified accordingly.

Service Law – Transfer of Bank Officer – Mid-term and Frequent Transfers – Judicial Review – Petitioner, a specialised officer (Senior Manager (Law), Scale-III), transferred thrice within a short span including transfer within two months from Bahraich to Salem, Tamil Nadu – Despite normal tenure of three years prescribed under Bank’s Transfer Policy – Court examined repeated transfers in light of policy provisions and administrative exigency – Held: Frequent mid-term transfers without justifiable exigency violate the Bank’s own transfer policy and warrant interference [Paras 14–16].

Service Law – Transfer Policy – Binding Nature – Bank having framed an exhaustive Transfer Policy is bound to adhere to it – Clauses prescribing normal tenure and endeavour to complete transfers by 30th June cannot be ignored casually – Transfer in July 2025 without demonstrated exigency held contrary to policy – Authorities failed to justify deviation from prescribed norms [Paras 15, 17].

Service Law – Specialised Officers – Misuse of Specialisation – Petitioner transferred on the ground of being a specialised Law Manager – Court held that specialisation cannot be used as a tool for harassment – Frequent transfers of specialists impair efficiency and defeat institutional interest – Balance between administrative interest and humane working conditions emphasised [Para 16].

Service Law – Grievance Redressal – Non-application of Mind – Rejection of petitioner’s grievance and appeal found to be mere reiteration of earlier reasons – Bank failed to consider petitioner’s case afresh despite repeated directions of the High Court – Orders passed by Grievance Redressal and Appellate Authorities vitiated for non-consideration of relevant policy clauses [Paras 17–18].

Service Law – Scope of Interference in Transfer Matters – While transfer is an incident of service under Regulation 47 of the 1979 Regulations, Court can interfere where transfer is frequent, arbitrary or violative of policy – Case distinguished from general principle of non-interference laid down by Supreme Court – Interference justified in peculiar facts [Paras 13, 15–18].

Decision: Impugned order dated 10.11.2025 and consequential orders quashed – Petitioner permitted to submit fresh representation within fifteen days – Competent authority directed to decide the same within six weeks strictly in accordance with law – Operation of transfer order dated 18.07.2025 stayed meanwhile – Writ petition allowed [Paras 18–22].

Election Law – Interlocutory Application – Dismissal of Election Petition – Non-filing of Form-25 Affidavit – Section 83(1)(c) Proviso – Section 86(1), Representation of the People Act, 1951 – Res Judicata and Constructive Res Judicata – Respondent sought dismissal of election petition on ground that allegations of corrupt practice were not supported by affidavit in Form-25 as required under Rule 94A of the Conduct of Election Rules – Similar interlocutory applications seeking dismissal under Section 86(1) earlier dismissed by High Court and affirmed by Supreme Court – Held: Present application not maintainable as issue arose from same pleadings already adjudicated and attained finality – Plea barred by constructive res judicata – Liberty granted by Supreme Court to file future applications cannot be construed as permission to reopen concluded issues [Paras 7–14].

Election Petition – Corrupt Practice Allegations – Requirement of Affidavit – Directory vs Mandatory – Finality of Earlier Adjudication – Earlier order of High Court considered allegations relating to suppression of criminal antecedents, assets and liabilities and declined dismissal of election petition – Supreme Court expunged certain observations but affirmed operative conclusion – Held: Expunging of observations does not reopen or unsettle findings on maintainability – Court becomes functus officio on issues finally decided – Subsequent application raising same foundational objections impermissible [Paras 8–11].

Civil Procedure – Res Judicata – Constructive Res Judicata – Application at Different Stages of Same Proceeding – Principle of res judicata applies not only between two separate proceedings but also at different stages of the same litigation – Grounds which might and ought to have been raised earlier are deemed to have been decided – Respondent having failed to raise Form-25 objection in earlier applications cannot raise it subsequently – Reliance placed on Forward Construction Co. v. Prabhat Mandal and Satyadhyan Ghosal v. Deorajin Debi [Paras 8–10].

Judicial Discipline – Liberty to Mention / File Further Applications – Scope and Limitation – Liberty granted by higher court to file further applications is general in nature – Cannot be used to indirectly seek review or reconsideration of issues already finally decided – Entertaining such application would amount to impermissible collateral review – Reliance placed on Kewal Chand Mimani v. S.K. Sen [Paras 11–12].

Decision: Interlocutory Application dismissed as not maintainable – Election Petition directed to be listed for settlement of issues.

Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 – Compounding of Offence – Section 41 FCRA – Effect of Compounding – The petitioner received foreign contribution without prior permission, which was a technical contravention of the FCRA – The offence was subsequently compounded by the Ministry of Home Affairs upon payment of a compounding fee – Once an offence is compounded under Section 41 of the FCRA, the slate is wiped clean, and the contravention cannot be cited as an adverse ground for rejecting a registration application – To disqualify an applicant on this ground after compounding would be disproportionate and a failure to consider relevant material – The authority failed to clarify that compounding would only shield from prosecution but lead to disqualification under Section 12(4)(a)(vii) – The impugned order is set aside on this ground [Paras 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 19].

Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 – Religious Organization – Section 11(1) FCRA – Interpretation of "definite cultural, economic, educational, religious or social programme" – The respondent rejected the application stating the petitioner-organization "appears to be religious" based on its engagement in imparting Bhagavad Gita and Vedanta – Section 11(1) allows religious organizations to receive foreign contributions if registered – The authority must form a "definite" conclusion based on materials, not a tentative one – Bhagavad Gita and Vedanta are not confined to a specific religion but are part of Bharatiya civilization and moral science, as held in 2007 SCC OnLine All 1301 (Shyamal Renjan Mukherjee v. Nirmal Ranjan Mukherjee) and 2014 SCC OnLine All 15395 (Indian Academy of Naturopathy and Yoga v. State of UP) regarding Yoga – The petitioner is also registered as a charitable organization under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which is a relevant material – The impugned order is set aside on this ground [Paras 5, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19].

Writ Jurisdiction – Alternative Remedy – Article 226 Constitution of India – Section 31(2) FCRA – Maintainability of Writ Petition – Despite the availability of an appeal under Section 31(2) of the FCRA to the High Court, a writ petition is maintainable if there is a fundamental breach of natural justice or the impugned order suffers from disproportionality – The Supreme Court in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1129 (Rikhab Chand Jain v. UOI) held that while refusal to entertain a writ petition is the rule when the alternative forum is the High Court itself, it can be an exception in cases of fundamental breach of natural justice or disproportionality – The impugned order in this case suffers from both, making the writ petition maintainable [Paras 17, 18].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned order set aside – Matter remitted to the second respondent for fresh consideration within three months, taking into account all relevant materials and observations made in this order, after issuing a fresh notice to the petitioner regarding the alleged transfer of FC funds [Paras 19, 20].

Criminal Law – Abetment of Suicide – Quashing of FIR – Scope of Section 482 CrPC – Applicants sought quashing of FIR registered under Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC alleging that mere utterance of insulting words does not amount to “abetment” – Court examined statutory scheme under Sections 306, 107 and 108 IPC and settled principles governing “instigation” and “mens rea” – Held: At the stage of quashing, the Court is required to see prima facie material and not conduct a mini-trial [Paras 6–14].

Abetment – Meaning of Instigation – Mens Rea – “Instigation” implies goading, provoking, inciting or encouraging a person to commit an act – For offence under Section 306 IPC, there must be intention and active role of the accused either by direct or indirect acts – Mens rea can be inferred from circumstances and conduct of accused – Each case depends on its own facts and no straight-jacket formula can be laid down [Paras 11–14].

Humiliation and Attack on Character – Proximate Cause – Allegations disclose that applicants, under influence of liquor, entered the deceased’s house, abused her in filthy language, publicly referred to her as a “prostitute” and humiliated her in presence of villagers – Such repeated utterances attacking the character of the deceased affected her self-respect and mental equilibrium – Held: Prima facie material shows proximity between acts of humiliation and the suicide committed immediately thereafter [Paras 15–21].

Evidence at Quashing Stage – Prima Facie Satisfaction – Statements of informant, father-in-law and independent villagers consistently disclose public humiliation and character assassination – Whether such acts finally amount to abetment is a matter for trial – At this stage, material is sufficient to infer intention and indirect incitement – Interference under Section 482 CrPC declined [Paras 15–22].

Decision – Criminal Application dismissed – FIR and charge-sheet under Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC not quashed – Proceedings to continue in accordance with law [Para 22].

Public Premises – Unauthorised Occupation – Expiry of Licence – Definition under Section 2(g) of the Public Premises Act – Licence granted up to 31.03.2011 not renewed thereafter – Mere acceptance of licence fee after expiry does not amount to implied renewal – Continued occupation after expiry of licence held unauthorised – Eviction under Section 5(1) justified [Paras 18–27].

Public Premises – Eviction Proceedings – Compliance with Procedure – Estate Officer issued notice under Section 4 – Opportunity of hearing and evidence afforded – Findings recorded after considering oral and documentary evidence – No violation of principles of natural justice – Eviction order upheld by appellate authority under Section 9 – No interference warranted under Article 227 [Paras 22–30].

Constitution of India – Article 227 – Scope of Interference – Supervisory jurisdiction maintainable against appellate order under Section 9 of the Public Premises Act – Interference limited to jurisdictional error, perversity or violation of law – Orders of eviction found legal and proper [Paras 17, 28–30].

Public Premises – Recovery of Licence Fee – Arrears – Petitioner liable to pay licence fee at agreed rate with annual increment of 5% till date of sealing of premises – Acceptance of licence fee by authority does not regularise occupation – Order for arrears upheld [Paras 35–36].

Damages – Assessment under Section 7(2) – Requirement of Evidence – Damages must be assessed on basis of cogent evidence of market rental value – Mere reliance on internal policy insufficient – No evidence led regarding prevailing market rent or comparable properties – Award of damages held unsustainable [Paras 39–40].

Shop Policy, 2014 (BHEL) – Applicability – Industrial Premises – Policy not incorporated into licence by execution of fresh deed – No renewal under policy framework – Without contractual adoption of policy, damages cannot be mechanically levied on its basis – Order granting damages under Shop Policy set aside [Paras 36–38, 40].

Damages – Exorbitant Levy – Judicial Scrutiny – Damages enhanced from ₹3,718 per month to ₹3,84,820 per month – Increase more than 100 times – Held arbitrary, excessive and without authority of law – Estate Officer exceeded jurisdiction [Para 40].

Enforcement – Removal of Belongings – Section 6 – Conditional Right – Petitioner permitted to remove temporary structures and articles subject to payment of arrears – Failure to pay arrears entitles authority to recover dues by auction [Para 41].

Decision: Eviction order under Section 5(1) upheld – Order for arrears of licence fee upheld – Order directing payment of damages under BHEL Shop Policy, 2014 set aside – Petitions partly allowed – No order as to costs.

Customs Law – Smuggling – Penalty – Section 112 – Procedural Lapses – Revenue appeals against CESTAT’s order setting aside penalties of up to ₹15 crores imposed for alleged gold smuggling based on statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act – Held: Penalties under Section 112(a) and (b) cannot be simultaneously imposed – CESTAT rightly found contradiction in statements and lack of direct evidence – No gold was seized in prior alleged instances, and seizure in the present case involved unrelated individuals – Appeals dismissed [Paras 5–6, 18].

Evidence – Section 108 Customs Act – Admissibility – Compliance with Section 138B Mandatory – Statements recorded under Section 108 cannot be used as evidence unless conditions of Section 138B are fulfilled – Held: No witness who gave statements was examined; hence statements inadmissible – Reliance on untested statements violates principles of natural justice – Reiterated by reliance on Suresh Kumar & Co. Impex Pvt. Ltd. [2025 KHC Online 6762], Jindal Drugs Pvt. Ltd. [(2016) 340 ELT 67], and Its My Name Pvt. Ltd. [(2021) 375 ELT 545] [Paras 14–18].

Natural Justice – Right to Cross-Examine – Section 122A and 124 – Tribunal's view upheld that opportunity to cross-examine witnesses is part of fair hearing under Sections 122A and 124 – Statements not meeting Section 138B test cannot be relied upon without cross-examination – Tribunal was right in discarding them [Para 22].

No Adverse Inference – Failure to Give Statement – Failure of accused to give statement under Section 108 does not amount to guilt or waiver of defence – Statute does not permit adverse inference solely on that basis – Revenue's contention rejected [Paras 20–21].

Burden of Proof – No Direct Evidence – No Recovery – Except for statements, no direct or corroborative evidence was found linking respondents with seized gold – Tribunal found no link between respondents and alleged smuggling in past incidents – Cash and gold seized from others had been released for lack of nexus [Paras 5–6].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – No question of law arises – Tribunal’s order upheld – Penalties imposed under Sections 112(a) and (b) found unsustainable due to evidentiary defects and procedural violations [Final Para].

Administrative Law – Paddy Procurement – Engagement of Women’s Self Help Groups – Policy Decision – Exclusion of WSHGs from KMS 2025–26 – WSHGs engaged continuously since 2019 pursuant to 2019 Guidelines – State undertook performance review in 2024 based on complaints of mismanagement – Decision taken to restrict procurement activities to PACS and selected agencies – Held: Engagement of WSHGs is policy-based and administrative – No vested or indefeasible right to continue indefinitely – Court declines interference under Article 226 [Paras 9–11, 18].

Paddy Procurement Policy – Expression of Interest (EOI) – Non-issuance of fresh EOI – Challenge by new and previously disengaged WSHGs – Held: Issuance of EOI under executive guidelines is not mandatory in all circumstances – Mere willingness to participate does not create enforceable legal right – Mandamus cannot be issued in absence of legal duty [Paras 10, 17].

Natural Justice – Audi Alteram Partem – Disengagement of WSHGs without notice or hearing – Performance-based administrative action – Held: Principles of natural justice not rigid – Application depends on nature of right and consequences – Disengagement not punitive or stigmatic – No blacklisting or civil disability imposed – Individual show-cause notice not mandatory in policy-driven, time-bound procurement decisions [Paras 14–16].

Constitution of India – Article 14 – Classification based on performance – Preference to PACS and continuance of satisfactory WSHGs – Performance-based differentiation has rational nexus with object of ensuring smooth and efficient procurement – No arbitrariness or discrimination established [Paras 13].

Judicial Review – Scope under Article 226 – Policy and administrative decisions – Held: High Court does not sit as appellate authority over policy decisions – Interference permissible only on grounds of arbitrariness, mala fides or statutory violation – None established in present case [Paras 18–19].

Women Empowerment – Observations – While upholding State action, Court observes that Government should consider, at policy level, providing opportunities to new and previously disengaged WSHGs in future procurement years subject to norms and efficiency considerations [Para 19].

Decision: All writ petitions disposed of – No interference with impugned orders dated 16.07.2025 and 22.07.2025 – Policy discretion of State upheld.