Contempt of Court – Civil Contempt – Interim Stay Order – Wilful Disobedience – Despite being served with the High Court’s stay order dated 07.10.2025 restraining action on the cancellation of the No Objection Certificate (NOC), the respondent-contemnor initiated fresh proceedings under Section 34 of the Disaster Management Act and issued an order dated 24.10.2025 for closure of the petrol pump – Held: This amounted to wilful disobedience and circumvention of the Court’s order – Civil contempt established under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Subsequent order quashed [Paras 15, 16, 18, 20, 23, 25, 28, 32, 36, 39, 40, 41, 43, 44, 46, 47, 48].

Disaster Management Act – Section 34 – Jurisdictional Overreach – Action taken under Disaster Management Act was based on the same reports already forming basis of earlier NOC cancellation order, which had been stayed – Held: The respondent-contemnor acted in excess of statutory powers and bypassed the judicial stay order – Such conduct amounts to colourable exercise of power and is legally unsustainable [Paras 20, 28, 33, 36].

Power of High Court – Article 215 – Setting Aside Executive Action Resulting from Contempt – In exercise of contempt jurisdiction, the High Court can nullify an executive order passed in wilful disobedience of its directions – Court not restricted to punishing contempt alone but can undo the resulting harm to uphold rule of law [Paras 41-47].

Precedent – A Party Cannot Benefit From Breach of Court Order – Reiterated that contemnors should not be permitted to enjoy the fruits of contempt – Order passed in breach of a court’s directive cannot be sustained – Relief under contempt jurisdiction includes restoration of status quo ante [Paras 43-45].

Decision: Contempt petition allowed – Respondent found guilty of wilful disobedience of interim order dated 07.10.2025 – Order dated 24.10.2025 passed under Section 34 of Disaster Management Act quashed – Respondent directed to pay Rs. 2,000/- as costs to the petitioner within 15 days.

Civil Law – Forensic Examination – Alleged Tampering of Sealed Documents – Mere Apprehension – No Foundational Basis – Administrative Enquiry Found No Tampering – Photocopies Identical to Originals – Article 227 Petition Dismissed with Costs [Paras 2, 5–8].

Evidence Act – Section 45 – Forensic Examination – Mere Apprehension Insufficient – Petitioner claimed that breaking of lac seal on envelope containing original documents indicated tampering; no concrete allegation or proof of actual manipulation inside the envelope – Held, mere apprehension cannot justify sending documents to a forensic expert; such a direction would unnecessarily delay trial [Paras 2, 5].

Court Records – Administrative Enquiry – Condition of Seal – Storage-Related Damage Not Indicative of Tampering – Trial court’s administrative enquiry found plastic tape intact and cracks in lac seal attributable to bulk storage of envelopes in Ahlmad rooms – Documents remained secure; no material supporting allegation of tampering [Paras 2–3, 6].

Forensic Request Limited to Envelope – Not Maintainable – Prayer to send only the envelope for forensic examination held irrelevant to the lis and outside scope of dispute – No forensic purpose demonstrated [Para 6].

Comparison With Photocopies – No Discrepancy Found – Photocopies earlier filed by petitioner matched originals retrieved from sealed cover, negating suspicion of manipulation [Para 7].

Reliance on Precedent Misplaced – Thiruvengadam Pillai Distinguished – Precedent encouraging expert comparison of handwriting irrelevant since present case did not concern disputed handwriting but alleged tampering of sealed documents [Para 4].

Supervisory Jurisdiction – Article 227 – No Perverse Error – Petition Frivolous – Trial court order found reasoned and justified; no illegality or perversity warranting interference – Petition dismissed as frivolous with cost of Rs.10,000 to be deposited with DHCLSC within one week [Paras 8–9].

Direction to Trial Court – Trial court to ensure compliance regarding deposit of costs [Para 10].

Cyber Fraud – Quashing on Basis of Compromise – Inherent Powers under S.528 BNSS – Held, offences involving cyber fraud cause systemic public detriment and cannot ordinarily be quashed on private settlements – Compromise driven by restitution cannot dilute gravity of digital-financial crimes – Case found to be cyber fraud simpliciter, not mere private pecuniary dispute – Petition for quashing dismissed [Paras 12–15].

Inherent Powers – Section 528 BNSS – Scope identical to Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Preserves plenary jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process or secure ends of justice – Power is of wide amplitude but must be exercised with circumspection and in conformity with judicial propriety [Paras 10–10.3].

Quashing on Compromise – Distinction from Compounding – High Court may quash even non-compoundable offences if overwhelmingly civil or personal in nature – Guided by Gian Singh, Narinder Singh, Parbatbhai Aahir, and Laxmi Narayan principles – Heinous offences or those affecting public interest ordinarily not quashable [Paras 9–11].

Cyber Fraud – Nature of Offence – Held sui generis and inherently carrying systemic repercussions – Offence undermines digital-financial ecosystem, public trust in electronic banking, and involves trans-border anonymity – Private compromise cannot redress broader institutional injury – Quashing on settlement rejected as contrary to public interest [Paras 12, 12.1].

Compromise Driven by Restitution – Court notes that complainants often agree to settlement solely for recovery of defrauded amounts – Such restitution cannot mitigate gravity of digital-financial crimes – Allowing quashing on such basis creates dangerous precedent enabling offenders to treat fraud as “risk-profit calculus” [Paras 12, 12.1].

Exceptional Category – Inflated Allegations – Court recognises that sometimes stringent cyber-fraud provisions are invoked merely to pressurize in private monetary disputes – In such cases, High Court may quash if allegations do not reveal public detriment nor constitute true cyber fraud – Requires granular scrutiny of factual matrix; no rigid formula possible [Paras 12.2–13].

Present Case – Cyber Fraud Simpliciter – FIR alleges unauthorized digital transactions of ₹14,83,696/- through fraudulently created accounts and fake website – No prior relationship between parties – Nature of allegations clearly cyber-financial fraud, not private dispute – Case falls under Postulate I (public-detriment category) – Compromise cannot justify quashing [Paras 14–15].

Decision – Petition dismissed – FIR and all consequential proceedings to continue – Observations not to affect trial on merits – No costs [Para 15].

Administrative Law – Re-engagement of Self Help Group – Disengagement Order Quashed – Petitioner (Maa Santoshi WSHG) was earlier disengaged without being given a hearing – High Court quashed the disengagement and directed fresh inquiry – Inquiry Committee found the Petitioner compliant and recommended re-engagement – Director deferred action citing subsisting contract with another WSHG – Held: Petitioner to be re-engaged post-expiry of contract period with current service provider, subject to compliance with formalities and government guidelines [Paras 2, 5, 9, 12, 14]

Contract Law – No Vested Right from Interim Arrangements – Maa Chandi WSHG received 7 Gram Panchayats only as a stop-gap measure following disengagement of the Petitioner – Court held that this did not amount to a vested or permanent right – Right to supply THR restricted to duration of contract expiring 31.12.2025 [Paras 10–12]

Natural Justice – Principles Violated in Initial Disengagement – Disengagement of Maa Santoshi WSHG was without notice or hearing – Court found this contrary to natural justice and ordered fresh inquiry – Based on favourable report, re-engagement found justified [Paras 4, 7, 9(v), 10, 14]

Eligibility Criteria – Requirement of Valid Food License – Possession of a food license is mandatory under the scheme guidelines – Court noted Petitioner claims to hold a valid license till 2026 – Re-engagement conditional upon compliance with all formalities including valid license [Paras 8, 13–14]

Decision: Writ Petitions disposed of – Maa Santoshi WSHG directed to be re-engaged only after the expiry of current contract on 31.12.2025 – All interim orders stand vacated [Paras 14–15]

Tenancy Law - Lease Rent Demand – One-time Lease Rent – Delay in Payment – Petitioner deposited one-time lease rent equivalent to 11 annual instalments on 08.01.2007 in accordance with prevailing GNIDA policy – Lease rent was payable by 16.01.2007, and payment made on 08.01.2007 was within the stipulated period – Held: There was no default attracting penal consequences – Authority’s subsequent demand in 2025 for lease rent dues is legally untenable and arbitrary [Paras 14–17, 24–25]

Natural Justice – No Prior Notice or Explanation – Impugned demand letter dated 10.07.2025 issued without any show-cause notice or opportunity to respond – Held: Violative of principles of natural justice – Arbitrary quantification without calculation details renders the demand unsustainable [Paras 19–20]

Promissory Estoppel – Issuance of No Dues Certificates – GNIDA had issued No Objection Certificates in 2010 and 2020 and also granted mortgage permission in 2024 – Held: Authority is estopped from raising lease rent dues in 2025 after a long period of inaction – Such reversal of stand violates principles of promissory estoppel and fairness [Paras 21–23]

Legitimate Expectation – Consistency in Administrative Conduct – Repeated certifications by GNIDA confirming no dues and subsequent permission to mortgage created legitimate expectation that no lease rent remained unpaid – Held: Sudden reversal of position violates doctrine of legitimate expectation and Article 14 of the Constitution [Paras 21–22]

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Demand letter dated 10.07.2025 quashed – Direction issued to GNIDA to process petitioner’s pending applications for permission to mortgage dated 08.10.2024 and 02.01.2025 within six weeks from receipt of certified copy of this order [Paras 26–27]

Criminal Law – Quashing of Summoning Order – Cheating – Criminal Breach of Trust – Petitioners, who are close relatives of Complainant, alleged to have misused powers of attorney given in UAE to fraudulently transfer assets and siphon company funds – Petitioners challenged summoning order on grounds of lack of evidence and territorial jurisdiction – Held: Allegations that signed blank cheques were given in India and were misused in UAE indicates part of the offence occurred in India – No prior sanction under Section 188 CrPC required – Jurisdiction established – Prima facie misuse of PoA and misappropriation of assets shown from documents and testimony – Transfer of company shares and receipt of ₹47 lakhs in petitioner’s account support charges – Summoning order upheld [Paras 34-57].

Territorial Jurisdiction – Section 188 CrPC – Alleged fraudulent acts committed partly in UAE and partly in India – Blank cheques signed and PoA executed in India – Misused abroad – Held: When part of the offence occurs in India, prior sanction under Section 188 CrPC is not necessary – Jurisdiction of Indian courts validly invoked [Paras 34-39].

Power of Attorney – Abuse and Misuse – Petitioners misused PoAs executed by Complainant during his forced absence from UAE due to deportation – Sale of companies and diversion of funds not authorized – Held: Such misuse of PoA for personal gain discloses offences under Sections 406/420 IPC [Paras 43-56].

Complaint Evidence – Prima Facie Case – Testimony of CW1 (Complainant) corroborated by documents including share transfer contracts, PoA, and depositions of CW2 and CW3 – Transfer of ₹47 lakhs to petitioner’s wife Jaspreet Kaur indicative of criminal breach of trust – Held: Complaint and evidence disclose sufficient grounds for summoning [Paras 42-56].

Decision: Petition under Section 482 CrPC dismissed – No merit found in challenge to summoning order – Criminal proceedings to continue [Para 59

Criminal Law – Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Acquittal – Appellant filed complaint against accused for dishonour of cheque for Rs. 20 lakhs – Cheque returned with endorsement "Drawer’s Signature Differs" – Legal notice claimed to be sent, but original acknowledgment card not produced – Trial Court refused to mark photocopy and acquitted accused holding statutory notice not proved – High Court held non-service was not disputed by accused in cross-examination and disagreed with Trial Court's reasoning on notice –However, loan transaction of Rs. 40 lakhs alleged to be given without any written document – Complainant admitted in cross-examination that cheque was filled by her husband and that husband used to collect blank cheques from chit subscribers including accused – No mention in complaint or notice about authority to fill cheque – These admissions supported defence version that cheque was issued blank during chit dealings – Held: Accused’s version found probable – No perversity in acquittal – Appeal against acquittal dismissed [Paras 9–11].

Decision: Criminal appeal dismissed – Acquittal by Trial Court upheld – Findings held reasonable and not perverse.

Constitutional Law – Right to Travel Abroad – Article 21 – Denial of No Objection Certificate to government employee on ground of pending disciplinary proceedings – Held: Right to travel abroad is a facet of personal liberty protected under Article 21 – Executive instruction dated 28.01.2014 cannot override fundamental rights – Rejection of NOC amounts to unconstitutional restriction on liberty – Impugned orders quashed [Paras 10–14, 18–19]

Service Law – Government Employee – Pending Departmental Proceedings – Presumption of Innocence – Mere pendency of disciplinary proceedings or vigilance cases cannot be treated as conclusive of guilt – Held: Presumption of innocence must prevail until proven guilty – Executive circular cannot justify refusal of NOC without due process of law [Paras 10, 15, 17]

Administrative Law – Executive Instructions vs. Enacted Law – Letter dated 28.01.2014 by State Government is not statutory law – Cannot be treated as lawful basis to restrict passport issuance – Any restriction on fundamental rights must be supported by enacted law – Held: Administrative circular lacks legal authority to infringe personal liberty [Paras 10, 14]

Passport Law – Passport Manual and NOC Requirement – Clauses 4.23 to 4.25 of Passport Manual, 2020 make NOC mandatory for government employees – However, such requirement must align with constitutional rights – Held: NOC cannot be denied arbitrarily, and the Manual must be read in conformity with fundamental rights under Article 21 [Paras 11–12]

Judicial Precedents – Maneka Gandhi Case – Right to go abroad is part of personal liberty – Denial must follow fair procedure established by law – Applied in present case to quash refusal of NOC based on non-statutory executive communication [Para 13]

Decision:

Writ Petition allowed – Impugned rejection orders dated 12.07.2022 and 21.03.2025 quashed – State directed to issue No Objection Certificate to petitioner within six weeks from date of judgment [Para 19]

Criminal Law – Supardari - Seizure of Vehicle – Illegal Quarrying Allegation – Vehicle seized by police under Section 303(2) BNS and Sections 21(1) & 21(2) of the Mines and Minerals Act for alleged illegal transport of gravel sand – Petitioner claimed ownership and denied involvement – Trial Court refused return of vehicle – High Court held that prolonged retention of vehicle causes irreparable damage and violates principles of natural justice – Ownership not disputed and petitioner undertook to produce vehicle when required – Held: Impugned order unsustainable – Vehicle directed to be released upon furnishing of bank guarantee [Paras 2, 6–9, 17–22].

Criminal Law – Return of Property – Section 497 BNSS – Magistrate must exercise discretion under Section 497 BNSS to ensure seized property is not damaged due to prolonged storage – Reference made to Supreme Court judgment in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638 – Held: Delay in disposing of applications for interim custody causes hardship to owners and defeats the purpose of the statute [Paras 13–14, 17].

Fundamental Rights – Livelihood – Article 21 – Vehicle being source of livelihood – Continued seizure without justified reason causes economic hardship and violates Articles 19 and 21 – Court recognized right to livelihood and directed release of property on conditions [Paras 8, 19].

Decision: Criminal Revision Petition allowed – Impugned order dated 28.08.2025 in Crl.M.P. No.277 of 2025 set aside – Vehicle TN-55-CB-3522 to be released to the petitioner on furnishing bank guarantee of ₹1,00,000 and personal bond – Petitioner to ensure production of vehicle when required and not to alter its condition [Paras 21–22].