Writ Law - Fraud Classification - Master Directions on Fraud Risk Management - Show Cause Notice and Declaration of Fraud - Petitioners challenged show cause notice and order declaring respondent company as fraud - Company had opened an undisclosed bank account diverted funds and failed to provide required data to transaction auditors despite multiple opportunities - Bank refused extension of time requested by petitioners citing vague medical emergencies - High Court held that the order was reasoned based on the transaction audit report and there was no violation of principles of natural justice as petitioners had prior knowledge of the allegations and failed to cooperate - Held - writ petition dismissed - [Paras 1-40].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed - No order as to costs.

Civil Law - Temporary Injunction - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order XXXIX Rule 1 and Section 151 - Plaintiff filed suit for injunction based on an agreement for entrusting readymade business - Defendant denied agreement and possession alleging forgery and production missing bill books - Trial court granted temporary injunction and ordered handing over of keys - First appellate court reversed finding cloud of doubt over genuineness of agreement and lack of evidence regarding possession - High Court held that appellate interference was justified as trial court exercised jurisdiction perversely by ignoring material evidence including travel documents and trade license - Held - appellate court judgment affirmed - original petitions dismissed - [Paras 1-37].

Civil Law - Appeal Maintainability - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order XLIII Rule 1 - Maintainability of civil miscellaneous appeal against orders passed under Section 151 CPC - Applications filed for return of keys consequential to injunction orders - Held - misquoting provision does not take away statutory right of appeal when enabling provision exists - [Paras 12-18].

Decision: Original petitions dismissed - Common judgment of the First Appellate Court upheld.

Civil Law - Second Appeal - Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act 1961 - Section 11 - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order 6 Rule 17 and Order 7 Rule 7 - Defendants appellants challenged concurrent decrees of eviction and possession based on title arguing that in a landlord-tenant suit failing to prove tenancy warrants outright dismissal without granting relief on title - Trial Court and first appellate court concurrently found that landlord-tenant relationship was not established but decreed possession based on title after allowing plaintiffs to amend the plaint and pay separate court fees upon defendants disputing title and pleading adverse possession - High Court upheld concurrent findings noting that unlike cited precedents where plaints were not amended and relief was sought solely on tenancy the plaintiffs in this case duly amended the plaint sought relief based on title paid separate court fees and proved title through admissions and documentary evidence - Held - no substantial question of law is involved - appeal dismissed - [Paras 1-24].

Civil Law - Amendment of Plaint - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order 6 Rule 17 - Conversion of suit - Plaintiffs originally filed suit for eviction based on oral tenancy and later amended plaint to incorporate alternative prayer for possession based on title after defendants denied tenancy and claimed adverse possession - Defendants did not challenge the amendment order and filed consequential written statement amendments - Held - amendment was rightly allowed and tried by both courts - [Paras 4-12].

Civil Law - Adverse Possession - Limitation Act 1963 - Article 65 - Defendants claimed perfection of title by adverse possession since 1969 while admitting in written statements and depositions that they did not even know the true owners Kishorilal and Shivcharan Shivbaksh - Held - mere long possession without establishing hostile open and continuous possession with knowledge of true owner cannot establish adverse possession - [Paras 3-15].

Decision: Appeal dismissed - Concurrent judgments and decrees of the trial court and first appellate court affirmed - No order as to cost - Record of the courts below be sent back.

Criminal Law - Robbery with Hurt - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Section 394 - Lurking House-Trespass - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Section 457 - Conviction upheld - Appellant committed lurking house-trespass by night, was confronted by PW3, threatened with a button-operated knife, and twisted PW3's right wrist causing pain and swelling - Trial Court convicted appellant under Sections 394, 397, 457 IPC and Sections 25, 27 Arms Act - Appellant's admission of presence in godown to eat ice cream, coupled with consistent testimonies of PW3 and PW6, established house-trespass and robbery with hurt - Held - Conviction under Sections 394, 457 IPC is affirmed - [Paras 18-22].

Criminal Law - Robbery with Deadly Weapon - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Section 397 - Deadly Weapon - Arms Act 1959 - Arms Rules 1962 - Schedule I, Category V - Definition of deadly weapon - Appellant argued that the knife used, measuring 7.8 cm blade length, did not meet the 9-inch length criterion for "deadly weapon" under Arms Rules - High Court held that the definition of "deadly weapon" under the Arms Rules for regulatory purposes cannot be imported into Section 397 IPC - Apex Court precedents establish that a knife is a deadly weapon under Section 397 IPC, its deadliness depends on the nature and manner of use - Appellant brandished the button-operated knife to intimidate PW3 and facilitate robbery - Held - Conviction under Section 397 IPC is affirmed - [Paras 11, 12, 23-25].

Criminal Law - Arms Act - Arms Act 1959 - Section 25(1B)(b) - Possession of buttondar knife - Delhi Administration Notification dated 17/02/1979 - Regulation of buttondar knives - Appellant was found in possession of a buttondar knife with a blade measuring 7.8 cm in length and 2.4 cm in width in a public place without a licence - The Notification specifically regulates possession and carrying of buttondar knives with blade dimensions of 7.62 cm or more in length and 1.72 cm or more in breadth in public places in Delhi - Held - Conviction under Section 25 of Arms Act is affirmed - [Paras 26-28].

Criminal Law - Arms Act - Arms Act 1959 - Section 27 - Use of arms - Contravention of Sections 5 or 7 - Prosecution neither alleged nor proved any contravention of Sections 5 or 7 of the Arms Act regarding the use of the knife - Held - Conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 27 of the Arms Act cannot be sustained and is set aside - [Para 29].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 27 of the Arms Act set aside – Appellant acquitted under Section 235(1) CrPC of the charge under Section 27 of the Arms Act – Conviction and sentence under Sections 394, 397 and 457 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act affirmed.

Criminal Law - Quashing of FIR - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Sections 152, 186, 225 - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 195 - Criminal Original Petition filed by ten advocates to quash FIR registered against them for obstructing police from producing two arrested advocates before court for remand - High Court Security Committee, after perusing video footage, concluded that action amounted to obstruction and attracted penal offences - FIR lodged under Sections 186, 152, 225 IPC - Petitioners contended it was a peaceful protest and S.195 CrPC barred cognisance for S.186 IPC without a prior complaint to the appropriate court - High Court held that S.195 CrPC indeed barred registration of FIR for S.186 IPC - S.152 IPC not attracted as police were not engaged in dispersing unlawful assembly or suppressing a riot - While prima facie material existed for S.225 IPC regarding obstruction to lawful apprehension, considering the police themselves later granted bail to the arrested advocates and no charge sheet had been filed for three years, and the petitioners faced proceedings for a long time, conditional quashing ordered - Held - FIR quashed conditional on petitioners filing an affidavit expressing regret for their extreme behaviour within ten working days - [Paras 1-12].

Criminal Law - Cognisance - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 195 - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Section 186 - Obstruction of public servant - FIR registered for offence under Section 186 IPC without a complaint before the appropriate court - Held - Section 195 CrPC bars cognisance in the absence of such a complaint - FIR cannot be registered for this offence - [Paras 5, 8].

Criminal Law - Obstruction of public servant - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Section 152 - Assault or obstruction of public servant when suppressing riot - Allegations that accused persons prevented police from producing other advocates for remand - No averment in FIR or records regarding assaulting or threatening police officers on duty in dispersing unlawful assembly or suppressing riot or affray - Held - Offence under Section 152 IPC not made out - [Para 8].

Criminal Law - Obstruction of lawful apprehension - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Section 225 - Resistance or obstruction to lawful apprehension or rescue from custody - Advocates protested and prevented police from producing other arrested advocates before court for remand - While peaceful protest is democratic, the High Court Security Committee observed prevention of production - Held - Prima facie material exists to proceed under Section 225 IPC - [Paras 9-10].

Criminal Law - Quashing of FIR - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Section 225 - Obstruction - Despite prima facie material for Section 225 IPC, considering police did not make further attempts to produce the arrested persons and themselves enlarged them on bail - No final report filed till date - Incident of 2023, FIR 2025, petitioners facing proceedings for three years - Held - FIR relating to Section 225 IPC can also be quashed conditionally upon filing of an affidavit expressing regret for extreme behaviour - [Para 11].

Decision: Criminal Original Petition disposed of – FIR in Crime No.11 of 2025 quashed upon petitioners filing an affidavit expressing regret for the incident – If any petitioner fails to file the affidavit, proceedings against them under Section 225 IPC may continue – Connected miscellaneous petition closed.

Writ Law - Passport Renewal - Passports Act 1967 - Sections 5, 6 and 22 - Petitioner facing criminal proceedings under PMLA before Special Judge - Trial Court permitted release of passport for renewal subject to furnishing indemnity bond and undertaking to surrender passport within five days of renewal and not to travel abroad without prior permission - Passport authority refused ten-year renewal and insisted on one-year validity under Notification GSR 570(E) dated 25th August 1993 on the ground that the trial court did not specify a travel period - High Court held that passport is a civil document enabling travel while actual departure is regulated by criminal courts - Held - once criminal court permits renewal without absolute travel restriction the passport authority cannot curtail validity to one year - Held - passport directed to be renewed for normal period of ten years subject to petitioner re-depositing the same before the trial court within five days - petition allowed - [Paras 1-38].

Constitutional Law - Right to Travel Abroad - Constitution of India 1950 - Article 21 - Right to hold a passport and travel abroad are facets of personal liberty - Any restriction must be fair, just, and reasonable - Held - indefinite denial or artificial curtailment of passport validity when criminal court has consciously permitted renewal is a disproportionate restriction on personal liberty - [Paras 20-22].

Administrative Law - Delegated Legislation - Passports Act 1967 - Section 22 - GSR 570(E) dated 25th August 1993 - Notification empowering exemption from Section 6(2)(f) bar subject to court orders specifying validity or defaulting to one year - Held - delegated legislation must conform to parent statute and cannot override primary law or impose positive obligations beyond the Act - Held - administrative instructions cannot override statutory duration rules under Rule 12 of Passports Rules 1980 when criminal court imposes no travel bar - [Paras 26-31].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Respondent passport authorities directed to renew the petitioner's passport for a normal period of ten years from the date of issue within three weeks – Petitioner directed to strictly comply with the trial court orders by surrendering the passport within five days of its renewal.

Civil Law - Lease and Eviction - Transfer of Property Act 1882 - Sections 105 and 111 - Appellant-lessee challenged trial court decree of eviction and mesne profits following expiry of registered lease by efflux of time - Appellant contended jural relationship fell under West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act 1997 - Respondents argued lease was governed by TP Act as it ran its full course before institution of eviction suit - High Court held that a lease commencing under TP Act does not automatically change its character into a tenancy under rent control legislation unless specifically provided - Held - trial court justified in decreeing eviction under TP Act - appeal dismissed - [Paras 1-69].

Civil Law - Rent Control Exemption - West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act 1997 - Section 3 - Scope of exemption and pre-existing rights - Appellant argued non-inclusion of lease category in exemption clause brought it under 1997 Act by default - High Court held that absence of specific inclusion in subsequent rent control legislation cannot retrospectively take away accrued substantive rights and governing status under TP Act - Held - pre-existing registered lease running its full course is not governed by the 1997 Act - [Paras 44-59].

Civil Law - Status of Lessee - Transfer of Property Act 1882 - Section 111(a) - Expiry of lease by efflux of time - Lease executed in 1905 and 1907 expired on July 31 2005 - Suit instituted in 2006 - Status of appellant converted to tenant-at-sufferance upon expiry of lease - Held - tenant-at-sufferance cannot claim protection under the 1997 Act after the lease ran its full course - [Paras 60-62].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Impugned judgment and decree of eviction and mesne profits affirmed – Time extended for a further period of three months to quit and vacate the suit premises.

Criminal Law - Corruption - Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 - Section 7 - Dismissal of discharge application - Framing of charges - Revisionist a Deputy Commissioner in Commercial Tax/GST Department accused of demanding Rs 2,00,000 bribe for clearing GST refund claims totaling Rs 19,47,787 - Complainant filed complaint on 05.03.2024 leading to a trap operation on 19.03.2024 - Revisionist caught red-handed accepting phenolphthalein-dusted currency notes - Trial Court dismissed revisionist's discharge application under Section 227 CrPC on 06.02.2026 and framed charges under Section 7 PC Act on 13.02.2026 - Revisionist contended no demand proven 12-day delay between trap team constitution and actual trap unexplained independent witnesses did not overhear alleged transaction refund claims were already rejected on 28.02.2024 and 12.03.2024 implying no pending work and lack of mens rea - Prosecution argued prima facie case established by trap recovery chemical test and forensic report - also contended that deficiency memo issued on one refund claim meant option for fresh application was still open justifying demand - High Court found no illegality irregularity or perversity in trial court's orders - noted independent witnesses stated revisionist was caught red-handed - reiterated that at discharge stage court not to conduct roving inquiry but to consider grave suspicion raised by material - Held - No ground to interfere with trial court's dismissal of discharge application and subsequent framing of charges under Section 7 PC Act - Criminal Revision dismissed - [Paras 2-9, 12-13, 19, 21-23].

Criminal Procedure - Discharge - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 227 - Scope of inquiry at discharge stage - Trial court may discharge accused if no prima facie case is found or no sufficient ground for proceeding - Court not to conduct roving inquiry into material at this stage - Charge can be framed on basis of grave suspicion - Held - No meticulous examination of evidence needed for considering whether case would end in conviction or not at stage of framing or quashing charge - [Paras 10-12, 19-21].

Criminal Law - Corruption - Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 - Section 7 - Proof of demand and acceptance - Essential ingredients of Section 7 PC Act require proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by public servant - Apex Court in Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) reaffirmed proof of demand and acceptance as sine qua non - However inferential deduction of culpability permissible in absence of direct complainant evidence based on other prosecution evidence - Held - Prosecution case prima facie established on basis of trap recovery of money and chemical test/forensic report relating to demand and acceptance of bribe - [Paras 15-18].

Decision: Criminal Revision dismissed – Impugned orders dated 06.02.2026 and 13.02.2026 passed by the learned Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, PC-1, Lucknow, affirmed.

Writ Law - Municipal Administration - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Petitioner dealer challenged seizure notice and sealing of retail fuel outlet premises by municipal authority for alleged unauthorised construction - Municipality claimed no building permission application was received and classified commercial land use incorrectly as residential - High Court held that municipality acted arbitrarily without jurisdiction and passed contradictory orders without considering petitioner representations - Held - writ petition allowed and respondents directed to de-seal premises and process building permission application - [Paras 1-21].

Writ Law - Seizure and Sealing - Municipal Administration - Unauthorised Construction - Municipal authority sealed business premises and issued seizure notice without statutory backing or jurisdiction - Power to seize retail outlets for malpractice vests with oil corporation and safety non-compliance vests with district authorities - Held - municipal seizure action is completely without jurisdiction - [Paras 15-19].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Seizure notice and consequential orders set aside – Respondent municipality directed to forthwith de-seal the petitioner premises and grant portal access to the licensed technical person for processing the building permission application.