Child Custody Law - Visitation Rights – Paramountcy of Child’s Welfare – Writ Dismissed – Petitioner challenged visitation rights on grounds of non-payment of maintenance and desertion by father – Held: Visitation right is independent of spousal disputes and hinges solely on welfare of the child – Denial of access without extreme justification is not permissible – Trial court’s order granting fortnightly visitation upheld [Paras 4-8].

Child’s Best Interest – Access to Both Parents Essential – No Bar from Pending Custody Petition – Held: Child is entitled to affection, protection and guidance from both parents – Visitation right not barred by pendency of custody petition under Section 26 HMA – Welfare of child remains overriding consideration over technical objections [Paras 5-6].

Maintenance Default – Not Sufficient Ground to Deny Access – Father’s Right to Meet Child Not Contingent – Held: Non-payment of maintenance does not nullify father's visitation rights – Visitation is a facet of child’s right to parental care, not a tool of enforcement in maintenance litigation [Para 7]

Judicial Approach – Allegations Between Spouses Irrelevant to Visitation Decision – Focus on Child’s Needs – Court emphasized that custody battles should not sacrifice the emotional and developmental needs of the child – Courts must weigh what serves best interests of the child, not ego disputes of parents [Paras 5-6].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – No Interference Warranted with Trial Court’s Visitation Order – Finding that the father’s access to child posed no harm or exceptional concern – Petition dismissed without costs [Paras 8-9].

Service Law - Departmental Inquiry – Absence Without Leave – Major Penalty – Dismissal Justified – Petitioner was absent for 1220 days between 2004 and 2009 without leave – Contended that no inquiry report or oral evidence was provided and cross-examination opportunity was denied – Respondents argued procedural compliance and lack of sanctioned leave records – Held: Though procedural lapses occurred, petitioner failed to show prejudice or submit any defense or denial even in writ petition – Applying "test of prejudice" doctrine, dismissal upheld [Paras 2–13].

Civil Review – Time-Bound Disposal Direction by High Court – No Grounds for Interference – Review Dismissed - The petitioner sought review of a direction in the appellate judgment requiring the Family Court to dispose of a long-pending matrimonial dispute within six months – Court held that such time-bound direction was justified in light of 15 years of ongoing litigation – Constitutional Bench decision in High Court Bar Association, Allahabad distinguished on facts – Review dismissed as devoid of merit [Paras 2–6, 8].

Review Jurisdiction – No Error Apparent on Record – Mere Disagreement Not Sufficient – Review Dismissed - Citing settled principles from S. Murali Sundaram and Sanjay Kumar Agarwal, the Court reiterated that review cannot be used to rehear or reargue already adjudicated issues – Petitioner failed to point out any self-evident error or exceptional circumstance – Review petition treated as attempt to prolong litigation [Paras 7–8].

Delay in Matrimonial Litigation – Judicial Duty to Ensure Speedy Disposal – Cost Imposed - Court noted petitioner’s conduct as dilatory, having not disclosed trial progress nor justified the need for review – Emphasized importance of finality in matrimonial cases and judicial economy – Imposed ₹5,000 cost to deter frivolous litigation and directed remittance to Lawyer's Association Welfare Fund [Paras 5, 9].

Decision – Review Petition Dismissed with Cost – Finality of Judgment Maintained - Civil Review No. 259 of 2024 dismissed – Direction to dispose matrimonial dispute in six months upheld – Cost imposed and all interim applications disposed [Paras 8–10].

Criminal Law – Gang Rape – Appeal Against Conviction - Sole Testimony of Prosecutrix – Material Contradictions – Appeal Allowed - The Court held that conviction based solely on the testimony of the prosecutrix could not be sustained when her statements under Section 164 CrPC were materially contradictory and uncorroborated – The prosecutrix initially claimed no physical relations and that she went voluntarily, but later alleged repeated gang rape – Held: Her statements lacked reliability and were inconsistent with medical and other evidentiary records [Paras 33–34, 40–41].

Improvement in Statements – Second 164 CrPC Statement Under Doubt – Appeal Allowed - The Court noted that the prosecutrix’s second statement, recorded a month after being in parental custody, was not sought by the investigating officer and appeared court-ordered suo motu – First statement made before magistrate without coercion contradicted later claims – Such unexplained improvements affected credibility and required corroboration [Paras 34, 38–39].

Medical Evidence – No Support for Rape Allegations – Appeal Allowed - Medical report showed no injuries and old hymenal tear; pathological test only faintly suggested prior intercourse – Doctor recorded version matching first voluntary statement – No signs of coercion or assault were found – This contradicted the later claims of repeated gang rape and unconsciousness [Paras 17, 33].

POCSO – Victim a Minor – Still Requires Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt – Appeal Allowed - Although the victim was a minor per educational records, the prosecution still had to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Court emphasized that the burden of proof does not lessen merely because the prosecutrix is underage – Held: Conviction unsustainable in absence of credible, trustworthy evidence [Paras 35, 40–41].

Decision – Conviction Set Aside – All Accused Acquitted - The judgment dated 23.11.2017 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalaun, convicting the appellants under IPC and POCSO was set aside – Accused Shailendra Kushwaha, Manvendra Singh @ Jhamman Pal, and Malik Chandra were acquitted – Directed to be released forthwith unless wanted in other cases [Paras 42–43].

Suo motu - Sedition and Endangering National Unity – Public Remarks by Elected Official – Section 152 BNS – Prima Facie Offence Made Out – Minister Vijay Shah’s comments equating a Muslim Army officer with terrorists were held as promoting separatist sentiments – Such statements were found to endanger the sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India – FIR under Section 152 BNS directed [Paras 2-6].

Communal Harmony – Promoting Enmity Between Communities – Section 196(1)(b) BNS – Inflammatory Language Criticised – Remarks aimed at Col. Sofia Quraishi held likely to disturb public tranquillity and promote religious discord – Held: Prima facie offence under Section 196(1)(b) BNS made out [Paras 7-8].

National Integration – Imputation Against Religious Class – Section 197(1)(c) BNS – Derogatory Assertion Attributed to Faith – By associating a Muslim Army officer with terrorists, the Minister’s statement seen as undermining the integrity and loyalty of a religious group – Court held this as likely to cause communal disharmony – FIR under Section 197(1)(c) BNS ordered [Paras 9-10].

Judicial Oversight – Suo Motu Cognizance by High Court – Abuse of Free Speech by Public Officials – High Court initiated proceedings based on widespread media reports and public outcry – Directed DGP to register FIR immediately failing which contempt action to be considered – Next hearing fixed for compliance [Para 11].

Decision – FIR to be Registered – High Court Directed Registration of FIR under Sections 152, 196(1)(b), and 197(1)(c) BNS against Minister Vijay Shah – Registrar IT to collect additional digital evidence – Matter to be monitored for compliance [Paras 11-12].

Criminal Law – Quashing - Drugs and Cosmetics Act – Testing of Non-Pharmacopoeial Drug – Disputed Factual Matrix – Quash Denied - The Company (A1) challenged the testing method used to declare ‘Omnigel’ as ‘Not of Standard Quality’ claiming non-compliance with 2008 departmental guidelines – Court held the testing method and applicability of Rule 46 involved disputed facts to be adjudicated at trial – Complaint against Company not quashed [Paras 6(i)(g), 6(i)(h)].

Screening Committee – Procedural Compliance Established – Quash Denied - Allegation that complaint was filed without requisite approval by Screening Committee was rejected – Court noted documentary evidence showed due approval was obtained – Petitioners’ reliance on Lupin Ltd. case distinguished – No merit in procedural challenge [Paras 6(ii)(a)-(d)].

Delay in Filing Complaint – No Prejudice – Quash Denied - Petitioners alleged expiry of shelf-life of drug before complaint filing prejudiced right to re-analysis – Court held that since company failed to notify intention to controvert analyst report under Section 25(3), right under Section 25(4) was extinguished – Precedents in Brij Lal Mittal and Amery Pharma followed – No prejudice caused [Paras 6(iii)(a)-(g)].

Sanction – Not Mandatory for Offence Charged – Quash Denied - The complaint was not under Chapter IV-A of the Act; hence no sanction under Section 33M required – Even assuming sanction needed, its validity can only be tested during trial – Complaint not quashed on this ground [Paras 6(iv)(a)-(d)].

Managing Director – No Specific Allegations of Responsibility – Quash Allowed - The second accused (Managing Director) was prosecuted solely based on designation without any averment of being in-charge or responsible for business conduct – Company’s license identified specific technical staff responsible for manufacture – Applying Cheminova and Swati Ajay Piramal rulings, complaint against A2 quashed [Paras 6(v)(a)-(j)].

Decision – Company’s Petition Dismissed – MD’s Petition Allowed - Crl.O.P. No. 19832 of 2022 (Company) dismissed – Crl.O.P. No. 19643 of 2022 (MD) allowed – Connected miscellaneous petitions closed [Para 7].

Civil Law - Gift Deed – Acceptance During Donor’s Lifetime – Valid Execution Presumed – Appeal Dismissed - The Court held that the registered gift deed (Exhibit-6), executed by Ramapada in 1988 in favour of Umapada, was validly accepted during the donor’s lifetime – Presumption arose from registered nature of deed, donor’s failure to challenge during his lifetime, and supporting testimonies confirming transfer of possession – Appellants’ arguments regarding delayed mutation or absence of tax payment found insufficient to negate legal effect of the deed [Paras 25–38, 41].

Misrepresentation – No Specific Pleadings or Proof – Allegation Rejected – Appeal Dismissed - The Court rejected the claim that the gift deed was obtained by fraud or misrepresentation – Held: Bald allegations in pleadings without particularized averments, as required by Order VI Rule 4 CPC, and absence of corroborative evidence rendered the claim unsustainable – Ramapada executed multiple deeds on the same day and his conduct did not indicate confusion or coercion [Paras 42–44, 49].

Donor’s Conduct – No Challenge During Lifetime – Validates Transaction – Appeal Dismissed - The donor lived for six years after executing the gift deed but did not raise any objection – His silence, coupled with possession by donee and contemporaneous execution of other deeds, created strong presumption of voluntariness and authenticity – Court refused to impute suspicion absent any evidence of mental incapacity or illiteracy [Paras 34–37, 46].

Decision – Trial Court Judgment Affirmed – Appeal Dismissed - The High Court upheld the Trial Court’s decree dismissing the suit challenging the gift deed – Held: Plaintiffs failed to discharge burden of proof – Deed was validly executed, accepted, and free from fraud – No costs imposed – Connected application (CAN 2 of 2024) also disposed of [Paras 50–54].

Eviction Suit – Section 23 PSCC Act – Title Dispute Alleged – Application for Return of Plaint Rejected – Tenant raised dispute of title at belated stage in proceedings initiated in 1995 – Court held that mere plea of ancestral title without substantial evidence or prior action over decades was not sufficient – Repeated admissions by tenant and his son, as well as acknowledgment of landlord’s title in earlier litigation, weighed against tenant – Held: Title issue was incidental and did not require return of plaint – Application rightly rejected [Paras 9-10, 27-36].

Title by Will – Competing Wills Claimed by Defendant's Son and Plaintiff’s Legal Representative – Registered Will in favour of respondent accepted – Defendant witnessed Will in respondent’s favour but did not contest it – Admission by defendant’s son of landlady’s title by asserting rival Will also undermined challenge – Held: Claim of title not bona fide and raised to delay proceedings [Paras 7, 29-32].

Jurisdiction – Scope of Section 23 PSCC – Discretionary Power – No Mechanical Return of Plaint – Court reaffirmed that SCC Court may incidentally consider title issues where necessary to determine landlord-tenant relationship – Held: Unless relief entirely depends on disputed title, return of plaint not mandatory – No patent error in trial court’s reasoning [Paras 23-26, 36].

Final Decision – Revision Dismissed – Trial Court Order Upheld – No miscarriage of justice or improper exercise of jurisdiction found – Trial court directed to conclude proceedings within six months from date of judgment [Paras 37-39].

Criminal Law - Quashing of FIR – Abetment of Suicide – Scope of Section 306 IPC – FIR Quashed – Petitioners challenged the registration of FIR under Section 306 read with 34 IPC based on an alleged verbal altercation with the deceased Savitri Devi – Court noted that even taking the prosecution’s case at face value, there was no proximate or direct instigation or aiding that could link the petitioners to the suicide – FIR revealed only a short verbal quarrel, and a nine-day gap between the incident and recovery of the deceased’s body – Held: Mere quarrel or harsh words unaccompanied by a proximate act or intent cannot constitute abetment – FIR quashed as it failed to satisfy the threshold for prosecution under Section 306 IPC [Paras 3, 15-16].

Abetment of Suicide – Mens Rea and Proximate Causation – No Direct or Indirect Instigation – Essential Ingredients Missing – To prove abetment under Section 306 IPC, there must be clear mens rea, an active or direct role in instigating or aiding the act of suicide – Court reiterated law that instigation must go beyond mere harsh words or fleeting arguments – Deceased’s hypersensitivity cannot fasten criminal liability on the accused without evidence of deliberate intent – Held: In absence of overt acts, the petitioners’ role fails the legal test for abetment [Paras 16-18].

Criminal Law – Principles Governing Quashing of FIR – Application of Bhajan Lal Guidelines – FIR Does Not Disclose Prima Facie Offence – The Court invoked the settled principles from State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal to quash proceedings where allegations even if accepted did not constitute any cognizable offence – Held: No sufficient ground exists to prosecute the petitioners under Section 306 IPC based on the facts and evidentiary record [Para 11].

Decision – FIR Quashed – The Court allowed the petition – FIR No. 54/2022 dated 22.03.2022 registered at Police Station Barmana, District Bilaspur, along with consequential proceedings, were quashed – Held: Continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process and not serve the ends of justice [Para 66].