Criminal Law – Quashing - Defamation – Social Media Defamation – Creation of Fake Online Profiles – Prima Facie Case Made Out – Allegation that petitioner created fake social media accounts portraying respondent as a prostitute and posting derogatory content – Such material accessible to public at large constitutes publication and attracts Section 499 IPC – If proved, allegations are defamatory – Held: Trial Court justified in taking cognizance and framing charges [Paras 2, 4].

Information Technology Act – Section 66C & 66D – Identity Theft – Impersonation – Creating Fake Social Media Account in Respondent’s Name – Acts amount to prima facie offences under Sections 66C (identity theft) and 66D (cheating by personation) – Offensive and sexually explicit portrayal attracts consideration under Section 67A – No ground to quash proceedings at threshold [Para 4].

Criminal Procedure – Section 482 CrPC – Quashing of Proceedings – High Threshold – Allegations disputed by the accused cannot be examined in quashing jurisdiction – Whether petitioner actually created accounts is a matter of trial – Sworn statement and preliminary material support cognizance – No perversity in order framing charges – Petition dismissed [Paras 3-5].

Family/Matrimonial Disputes – Online Harassment of Sister-in-law – Posting derogatory content during matrimonial discord – Court notes allegations are serious and cannot be brushed aside as mere family quarrel – Material shows “public domain” posts leading to wide circulation [Paras 2, 4].

Decision – Criminal Petition Dismissed – Proceedings in C.C. No. 16087/2022 to continue before the I ACMM, Bengaluru [Para 5].

Matrimonial Law - Maintenance – Sections 125 and 128 CrPC - Recovery of Arrears – Attachment of PPF Account – Magistrate ordered attachment of Rs.19.17 lakhs from account allegedly held by petitioner’s mother – Petitioners contended the account was immune from attachment under Sections 3 and 9 of the Public Provident Fund Act – Court rejected claim and held that PPF protection applies only to compulsory provident fund contributions and not voluntary PPF deposits – Alleged diversion of funds by husband to mother’s account after knowledge of attachment proceedings proved from record – Held: Attachment valid and not violative of statutory protection under PPF Act [Paras 3–6].

Maintenance Liability – Not a Debt Under PPF Act – Petitioners contended maintenance dues were a “debt” and thus exempt from recovery through PPF under Section 9 – Court held that maintenance is a legal and moral obligation and not a financial liability incurred in the course of business or borrowing – Hence, recovery through attachment of PPF account not barred – Protective shield under Section 9 meant to safeguard subscribers from creditors, not spouses seeking maintenance [Para 6].

Execution of Maintenance Order – Abuse of Process to Defeat Enforcement – Court found that petitioner had closed eight of his own accounts and transferred funds to mother's name to frustrate recovery proceedings – Such conduct held to be mala fide – No relief granted to petitioner who acted with intent to defeat lawful enforcement of maintenance order [Para 5].

Finality of Magistrate’s Order – Appeal Dismissed – Original Petition under Article 227 Filed Despite Finality – Sessions Court had already dismissed petitioners’ appeal against Magistrate’s order on 02.07.2025 – No further challenge made – Court held that once order attains finality, collateral challenge under Article 227 not maintainable – Petition rendered infructuous on this ground alone [Para 7].

Decision: Original Petition dismissed – Magistrate's order directing attachment of PPF deposit upheld – Petitioners’ attempt to obstruct enforcement of maintenance order found mala fide and lacking legal merit – Held: Legal protection under PPF Act not available against enforcement of maintenance orders passed under CrPC [Para 7].

Criminal Law – Murder Trial – Conviction Reversed – Appellants convicted under Section 302/34 IPC for alleged murder of deceased by slitting his throat with an axe – FIR lodged by wife of deceased stated that she found husband lying dead in the night and named appellants on suspicion – During trial, witnesses claimed to be eyewitnesses and attributed motive – Held: Their testimonies contradicted the FIR and were inconsistent with cross-examination – Trial court erred in relying upon developed and contradictory versions – Conviction set aside [Paras 45–54, 72]

Eyewitness Credibility – Contradictory Versions – PW-1 (wife of deceased) and PW-2 (brother of deceased) claimed to have seen incident but their presence at the spot was contradicted by their own statements – FIR silent on actual witnessing of assault – Held: Eyewitness accounts developed as afterthought – Testimony not credible – Benefit of doubt extended [Paras 46–49, 52–54, 64]

Motive – Failure to Prove – Prosecution alleged motive of personal enmity involving illicit relationship – PW-2 denied any such incident or knowledge – No corroborative evidence led – Held: Motive entirely unproved – Weakens prosecution case significantly [Paras 49, 56–57]

Recovery – Crime Weapon (Axe) – Recovery of axe allegedly made at instance of accused – PW-3, witness to recovery, retracted and stated recovery was staged by police – No proper disclosure statement proved – Recovery site was accessible to public – Site plan prepared five days after alleged recovery – Held: Recovery legally unreliable and inadmissible under Section 27 Evidence Act – Prosecution failed to prove recovery beyond doubt [Paras 65–71]

Benefit of Doubt – Infirmities in Prosecution – Inconsistent statements, unproven motive, fabricated recovery, and contradictions between FIR and trial evidence – Held: Prosecution failed to prove case beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction unsustainable – Appellants acquitted [Paras 72–73]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 302/34 IPC set aside – Appellant Sukh Lal Bunkar already on bail – Bail bonds discharged – Appellant Pappu Sonkar to be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case – Section 437-A CrPC to be complied with.

Constitutional Law – Regulation of Social Media – Challenge to Blocking Orders under IT Act, 2000 – Validity of 2021 IT Rules and Sahyog Portal – Petitioner, a global social media platform, challenged the constitutional validity of blocking orders issued by the Government of India under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and the IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 – Petitioner argued that the blocking orders violate principles of natural justice, free speech, and are ultra vires the parent Act – Court held that the right under Article 19(1)(a) is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) – Petitioner, being a foreign company, cannot invoke Article 19 – Regulation of social media is essential to prevent misuse and crimes, particularly against women and children – Sahyog Portal held to be a valid instrument under Rule 3(1)(d) of 2021 Rules and Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act, aiding the execution of lawful orders – Petition dismissed as devoid of merit [Paras 7.1, 10, 11, 13, 14.4, 17.1, 18.1, 24.2, 25].

Freedom of Speech – Article 19(1)(a) – Scope and Applicability – Foreign Social Media Platforms Not Entitled to Claim Rights under Article 19 – Court reiterated that Article 19 guarantees rights only to citizens of India – Foreign entities operating in India cannot claim fundamental rights under Article 19 – Petitioner’s attempt to invoke Article 19 against take-down orders held untenable – Freedom of speech is not unfettered and must yield to reasonable restrictions imposed in public interest [Paras 14.4, 19, 22.4, 24.2, Summary Point (6)].

Information Technology Act, 2000 – Blocking Orders – Compliance Obligations on Intermediaries – Constitutional Validity of Rule 3(1)(d) and Section 79(3)(b) – Sahyog Portal facilitates due process and enables intermediaries to comply with lawful orders – It is not ultra vires the parent Act – Court held that it serves the statutory purpose of assisting in regulation and monitoring of content on digital platforms – No merit found in the challenge to its validity [Paras 18.1, Summary Point (7)].

Algorithms – Human Agency – Regulation – Court Rejects Argument that Platform is Machine-Driven without Human Involvement – Petitioner argued that its platform is algorithm-driven without human control – Court rejected the argument, holding that algorithms are designed, coded, and managed by humans – Algorithms influence amplification of unlawful content – Therefore, regulatory responsibility cannot be evaded by citing automation [Paras 22.1–22.4].

Social Media Menace – Need for Regulation – Cyber Crimes Against Women and Children – Global Comparative Perspective – TAKE IT DOWN Act (USA) and Indian Regulatory Framework – Court observed that social media platforms facilitate spread of misinformation, hate speech, child sexual exploitation, deepfakes, cyberbullying, and gender-based abuse – Extensively cited global regulations including the TAKE IT DOWN Act in USA, and decisions from Brazil, EU, and Australia – Held that India is equally entitled to enforce regulations to protect public interest and ensure accountability of digital platforms – Regulatory action in India cannot be contested while similar or harsher laws are followed abroad [Paras 20, 23.1–23.10, 24.1–24.3, Summary Points (9), (11), (13)].

Violence Against Women – Technology-Facilitated Gender-Based Violence – Role of Intermediaries – Citing reports from the UN and other international bodies, Court acknowledged the rising incidents of online gender-based violence facilitated by social media – Highlighted threats to safety, privacy, dignity and psychological well-being of women due to deepfakes, sextortion, and online hate – Held that platforms must be accountable and responsive to regulatory directives to mitigate such harms [Paras 23.6–23.7, 23.9, Summary Point (11)].

Comparative Law – Global Regulatory Trends – Digital Services Act (EU), OSA (Australia), Marco Civil (Brazil) – Court referred to international legislative developments like the EU Digital Services Act (2024), Brazilian Supreme Court rulings, and Australia’s Online Safety Act – Noted that petitioner complies with take-down laws in other jurisdictions but challenges Indian laws – Held that such differential treatment is unacceptable – Law must be followed uniformly by intermediaries [Paras 24.1–24.2, Summary Points (9), (13)].

Platform Accountability – Transparency Reports – Petitioner’s Own Data Reveals Non-Compliance with Content Removal Obligations – Petitioner’s August 2025 transparency report showed 31 grievances on child sexual exploitation with zero action taken – Court relied on this to affirm Solicitor General’s submission regarding the petitioner’s habitual non-compliance – Held that this justified regulatory oversight and enforcement actions [Paras 23.10].

Free Speech vs. Regulation – Constitutional Balance – Platforms Cannot Claim Immunity from Regulation in the Name of Free Speech – Court emphasized the delicate balance between protecting free speech and preventing harm – Held that regulation of online content is essential for democratic discourse, public order, and protection of vulnerable groups – Social media cannot become a lawless zone under the guise of free expression [Paras 22.4, 23.9, 24.3, Epilogue].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – Court upheld the constitutionality of take-down orders, Sahyog Portal, and the IT Rules, 2021 – Found that social media platforms must comply with Indian law – Petitioner's non-compliance and selective adherence to foreign regulations found unjustified – Intervener applications also dismissed [Para 25].

Civil Law – Fraudulent Decree – Family Settlement – Registration Requirement – Limitation – Concurrent findings upheld – Decree dated 01.04.1988 held fraudulent as Smt. Ram Bhuli never appeared, signed, or engaged counsel – No pre-existing right in appellant; decree compulsorily registerable – Unregistered consent decree conveys no title – Plaintiffs proved as natural heirs – Suit within limitation under Art. 65 – Fraud vitiates all proceedings – RSA dismissed [Paras 38–48].

Fraud – Proof and Effect – Decree obtained through deception – Evidence showed Smt. Ram Bhuli never appeared in Court, signed pleadings, verified written statement, or engaged counsel – Power of attorney and written statement bore no advocate’s endorsement or verification – Proceedings manipulated behind her back – Held: decree dated 01.04.1988 obtained by fraud; fraud vitiates even the most solemn proceedings – Applies Chengalvaraya Naidu principle [Paras 10, 39–41].

Consent Decree – Requirement of Registration – Where decree purports to transfer immovable property above ₹100 to a person having no pre-existing right, registration is mandatory under Section 17(1)(b) Registration Act – Appellant, a daughter-in-law of brother of Smt. Ram Bhuli, had no antecedent right – Decree operated as instrument of transfer – Being unregistered, conveyed no title – Bachan Singh and Dhian Singh distinguished as involving genuine family settlements between persons with pre-existing rights [Paras 16, 39–40, 42, 46].

Family Settlement – Non-existence – No pleadings or evidence of any family arrangement – Appellant had no pre-existing right; relationship too remote – Alleged settlement an afterthought – Cannot validate a fraudulent or unregistered decree [Paras 39–40].

Limitation – Date of Knowledge – Plaintiffs discovered decree only after death of Smt. Ram Bhuli in 1993 on approaching revenue authorities – Suit filed in 1995 within 12-year period under Article 65 – Void decree need not be cancelled under Article 59 – Follows Shanti Devi v. Jagan Devi, 2025 (SC) – Limitation correctly computed by courts below [Paras 12, 34, 43].

Estoppel – Mutation – No estoppel against statute or fraud – Mutation entries do not confer title – Fraudulent decree being void, all proceedings including mutation fall automatically – Estoppel plea rejected [Para 44].

Heirs – Locus Standi – Once decree found void and property remained vested in Smt. Ram Bhuli, her heirs were entitled to challenge fraudulent decree after her death – Cause of action arose upon gaining knowledge – Plaintiffs held rightful heirs based on oral and documentary evidence including mutation No. 2158 [Paras 9, 12, 45].

Concurrent Findings – Second Appeal – Findings of both courts based on proper appraisal of evidence; no perversity shown – RSA Court declines to interfere – Concurrent findings affirmed [Paras 38, 47–48].

Decision – Regular Second Appeal dismissed – Decree dated 01.04.1988 declared void, unlawful, unregistered; plaintiffs entitled to possession of 1/3rd share – Judgments of Trial Court & First Appellate Court upheld – Pending applications disposed [Paras 48–49].

Criminal Law – Quashment – Section 188 IPC – Section 3 of Epidemic Diseases Act – Proceedings Quashed – Prosecution initiated for alleged disobedience of Government Order dated 13.06.2020 under Section 188 IPC and Section 3 of the Epidemic Diseases Act – No valid order promulgated under the Act was in force on date of alleged offence – G.O.R.T.No.211 expired on 23.03.2020 – No complaint filed by concerned public servant as required under Section 195 CrPC – FIR and charge sheet filed by Sub-Inspector treated as police report and not a valid complaint – Magistrate not competent to take cognizance – Held: Entire proceedings vitiated and liable to be quashed [Paras 3, 24, 28, 31–33].

Procedural Law – Section 195 CrPC – Bar to Cognizance – Complaint by Public Servant Mandatory – Cognizance for offences under Section 188 IPC can only be taken on a written complaint by the concerned public servant – Filing of charge sheet by police officer does not satisfy requirement – Magistrate’s cognizance based on such charge sheet held without jurisdiction [Paras 7, 8, 29–31].

Interpretation – “Complaint” vs. “Police Report” – Police report under Section 173(2) CrPC cannot be treated as a complaint under Section 2(d) CrPC – Complaint must be filed with intention to set law in motion under Section 200 – Held: Charge sheet filed without authority was not a valid complaint under law [Paras 25–27].

Promulgation – Validity and Expiry – No Offence Can Be Attracted After Expiry of Underlying Order – No material to show existence of valid regulation/order under Epidemic Diseases Act on date of alleged offence – Held: Invocation of Section 3 of the Act is unsustainable [Paras 3, 32].

Cognizance – Guidelines on Section 188 IPC – Court reiterates law that police cannot register FIR under Section 188 IPC without complaint from public servant – Preventive action permissible under Section 41 CrPC but cognizance must follow procedure of Section 195 – Reliance placed on Jeevanandham v. State of Tamil Nadu and Kantamaneni Ravishankar v. State of A.P. [Paras 17–19].

Decision: Criminal petition allowed – Proceedings in C.C. No. 828 of 2020 on the file of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Machilipatnam quashed for non-compliance with Section 195 CrPC and absence of valid order under Epidemic Diseases Act [Paras 31–33].

Property Law – Joint Ownership – Partition – Benami Transaction Defense – Preliminary Decree – Plaintiffs sought partition of properties jointly purchased in their names and that of the defendant – Defendant claimed that he alone contributed the entire consideration and plaintiffs were only benami title holders – Court held that Sale Deeds stood in joint names and defendant failed to produce any documentary proof to show exclusive contribution – No bank statements or financial records produced by the defendant for the relevant period (1997–2000) – Defendant's admission that no evidence existed to prove his sole funding, and his reliance on Dena Bank demand draft failed to rebut presumption arising from registered Sale Deeds – Held: Burden of proof to establish benami nature of transaction lies on the party alleging it – Defendant’s plea barred under Section 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act – Presumption of ownership stands in favour of name-holders – Partition decree granted [Paras 10–16, 19].

Registered Title – Evidentiary Value – Burden of Proof – Registered Sale Deeds (Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.3) show names of plaintiffs and defendant as joint purchasers – Defendant failed to rebut the presumption of consideration passing to joint holders – No recital in the documents indicating that defendant was sole purchaser – Held: Registered title cannot be displaced without cogent evidence – Plaintiffs entitled to their respective shares as per recorded ownership [Paras 13–16].

Civil Procedure – Preliminary Decree – Partition Relief Granted – Court held 1st Plaintiff entitled to 1/2 share in Royapuram property (Schedule A) and all three plaintiffs jointly entitled to 3/4 share in Madhavaram properties (Schedule B) – Defendant failed to establish exclusive ownership or contribution – No costs awarded due to family relationship [Paras 20–22].

Decision: Suit decreed – Preliminary decree for partition passed – 1st Plaintiff entitled to 1/2 share in Schedule A property – Plaintiffs 1 to 3 jointly entitled to 3/4 share in Schedule B properties – No order as to costs.

Senior Citizens’ Rights – Eviction from Self-Acquired Property – Peaceful Living and Dignity – Appeal by daughter-in-law against decree directing her eviction from in-laws' property – Respondents, aged parents-in-law, pleaded mental distress and toxic cohabitation due to acrimonious matrimonial dispute – Held: Senior citizens, as undisputed owners of self-acquired property, are entitled to live peacefully with dignity and can seek eviction of daughter-in-law when alternate accommodation is offered under Section 19(1)(f) of PWDV Act – Right of residence is not an indefeasible right to remain in the same premises [Paras 1, 6–8, 24–27, 33–34, 39–40]

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act – Right of Residence – Shared Household – Appellant claimed suit property as her shared household under Section 2(s) PWDV Act and challenged decree under Order XII Rule 6 CPC – Held: Right under Section 17 is not absolute or proprietary – Where senior citizens provide suitable alternate accommodation, eviction is permissible – Statutory right of residence does not override lawful ownership [Paras 28–31, 35–36]

Decree on Admission – Order XII Rule 6 CPC – Appellant admitted ownership of suit property – Sole defence was shared household status – Court held no real triable issue existed and decree was rightly passed on admission, considering offer of alternate residence [Paras 29–32]

Alternate Accommodation – Adequacy and Parity – Respondents offered rent-capped alternate residence with allied expenses covered – Appellant’s demand for equivalence in size and configuration rejected – Held: Purpose of alternate accommodation is to ensure safety and dignity, not parity in luxury – A two-bedroom flat in comparable locality deemed sufficient [Paras 34–38, 42]

Balance of Rights – PWDV Act vs. MWPSC Act – Court affirmed that both statutory protections must co-exist – Woman’s right to shelter must be balanced against senior citizens’ right to peaceful living – Civil suit not barred by prior proceedings under special statutes – Decree achieves just equilibrium [Paras 39–41, 44]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Directions of Single Judge upheld – Appellant to be provided two-bedroom alternate accommodation with rent up to Rs. 65,000/month and associated costs – Appellant to vacate suit property within two weeks of offer [Paras 42–45]

Criminal Law – Murder – Dying Declaration – Evidence of Related Witnesses – Conviction Converted – Appellants convicted for murder of informant’s father based on oral dying declarations made to PWs-1, 2, 3 and 5 – Deceased allegedly named appellants as assailants before dying – Trial court convicted under Section 302/34 IPC – High Court found no evidence of prior enmity between parties – Oral dying declarations consistent and voluntary – Held: Dying declaration admissible and reliable even if made to related witnesses, provided it inspires confidence – Testimonies of PWs-2, 3 and 5 corroborated each other – Dying declaration supported by medical and seizure evidence – However, facts show appellants acted under grave and sudden provocation [Paras 15–17, 33–36, 42].

Grave and Sudden Provocation – Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC – Applicability – Appellants were under influence of liquor – Deceased had reprimanded them for nuisance on road – No prior enmity or motive to kill – Assault followed heated verbal exchange and reprimand – Held: Provocation was sudden and unexpected, depriving appellants of self-control – Assault not premeditated – Circumstances fall within Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC – Conviction altered to Section 304 Part I IPC [Paras 42–47].

Common Intention – Section 34 IPC – Constructive Liability – Though only one appellant inflicted stab injury, oral dying declaration named both as assailants – Evidence showed both present at scene and acting in concert – Held: Common intention developed on the spot – Section 34 IPC rightly applied [Paras 35–37].

Appreciation of Evidence – Dying Declaration to Related Witnesses – Rule of Prudence – Dying declaration made in presence of wife, cousin, brother and nephew – Consistent across testimonies – No suggestion of tutoring – Held: Related witness testimony not inherently unreliable – Must be scrutinised with caution but can form basis of conviction if credible [Paras 31–32, 41].

Appeal – Conviction Modified – Sentencing – Conviction under Section 302/34 IPC set aside – Appellants convicted under Section 304 Part I read with Section 34 IPC – Sentence of life imprisonment substituted with rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine of ₹5,000 each, in default, further 6 months’ RI [Paras 48].

Decision: Appeals partly allowed – Conviction under Section 302/34 IPC set aside – Appellants convicted under Section 304 Part I read with Section 34 IPC – Sentenced to 10 years RI and fine – Fees to be paid to Amicus Curiae by Assam State Legal Services Authority.