Electricity Law - IBC vs. Electricity Dues – Applicability of Section 238 IBC – Refund of Deposited Amount Ordered – Petitioner purchased industrial premises through liquidation under IBC – Electricity connection was denied until petitioner paid arrears of prior owner – Payment made under protest – Respondents refused refund – Held: Section 238 of IBC has overriding effect over inconsistent provisions of Electricity Act – Respondents were required to file claims in liquidation under Section 53 – Demand for dues from the purchaser unjustified – Refund directed with interest [Paras 5, 8-11, 14].

Secured Operational Creditor – Role under IBC – Electricity Dues Not Recoverable Outside Liquidation Process – Electricity Board, being an operational creditor, is bound by IBC provisions – Recovery must be sought within liquidation mechanism – Direct demand from auction purchaser not permissible – Supreme Court rulings in Paschimanchal Vidyut and Southern Power Distribution Company applied [Paras 9-10].

Maintainability of Writ – Alternate Remedy No Bar in Pure Questions of Law – Though alternative remedies exist, they are not adequate in present case involving pure question of law already settled by Supreme Court – Hence, writ petition maintainable – Court exercises discretion under Article 226 [Paras 12-13].

Relief Granted – Amount Refundable With Interest – Condition of Arrears Clearance Unjustified – Respondents directed to refund Rs. 55,29,000/- with 6% interest from 27.10.2021 – Failing which, higher interest at 12% imposed – Bank guarantee for remaining dues also to be released [Para 14].

Civil Writ - Marriage Protection Petitions – Misuse of Judicial Process – Large-Scale Fraud Detected – The Court found that several petitions filed for police protection by runaway couples were based on forged certificates and fabricated identity documents – Noted that touts and unregistered institutions are exploiting court jurisdiction through manipulated filings – Held: Writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked by fraudulent means to bypass statutory law [Paras 5–9, 12–13].

Forgery and Fake Documents – FIRs Against Bogus Trusts – Organized Racketeering – Multiple FIRs filed in Ghaziabad and Prayagraj reveal an organized racket of fake Arya Samaj trusts issuing forged certificates – Police seized digital evidence and arrested operators of photocopy shops involved in document forgery – Held: Fraudulent solemnizations undermine legal sanctity and public trust [Paras 24–26.7].

Marriage Registration Reforms – Directions Issued – The Court directed amendment to the U.P. Marriage Registration Rules, 2017 – Ordered mandatory video recordings of ceremonies, physical presence of Purohits, verification of Aadhaar and educational documents, and strict residency jurisdiction – Interim directions to remain in force until new rules are notified [Paras 28–30, 33–34.5].

Fundamental Right to Marry – Not a License for Illegality – Reaffirmed that while adults have a right to choose partners under Article 21, this right must be exercised within the boundaries of law – Forged documents and false identities cannot form the basis for invoking constitutional protection [Paras 13, 21, 30].

Administrative and Institutional Failure – Collusion or Negligence – Found large-scale registration of marriages in districts like Ghaziabad despite no residence connection of parties – Strong indications of police and registrar complicity – Directed comprehensive inquiry and monthly compliance monitoring [Paras 17–19, 31].

Final Directions – Petitions Disposed – Court disposed of all petitions with liberty to petitioners to approach concerned Senior Superintendent of Police – Directed verification and protection on merits – Ordered transmission of judgment to Chief Secretary and concerned officials for compliance [Paras 36–38].

Bail - Sections 21-C, 25, 27-A, and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - NDPS Act - Grounds of Arrest – Non-supply of Written Grounds – Arrest Held Illegal – Despite police contention, petitioner was not served written grounds of arrest as mandated under Article 22 of the Constitution and Section 47 BNSS – Court relied on Pankaj Bansal, Prabir Purkayastha, and Vihaan Kumar to hold that oral communication or general arrest memo is insufficient – Arrest declared illegal [Paras 8–13, 21–22].

Search and Seizure – Violation of Section 185 BNSS – Search Declared Illegal – Police broke open premises in petitioner’s absence and conducted seizure without recording reasons or notifying Magistrate – Held: Mandatory procedure under Section 185 BNSS was not followed – Recovery declared vitiated due to illegal search [Paras 14–19].

Sanctity of Remand Order – Judicial Order Does Not Cure Illegal Arrest – Remand granted by Magistrate cannot validate an arrest that was void ab initio – Court emphasized maxim "sublato fundamento cadit opus" – Foundation being void, entire superstructure including remand fails – Remand order quashed [Paras 20–24].

Decision – Petition Allowed – Arrest and Remand Declared Illegal – Petitioner Ordered to Be Released – Court held both the arrest and remand were contrary to law due to non-supply of arrest grounds and illegal search – Ordered immediate release unless required in another case – Directed compliance by jail authorities and Magistrate [Paras 22–27].

Criminal Law - Rape Conviction – Delay in FIR – Medical and Forensic Contradictions – Conviction Set Aside – The FIR was lodged three days post-incident without satisfactory explanation – Medical evidence and absence of FSL report contradicted the rape allegations – The prosecutrix’s testimony lacked corroborative scientific or physical evidence, undermining the prosecution’s case [Paras 2-5].

Eyewitness and Medical Evidence – Corroboration of Defence – Benefit of Doubt – The only eyewitness and medical reports supported the appellant's version of a mutual physical altercation, not a one-sided sexual assault – The appellant’s injuries were consistent with his narrative, casting doubt on the prosecutrix’s credibility and suggesting false implication [Paras 4-5].

False Implication – Judicial Caution in Rape Allegations – Citing Precedents – The Court emphasized cautious scrutiny in rape cases, acknowledging the possibility of false accusations due to motives such as revenge or extortion – Referred case law emphasized the need for unequivocal evidence before convicting – Held: Evidence did not establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 5-8].

Criminal Trespass – Section 447 IPC – No Criminal Intent Proved – Acquittal – The prosecution failed to demonstrate unlawful entry with criminal intent by the appellant – The absence of concrete proof negated the essential elements of criminal trespass – The accused was acquitted under Section 447 IPC as well [Para 10].

Decision – Conviction Set Aside – Appellant Acquitted – The High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Judgment of conviction dated 14.02.1995 was quashed – Appellant acquitted of all charges under Sections 376 and 447 IPC – Bail bonds discharged; compliance with Section 437-A Cr.P.C. directed [Final Para].

Criminal Law - Discharge Application – Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Prima Facie Involvement – Discharge Denied – Petitioner, a retired Milk Chilling Centre Incharge, sought discharge citing lack of prima facie evidence and delay in filing of charge-sheet post-retirement – Held: Petitioner was not entitled to discharge at this stage since allegations concerning embezzlement of Rs. 1,07,198/- remained inadequately investigated and warranted further probe [Paras 1, 4–5, 9].

Further Investigation – Suo Moto Power of Magistrate Under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. – Legally Sustainable – Magistrate directed further investigation to clarify whether milk sold in transit was lawfully accounted for and deposited in Government Treasury – Held: Such direction is legally permissible even post-cognizance as per Supreme Court ruling in Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya v. State of Gujarat – Article 21 requires fair and complete investigation to uphold justice [Paras 10–12].

Misappropriation and Embezzlement – Transit Sale of Milk and Non-Accounting of Revenue – Further Scrutiny Ordered – Allegation that petitioner sold milk in transit without record or remittance to Treasury prompted further investigation into TR-V deposit records – Held: Trial Court rightly sought further investigation into financial discrepancies affecting public funds [Para 13].

Delay in Investigation and Prosecution – Not Sufficient Ground for Discharge – Public Interest in Full Inquiry – Though charge-sheet was filed after five years of retirement and initial FIR dates back to 2002, the need for full investigation into misuse of public resources overrides concerns of procedural delay – Held: Justice mandates substantive inquiry over expedience [Paras 3, 9].

Decision: Revision Petition Dismissed – No Interference Warranted – Trial Court’s Direction for Further Investigation Upheld – The High Court found no merit in challenge to Trial Court’s order; held that the directive for further probe was within judicial bounds and necessary for arriving at truth – Petition dismissed [Paras 14].

Criminal Law - Rape of Minor – Promise of Marriage – Section 376 IPC – Acquittal Upheld – Prosecution alleged that the accused induced a 16-year-old girl into a sexual relationship on false promise of marriage resulting in pregnancy and suicide – Court noted absence of corroborative medical or forensic evidence, including DNA analysis – Oral evidence of complainant found insufficient and riddled with contradictions – Held: Guilt not proved beyond reasonable doubt, acquittal sustained [Paras 6.1, 6.2, 13.1–13.3].

Abetment of Suicide – Lack of Proximate Instigation – Section 306 IPC – Accused alleged to have provoked deceased to commit suicide – Court noted no concrete act of incitement or instigation in close proximity to suicide – Absence of direct link between accused’s alleged statements and suicide held fatal to prosecution – Held: Mere refusal to marry does not establish mens rea for abetment – Acquittal justified [Paras 13.4–14].

Criminal Appeal – Scope of Interference with Acquittal – Double Presumption in Favour of Accused – Reaffirmed that appellate court must interfere only if trial court’s view is perverse or unsupported by evidence – Acquittal further reinforces presumption of innocence – Held: Trial court's findings neither perverse nor unreasonable – No justification to overturn acquittal [Paras 10–11, 15–17].

Judicial Precedents – Standard in Acquittal Appeals – Reliance on Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar and Prakash v. State of Maharashtra – Reiterated that in cases of suicide, direct or indirect incitement must be established through cogent evidence – Court emphasized need for proximity between instigation and act of suicide – Held: In absence of such proximity, benefit of doubt rightly given to accused [Paras 13.6, 14].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Acquittal Confirmed – Prosecution failed to prove charges under Sections 376, 306, 506(2) IPC – View taken by trial court found plausible and consistent with legal standards – High Court found no compelling ground to interfere – Appeal dismissed, trial court’s acquittal order upheld [Paras 16–18].

Anticipatory Bail – Misleading Advertisement – Health Hazards – Bail Denied – Petitioner marketed a hair oil as a remedy for baldness via social media and held a public camp promoting its use – 71 individuals suffered severe eye irritation and swelling, prompting hospitalization – Held: Promoting unverified products with health risks, without clinical testing, endangers public safety and trust – Bail refused [Paras 1–5, 9].

Consumer Safety – Social Media Influence and Product Liability – Need for Regulation – Court remarked on the increasing impact of internet influencers who exploit societal beauty standards and insecurities to promote untested remedies – Emphasized duty of the State to ensure public health safety and to regulate misleading commercial practices – Held: Unsafe, untested health products must be sternly dealt with [Paras 6–8].

Decision – Petition Dismissed – Anticipatory bail denied – Product caused physical harm to dozens – State’s obligation to protect public health overrides individual commercial claims [Para 9].

Anticipatory Bail – Sections 302, 323, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Role Introduced via Supplementary Statement – No Injury Attributed – Bail Granted – The petitioner, aged 67, was not named in the FIR and was later implicated for allegedly catching the victim’s beard and inciting his co-accused to assault – No injury attributed to the petitioner and he was unarmed – Court held that custodial interrogation was not justified based on the minor role, absence of overt act, and age – Anticipatory bail granted with conditions [Paras 4, 7, 9].

Criminal Procedure – Pre-trial Incarceration – Principle of Least Intrusion – Arrest Not Required – Court emphasized that pre-trial custody should not mimic punishment and that bail jurisprudence requires restraint unless justified – Reopening old neighborhood disputes without substantial evidence against petitioner did not justify arrest – Held: Continued liberty ensured through anticipatory bail [Paras 8-9].

Anticipatory Bail – Conditional Bail – Compliance and Cooperation Mandated – Bail granted subject to compliance with investigation and mandatory disclosure of identification details – The Court noted petitioner must cooperate fully and avoid influencing witnesses – Breach of conditions would entitle prosecution to seek cancellation [Paras 11-17].

Decision – Anticipatory Bail Allowed – Given the absence of direct assault, lack of prior criminal record, and the supplementary nature of allegations, anticipatory bail granted with directions to join investigation and comply with conditions – Petition allowed [Paras 9, 20].

Taxation Law - Export Supply – Compensation Cess – Exemption Denied – Levy Deferred – Petitioners challenged the levy of Compensation Cess at 160% on supply of branded tobacco to merchant exporters for export, which was otherwise taxed at a concessional GST rate of 0.1% under Notification Nos. 40/2017 and 41/2017 – Held: Though no separate exemption notification was issued under the Compensation Cess Act, such supply qualifies as “export of goods” and is zero-rated under Section 16 of the IGST Act – The levy is revenue-neutral as merchant exporters are entitled to refunds – Government directed to refer the issue to GST Council – Operation of impugned order kept in abeyance [Paras 94-118].

Interpretation of Export Supply – Supplies to Merchant Exporters Considered Exports – Court held that the movement of goods from factory to port for direct export by merchant exporters, without diversion, constituted a continuous chain of export – Cited Apex Court decisions in Amritsar Sugar Mills and Lord Krishna Sugar Mills to support the principle that more than one leg in a transaction may qualify as “export” – Such supplies are entitled to zero-rated benefits [Paras 97-99, 111].

Revenue Neutrality – Refund Mechanism – Levy Held Unjustified – Petitioners contended that any Compensation Cess paid would ultimately be refunded to merchant exporters, making the levy redundant and burdensome – Court agreed and held that levy causing working capital blockage undermines the policy of tax-free exports – Refused to apply exemption narrowly to exclude Compensation Cess while applying it to GST [Paras 100-107].

Judicial Direction – GST Council to Reconsider Compensation Cess Exemption – Although no exemption notification was issued under the Compensation Cess Act, Court invoked Section 11 of the Act, which applies GST and IGST provisions mutatis mutandis – Strongly urged GST Council to recommend exemption for Compensation Cess in line with existing exemptions under Notifications 40/2017 and 41/2017 – No coercive recovery till decision by Council [Paras 114-119].

Decision – Impugned Orders Kept in Abeyance – Petitions Disposed – The Court held that supply of goods by petitioners to merchant exporters constitutes zero-rated export supply – Impugned demand for Compensation Cess at 160% stayed and referred to GST Council for policy recommendation – Respondents restrained from initiating recovery if petitioners comply with exemption notification conditions and submit undertaking to deposit cess if the Council decides otherwise – Rule made absolute to this extent [Paras 116-120].