Contempt of Court – Disobedience of Final Judgment – Plea of Private Forest Land Rejected – Contempt Established - The Court held that the respondents wilfully disobeyed the final judgment in W.P.(C) No. 593 of 2017 and LPA No. 786 of 2018 (affirmed by the Supreme Court in SLP(C) No. 8108 of 2021) by issuing letters branding petitioner’s land as ‘private forest land’ – Such a plea was never raised in the earlier proceedings and cannot be permitted under the principle of constructive res judicata – Held: Conduct of respondents amounts to deliberate disobedience and obstruction of justice [Paras 1-3, 8, 21-23, 32-33, 41, 44-48, 55-56, 86-88].

Constructive Res Judicata – New Pleas Barred in Contempt – Doctrine Applied - The Court reiterated that new pleas such as classification as ‘private forest land’ not raised in earlier writ or LPA proceedings are barred – Raising such new grounds in contempt proceedings amounts to collateral attack on final judgments – Held: Attempt by respondent officials to overreach court orders is impermissible under law [Paras 44-48, 86].

Burden of Proof – Claim of Private Forest Land Unsupported by Evidence – Burden Not Discharged - Respondents relied on unauthenticated documents and failed to produce certified revenue records to substantiate claim of ‘private forest land’ – Certified copy of Khatian unavailable per RTI response – Held: No credible evidence to support forest land classification – Attempt amounts to misleading the court [Paras 63-70].

Contempt by Government Officials – Non-Parties Liable – Principles Explained – Agents Bound by Orders Against Government - Even though the forest officials were not parties to the original writ proceedings, as agents of the State, they are bound by its outcomes – Their actions in issuing advisory letters amounted to aiding and abetting contempt – Held: Officials can be held in contempt for obstructing justice [Paras 71-75].

Effect of Supreme Court Directions – Compliance Deferred – No Sentence Imposed for Eight Weeks – The Court, while holding the respondents guilty of contempt, deferred pronouncement of sentence for eight weeks in compliance with clause (iv) of the Supreme Court's order in SLP(C) No. 31127 of 2024 to enable respondents to approach the Apex Court [Paras 92-93].

Relief – Advisory Letters Declared Invalid – Letters Set Aside - In view of the established contempt, the letters issued by respondent Nos. 2 and 4 branding the land as forest land and restricting activities thereon were set aside – Court emphasized that contemnors cannot enjoy the fruits of contempt [Paras 91].
 

Pension – Delayed Absorption – Entitlement Recognized – Tribunal Order Set Aside – Petitioner served as Medical Officer at a government-acquired institution and was directed to be absorbed in 2005 – Absorption delayed till 2010 despite court orders – Court held delay attributable solely to State – Held: 
Petitioner entitled to count service period from 22.02.2005 to 20.04.2010 toward qualifying service for pension [Paras 13–20]. 
 
Equitable Doctrine – No Advantage from Own Wrong – Delay by State Cannot Prejudice Employee – Following Kusheshwar Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar, Court held that respondents cannot deny pension on ground of shortfall in qualifying service when delay in formal absorption was their own doing – Period must be counted for pension entitlement to avoid civil consequences [Paras 18–19]. 
 
Service Law – Rights Crystallized by Judicial Direction – Binding on State – Court emphasized that petitioner’s right to absorption under the 1983 Act crystallized on 22.02.2005 as per previous writ order – State bound to honour such finding; inaction thereafter cannot be used against petitioner [Paras 14–16]. 
 
Retrospectivity – No Wages for No Work – But Period Counts for Pension – While denying claim for salary during 2005–2010, Court held petitioner entitled to count that period for pension qualifying service – “No work no pay” does not apply to pension rights if employee ready to serve and State delays appointment [Para 18]. 
 
Final Decision – Writ Allowed – Tribunal Order Set Aside – Pension Directed – Tribunal’s rejection order dated 02.09.2024 quashed – Respondents directed to treat petitioner’s qualifying service as commencing from 22.02.2005 – Pension and arrears to be paid within 8 weeks with transparent calculation details [Paras 20–21]. 
 

Heatwave Crisis – State Inaction Amidst Climate Emergency – Directions Issued – Despite judicial orders in 2024, Rajasthan government failed to implement the Heat Action Plan or health preparedness schemes – Court criticized passive state response despite soaring temperatures and mass vulnerability – Suo motu action revived to enforce institutional accountability [Paras 1–3, 10–14].

Constitutional Right to Life – Extreme Heat as Public Health Emergency – Judicial Duty to Intervene – Holding that right to life under Article 21 includes protection from environmental and climate-induced harms, Court emphasized duty of the State to protect lives through preventive public health action and environmental safeguards [Paras 12–13, 20–22].

Contempt Warning – Continued Non-Compliance of 2024 Order – Show Cause Issued – Court noted shocking disregard of 2024 directions and non-submission of compliance reports by authorities – Held such conduct contemptuous and indicative of systemic apathy – Show cause notice issued to all respondents [Paras 15–17, 25–26].

Interim Relief – Cooling Shelters, Water, ORS and Awareness Campaigns Ordered – Directions issued to provide cooling shelters, drinking water, and ORS at public spaces and issue regular heatwave alerts across Rajasthan – Workers to be granted rest period from 12–3 PM – Coverage to include humans and animals [Paras 22–24].

Policy Direction – Bill on Heat/Cold Deaths to be Enacted – Compensation Framework Proposed – Directed Centre and State to revive and implement the 2015 Bill on prevention of deaths due to temperature extremes – Suggested compensation mechanism for heatwave victims – Called for statutory backing to preventive obligations [Paras 5, 14, 25©, 25€].

Environmental Governance – Tree Plantation and Climate Action Plan Implementation Mandated – Directed plantation along roads, water conservation measures, and effective implementation of Rajasthan’s Climate Change Heat Action Plan – Government not permitted to cite financial constraints when public safety is at stake [Paras 25(a), 25(b), 24].

Final Directions – Compliance by 24.04.2025 – Officials Put on Notice – All District Collectors to file reports on compliance with interim directions – Matter to be reviewed on 24/04/2025 – Central and State departments directed to take steps or face coercive orders [Paras 26, 29–30].
 

Civil Law - Landlord-Tenant Relationship – Effect of Family Settlement – Maintainability of Release Application – Tenant’s Claim of Co-Ownership Rejected – The petitioner contended that he was not a tenant under respondent no.3 and had become co-owner by purchasing a part of the tenanted premises from respondent no.4 – Held: Based on oral family settlement between respondents no.3 and 4, the property was partitioned; thus, respondent no.3 became sole owner of a portion and could maintain a release application – Purchase by petitioner from respondent no.4 did not make him co-owner with respect to respondent no.3’s share – Relationship of landlord-tenant with respondent no.3 upheld [Paras 13-17].

Split Tenancy – Effect of Partial Ownership on Tenancy Rights – Tenancy Not Split – The petitioner argued that tenancy cannot be split and he became owner of the entire property – Held: The petitioner became owner only of the part sold by respondent no.4; tenancy continued in respect of the portion held by respondent no.3 – No legal bar on such bifurcation due to family settlement and specific sale deeds – Tenancy held to exist with respect to the portion claimed in release [Paras 13-18].

Bonafide Need – Comparative Hardship – Evidence-Based Findings – Release Upheld – Respondent no.3 sought release for starting business for himself and his sons – Appellate Court considered bonafide need, hardship, and lack of evidence from petitioner on alternative accommodation – Closure of petitioner’s sawmill noted – No perversity found in concurrent findings – Release affirmed [Paras 13-14].

Equitable Relief – No Rent Paid – Conduct of Tenant Considered – Equitable Jurisdiction Not Invoked – Petitioner failed to pay rent to either landlord – Court noted petitioner’s conduct and refused to grant discretionary relief under Article 226 – Equitable relief denied [Paras 15, 19].

Interference Under Article 226 – No Perverse or Arbitrary Finding – Scope Limited – Held: Appellate authority’s findings based on facts, evidence and legal principles – No perversity or arbitrariness shown – No ground made for judicial review under Article 226 – Petition dismissed [Paras 28-29].
 

Criminal Law – Adultery – Quashing of Summoning Order – Section 497 IPC Unconstitutional – Petitioner summoned for alleged adultery under Section 497 IPC after initial discharge by Magistrate – Held: Following Supreme Court's declaration of Section 497 as unconstitutional in Joseph Shine case, prosecution under said provision cannot be sustained – Complaint quashed as continuation of proceedings is impermissible under law [Paras 22–32].

Retrospective Effect – Application to Pending Proceedings – Supreme Court’s Interpretation Binding – Declaration of law by Supreme Court in constitutional matters applies retrospectively to pending cases – Held: High Courts have consistently quashed similar pending complaints after Joseph Shine judgment – Present complaint also hit by same principle and liable to be quashed [Paras 27–31].

Absence of Prima Facie Evidence – No Proof of Adulterous Act – Allegation based on assumption that petitioner and complainant’s wife stayed together overnight – Held: No oral or documentary evidence proving sexual intercourse – Mere presumption not sufficient for summoning – Ingredients of Section 497 IPC not established even on facts [Paras 7, 33].

Gender Equality – Constitutional Morality – Arbitrariness of Section 497 – Section treated woman as property and did not punish wife or allow her to file complaint – Held: Provision violated Articles 14, 15, and 21 and was rightly struck down for being manifestly arbitrary and patriarchal – High Court reiterates importance of privacy and individual autonomy in marital relationships [Paras 21–26].

Decision – Petition Allowed – Complaint and Summoning Order Set Aside – Summoning order dated 28.04.2018 under Section 497 IPC set aside – Complaint quashed – Petitioner discharged from all proceedings – Pending applications disposed of [Para 34].
 

Negotiable Instruments Act – Vicarious Liability – Non-Director Cannot Be Prosecuted – Petitioner Not Liable – Petitioner was neither a director of the accused company nor a signatory to the dishonoured cheques – Extract from the Ministry of Corporate Affairs confirmed he had no association with the company – Held: As per settled law under Section 141 NI Act, mere designation without active role in the company’s affairs does not fasten liability – Prosecution against petitioner quashed [Paras 3, 7].

Quashing of Complaint – Section 482 CrPC – Specific Averments Mandatory – The complaint lacked any specific allegations detailing the petitioner’s role in the conduct of the company’s business – Held: In the absence of such averments, vicarious liability cannot be inferred – Continuing proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law [Paras 7-8].

Precedents – Binding Nature of Apex Court Decisions – Followed – Court relied on landmark judgments including SMS Pharmaceuticals, Harmeet Singh Paintal, Saroj Kumar Poddar and K.K. Ahuja to reiterate that criminal complaints must specifically show how the accused was responsible for business conduct – Held: The petition deserved to be allowed based on established legal principles [Paras 6-7].

Final Decision – Petitions Allowed – Criminal Case Nos. 53135 and 53136 of 2016 pending before Judicial Magistrate, Vadodara, quashed against the petitioner – Rule made absolute [Para 8].
 

Muslim Law - Probate and Will – Requirement of Proving Testamentary Capacity and Absence of Suspicion – Will Rejected - Appellant claimed two Wills executed by deceased Tajuddin Shaikh in his favour – Trial Court and High Court found multiple suspicious circumstances including inconsistency regarding property ownership timelines, typewritten Wills with identical wording, and lack of clarity on religious identity and testamentary rights – Held: Appellant failed to discharge burden of proof required under Section 63 of Indian Succession Act to establish valid execution of Will [Paras 6, 9-13, 16-17].

Mohammedan Law – Limits on Bequest – Bequest Beyond One-Third Invalid Without Consent – Will Partially Invalid - As per Mohammedan Law, bequest beyond one-third of estate to non-heir is invalid without consent of legal heirs – Court held Will to be invalid beyond said limit in absence of such consent – Validity of Will limited to extent permissible under law [Para 14].

Suspicious Circumstances – Inclusion of Properties Not Owned at Time of Will – Will Held Invalid - Land purchased after the alleged execution date of first Will was included in it – Appellant failed to explain or produce evidence showing pre-existing agreement – Held: Inclusion of such land created suspicion regarding authenticity of Will [Para 16].

Succession Certificate – Grant to Legal Heirs – Certificate Upheld - Respondents were legal heirs of deceased and proved relationship – In absence of valid Will, Court rightly granted heirship and succession certificate to respondents – No interference warranted [Para 18].

Appeal – Dismissal of Appeal – Findings of Trial Court Upheld - Trial Court's conclusions based on factual and legal analysis upheld – No merit found in appeals filed by Sunil Shinde – Appeals dismissed [Para 19].
 

PMLA Offence – Bail Rejection – Serious Economic Fraud – Bail Denied – Petitioner accused of defrauding over ₹800 crores from flat buyers through a fictitious housing project – Despite attachment of ₹161.5 crores, further investigation ongoing to trace remaining proceeds of crime – Held: Given gravity, conduct of petitioner, and ongoing investigation, bail cannot be granted [Paras 5–6, 15, 24–25].

Statutory Bail – Section 167(2) CrPC – Not Applicable – Complaint Filed Timely – Petitioner argued for statutory bail due to delayed filing of final report – Held: Complaint under PMLA filed on 05.11.2024 and taken cognizance on 04.12.2024, within permissible time – Hence, plea for statutory bail rejected [Paras 4.2, 8, 11].

Section 45 PMLA – Stringent Bail Conditions – Not Satisfied – Petitioner Failed Two-Part Test – Court found no reasonable grounds to believe petitioner is not guilty or unlikely to commit offence again – Held: Petitioner failed conditions under Section 45(1)(ii), bail barred [Paras 17–18, 25].

Non-Cooperation and Tampering – Forged Medical Certificate and Illegal Mobile Use – Misuse During Custody – Petitioner submitted forged medical documents and possessed mobile phone in judicial custody – Alleged further laundering through daughter-in-law while in jail – Held: Conduct undermines claim of bona fides and justifies continued custody [Paras 5.2, 5.5, 14, 21].

Further Investigation Post-Complaint – Permissible Under PMLA – Complaint Not Bar to Continued Probe – Held: Under Section 44(1)(ii) PMLA, complaint can be supplemented by further investigation – Justifies refusal of bail due to ongoing tracing of unaccounted proceeds of crime [Paras 23–24].

Final Decision – Bail Denied – Criminal Petition Dismissed – Taking into account the magnitude of the offence, petitioner’s conduct, and non-cooperation, Court held bail unjustified – Petition dismissed [Para 26].
 

Criminal Law – Quashing - Disproportionate Assets – Mere Relationship with Principal Accused – No Abetment Made Out – Proceedings Quashed - Petitioner, wife of the principal accused, was arrayed as abettor under Section 109 IPC based on ownership of some assets – Court held that mere spousal relationship or name-lending without evidence of active role or mens rea is not sufficient for abetment – No prima facie case made out [Paras 20–26, 31–32].

Speedy Trial – Delay of Over Two Decades – Article 21 Violation – Proceedings Quashed - Criminal case initiated in 2004 remained pending with no charge framed or trial initiated for over 20 years – Court held that continued prosecution violated petitioner’s right to speedy trial under Article 21 – Quashing necessary to prevent abuse of process [Paras 20, 22–24, 28, 30].

Vigilance Practice – Mechanical Implication of Spouses – Strongly Criticized - Court observed that spouses, often housewives, are routinely added as co-accused in DA cases without inquiry into their role or mens rea – Reiterated that such practice is arbitrary and contrary to criminal justice principles [Paras 25–27, 31].

Judicial Precedent – Smt. E. Swarnalata Case Followed – Quashing Warranted - Citing coordinate Bench decision in Smt. E. Swarnalata v. State of Odisha (Vigilance), 2024 (I) ILR-CUT-1465, Court reiterated that ownership of assets alone by a spouse does not establish abetment – Ratio applied squarely to petitioner’s case [Paras 25–26].

Final Decision – CRLMC Allowed – Proceedings Quashed Against Petitioner - Criminal proceeding in Vigilance PS Case No. 20/2004, T.R. No. 83/2007 quashed with respect to petitioner – Court directed expeditious trial against remaining accused [Paras 32–33].