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 - Territorial Jurisdiction – Re-Presentation of Returned Plaint – Order 7 Rule 10 CPC – Suit Re-registered Without Amendments – Set Aside – A plaint once returned for lack of jurisdiction cannot be re-registered without incorporation of new facts showing jurisdiction – Held: The re-registration of the suit on identical pleadings without any amendment was impermissible in law [Paras 8-13, 18-20].

Cause of Action – No New Averments Made – Section 151 CPC Cannot Cure Jurisdictional Deficiency – The plaintiff re-submitted the plaint without introducing any new factual pleadings indicating the defendant carried out business within Jaipur – The application under Section 151 CPC merely annexed bills and invoices, which cannot substitute formal pleadings – Held: Lack of cause of action in the plaint rendered it unsustainable [Paras 9, 13, 19-20].

Rejection of Plaint – Order 7 Rule 11 CPC – Scope and Test – Court Must Examine Only the Plaint – The High Court reaffirmed that only the averments in the plaint must be examined to assess cause of action under Order 7 Rule 11 – Applications or annexures cannot replace substantive pleadings – Re-registration of plaint without jurisdiction was held to be legally unsustainable [Paras 14-16].

Judicial Discretion – Duty to Reject Unsustainable Suit – Previous Order Attained Finality – Held: The Commercial Court had no legal authority to re-register the same plaint without amendment after having already returned it – Judicial discipline required consistency in orders and adherence to earlier findings [Paras 17, 20, 23].

Decision – Writ Allowed – Order Quashed – The High Court quashed the Commercial Court’s order dated 23.02.2021 – Directed return of plaint to the plaintiff for filing before competent court – Connected suit (Other Original Suit No. 2/2022) also disposed accordingly [Paras 24-29].

Criminal Law – Stone Pelting on Police - Sections 147, 353, and 332 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Acquittal – Identification of Accused – Failure to Establish Identity – Acquittal Upheld - Witnesses failed to consistently identify accused amidst mob of 150–200 people – Contradictory depositions and no clear identification of individuals pelting stones – Held: Identity of accused not proved beyond reasonable doubt; acquittal justified [Paras 9–11].

Suppression of FIR Entry – Adverse Inference – Failure to Exhibit Rojnamcha Sanha – Fatal to Prosecution – FIR based on station diary entry was not produced or proved in trial – Held: Suppression of material evidence warranted adverse inference and undermined prosecution case [Para 12].

Offences under Sections 332 & 353 IPC – No Proof of Official Duty – Documentary Evidence Not Adduced – Acquittal Valid - No duty certificates or station diary entries were produced to prove public servants were performing official duty – Held: Essential ingredient of offence not established; trial court rightly acquitted respondents [Para 13].

Appeal Against Acquittal – Presumption of Innocence – Interference Not Warranted – No Perversity in Trial Court Findings – Held: View taken by trial court was plausible and based on proper appreciation of evidence – Appellate Court cannot interfere merely because a different conclusion is possible [Paras 15–20].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Acquittal Affirmed - No illegality or perversity found in trial court's reasoning – Appeal dismissed; order regarding disposal of seized property affirmed [Paras 20–21].

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].

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].

Anticipatory Bail - NDPS Act – Commercial Quantity – Rigours of Section 37 Applicable – Bail Denied - The petitioner was named in an FIR relating to the transportation of 4.36 kg of charas and was alleged to have fled from the spot with a co-accused – Held: Quantity recovered being commercial, stringent conditions under Section 37 applied – Prima facie involvement of petitioner found – Petition dismissed [Paras 2, 11, 15].

Statement of Co-Accused – Not Inadmissible at Bail Stage – Custodial Interrogation Warranted – Bail Denied - Though the petitioner contended reliance on inadmissible statement of co-accused under Tofan Singh, the Court noted the Supreme Court’s contrary approach in Khaliludeen, Ajay Kumar Singh, and Samarth Kumar – Held: Even at pre-trial stage, such disclosure warranted consideration for bail denial – Custodial interrogation deemed essential to unearth wider conspiracy [Paras 10–14, 16].

Anticipatory Bail – Extraordinary Relief – Not Routine in Narcotics Cases – Bail Denied - Reiterating P. Chidambaram, Srikant Upadhyay and State vs. Anil Sharma, the Court emphasized that anticipatory bail is not a rule and must be denied where serious offences are involved – Liberty must be balanced with effective investigation – Presence of petitioner in vehicle, abscondence, and destruction of evidence argued against bail [Paras 7–9, 16–18].

Decision – Pre-Arrest Bail Denied – Petition Dismissed - Court dismissed the anticipatory bail petition of Shyam Lal – Held: Circumstances do not justify invocation of Section 438 CrPC – Observations confined to bail and not to be treated as findings on merits [Paras 19–20].

Education Law – Eligibility Criteria for BDS Course – 50% PCB Requirement – Rounding-Off Not Permitted – Appellant had 49.66% marks in Physics, Chemistry, Biology (PCB) in 10+2—Did not meet 50% eligibility criteria under Clause 6 of notification dated 10.06.2016—Family Court and Single Judge held rounding-off impermissible—Appellant’s name struck off from college rolls [Paras 2, 6–7].

Equitable Jurisdiction – Completion of Full Course under Interim Order – Degree Directed to be Conferred – Appellant allowed to continue BDS studies under interim order since 2017—Completed entire course and internship—High Court held: Appellant acted in good faith; no fraud; equity warrants issuance of degree—Writ Court cannot permit technicalities to defeat substantial justice [Paras 5, 8–10, 13].

Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit – Litigant Not to Suffer Due to Court Delay – Court emphasized that delay in final hearing must not prejudice litigants protected by interim orders—Cited binding precedents (Pasupuleti Venkateshwarlu, Milind, Budhia Swain)—Held: Interim protection matured into legitimate expectation of qualification—Degree cannot be denied [Paras 9–12].

Administrative Law – Rigid Application of Rules Disfavored – Proportionality Doctrine Invoked – Court stressed writ jurisdiction must balance fairness over technicality—Doctrine of proportionality used to assess harm from denying degree versus regulatory breach—Held: Larger public interest served by confirming degree of trained dentist [Paras 9–10].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Impugned communication and judgment of Single Judge set aside – Respondents directed to confer BDS degree upon appellant within one week – No costs awarded [Paras 13–14].

Bail - Dowry Death – Section 304B IPC – Prima Facie Ingredients Not Met – Bail Granted – Allegation that the applicant demanded car EMI payments from the deceased’s family not corroborated by contemporaneous evidence – EMI payments found to have been made by the applicant himself – No credible evidence of cruelty “soon before death” in connection with dowry demand – Statutory presumption under Section 113B Evidence Act not automatically applicable – Bail granted [Paras 6-11].

Extramarital Affair – Not Sufficient to Constitute Cruelty or Abetment – Bail Not Denied – Applicant’s alleged relationship with a colleague named Sarita and existence of video chats were cited by prosecution – Court held that such a relationship, without intent to harass or drive the deceased to suicide, does not satisfy cruelty under Section 498A or abetment under Section 306 IPC – Mere suspicion or emotional neglect does not establish mens rea required under these provisions [Paras 12-15].

Presumption under Section 113B Evidence Act – Not Absolute – Conditional on Foundational Facts – Statutory presumption requires establishment of harassment in connection with dowry “soon before death” – In absence of such proximate cruelty, burden does not shift to accused – Court emphasized the presumption is rebuttable and conditional [Paras 7-9].

Custody – No Risk of Tampering or Flight – Trial in Early Stages – Bail Warranted – Applicant in custody since March 2024 – Chargesheet filed and trial pending – No risk of absconding or influencing witnesses established – Continued incarceration deemed unnecessary – Personal liberty not to be curtailed where trial will take time [Paras 17-18].

Decision – Bail Application Allowed – Applicant Released on Conditions – Bail granted on furnishing personal bond of ₹50,000 with two sureties – Restrictions imposed on communication, reporting, and appearance to secure presence and prevent interference with evidence [Para 18].

Civil Law – Will - Suspicious Circumstances – Allegations Rejected – Probate Upheld – Appellant raised doubts over timing of execution, non-production of original Will initially, use of different inks, and alleged contradictions in witnesses' evidence – Court held none of the issues raised amounted to real or germane suspicious circumstances – Execution of Will during marriage of daughter found natural and explained by presence of attesting witnesses – Court held that presence of relatives, lack of objection to exhibit marking, and acknowledgment of property distribution supported genuineness of Will [Paras 44-56].

Proof of Will – Compliance with Section 63 of Succession Act and Section 68 of Evidence Act – Valid Execution Proven – Sole surviving attesting witness (P.W.2) deposed to all elements required under Section 63 – No contradiction found in his testimony – Execution proven even though full cross-examination was not completed – Appellant chose not to avail further cross-examination opportunity or challenge relevant order – Valid proof of Will held to be established [Paras 71-73].

Evidence of Attesting Witness – Partial Cross-Examination – Not Fatal – Deposition Accepted – Despite initial expunction, High Court remitted matter to trial court to assess sufficiency of P.W.2’s testimony – Trial court found evidence substantial – Appellant failed to challenge this or produce further evidence – Court affirmed lower court's decision to accept the evidence [Paras 74-85].

Codicil – Letter Not Compliant with Legal Requirements – Not a Codicil – Letter dated 21/08/1999 allegedly modifying Will treated as informal correspondence – Lacked required formalities of execution and attestation under law – Held: Not a codicil and irrelevant for grant of probate [Paras 66-69].

Disparity in Bequests – Not a Ground to Invalidate Will – Property Distribution Justified – Testatrix’s Kalna property bequeathed to appellant and Kolkata property to other daughters – Appellant admitted this aligned with prior promises – Will not vitiated by uneven distribution – Courts must respect testatrix’s autonomy in property disposition [Paras 50-53, 63].

Decision – Probate Affirmed – Appeal Dismissed – Court found valid execution, no suspicious circumstances, and proper evaluation of evidence – Judgment and decree of probate granted on 17/12/2018 affirmed – Appeal dismissed on contest without costs – Stay on judgment’s operation granted for three weeks [Paras 86-89].