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].
 

Criminal Law - Rape and Abduction – Appeal Against Conviction - Credibility of Victim – Conviction Upheld – The appellant was convicted under Sections 342, 366, and 376(1) IPC for unlawfully restraining, abducting, and raping an 18-year-old – The High Court found the victim’s testimony cogent, consistent, and supported by medical evidence and corroborative testimony – Delay in FIR filing was reasonably explained and held not fatal – Minor inconsistencies in the victim’s testimony did not affect overall credibility – Conviction and sentence upheld [Paras 2, 4–8].
Use of Section 161/164 CrPC Statements – Contradiction Procedures – Defence Argument Rejected – The Court emphasized that Section 161 and 164 CrPC statements are not substantive evidence unless properly confronted during cross-examination under Section 145 Evidence Act – Defence failed to comply with these procedural requirements – Hence, no valid contradiction established [Paras 5, 7(i)–(viii)].
Enhancement of Sentence – Section 376(2)(b) and (c) IPC – Government Servant Claim Unsubstantiated – Appeal Dismissed – State’s claim that the accused was a government servant and should be convicted under Section 376(2)(b)/(c) IPC rejected – No documentary evidence, ID, or official record produced to establish his employment – Custody element under Section 376(2)(b) not satisfied – Belated attempt to alter charges held impermissible – Appeal for enhancement dismissed [Paras 3, 9–13].
 

Criminal Law – Quashing of Cognizance - Custodial Violence Allegation – Police Officers Summoned – Cognizance Quashed - Petitioners, senior police officers, challenged summoning order in a complaint case alleging police excess during a bandh protest in 2014 – Held: Proceedings initiated after an unexplained delay of 10 years, during Model Code of Conduct, are manifestly malicious and aimed at countering lawful police action – Complaint and medical records insufficient to justify prosecution [Paras 2-6, 21-24].

Section 197 Cr.P.C. – Protection to Public Servants – Sanction Mandatory - Cognizance taken without sanction against Superintendent of Police and Dy. SP for acts performed during official duty – Court reaffirmed requirement of prior sanction for prosecution where actions were integrally connected with performance of duty – Cognizance held bad in law, vitiated by lack of jurisdiction [Paras 10, 22-24].

Delay and Abuse of Process – Complaint Filed After a Decade – Court’s Caution on Malicious Prosecution - Complaint filed after 10 years of incident involving alleged custodial assault during protest – Petitioners were already prosecuting the complainant in related FIRs – Continuation of proceedings held to be abuse of judicial process – Summoning order quashed as per principles in Neeharika Infrastructure and D.T. Virupakshappa [Paras 4-6, 14-15, 20-24].

Prima Facie Test – Injury Report Not Corroborative – Cognizance Treated as Mini-Trial - Injury reports failed to substantiate serious assault allegations – Magistrate’s detailed order amounted to adjudication beyond prima facie satisfaction – Court held this impermissible at the summoning stage [Paras 12, 19-20].

Decision – Cognizance Order Quashed – Petitions Allowed - High Court quashed the impugned cognizance order dated 29.04.2024 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai – Held: Complaint lacked merit and was politically motivated [Paras 24-25].
 

Judicial Proceedings – Conduct During Video Conferencing – SOP Recommendation Upheld – Petitioner, a Senior Police Inspector and witness in a Sessions Trial, challenged a Trial Judge’s letter to the DGP recommending Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for remote testimony – The letter was based on his alleged disrespectful behavior while deposing from a police station via mobile phone – Supreme Court held that request for SOP was administrative and aimed at preserving court decorum; it did not amount to punitive or mala fide action – Petition dismissed [Paras 1-2, 6-10].

Contempt and Misconduct – Casual Demeanor During Evidence – Court Disapproved – Petitioner was found laughing, muting the microphone, answering calls, and speaking to others while testifying – His behavior was deemed insolent and disruptive to trial decorum – Held: Witnesses, especially Investigating Officers, must maintain solemnity and respect while deposing, regardless of remote access – No personal bias found in Trial Judge’s conduct [Paras 3-9].

Relief – No Interference Warranted – Impugned Letter Not Illegal – Court held that recommending procedural reform through internal communication to senior officials is within a judge’s discretion and does not warrant judicial interference under Article 226 or Section 482 CrPC – Petition devoid of merit – Liberty granted to petitioner to respond to departmental notice on its own merits [Paras 10-11].

Decision – Petition Dismissed – No infirmity found in Trial Judge’s actions – Recommendations for SOPs held valid and well-intentioned – Petitioner may respond to administrative proceedings independently [Para 10-12].

Service Law - Termination of Contractual Employees – Participation in Protest – Order Quashed - Petitioners were disengaged from Class-IV contractual posts for alleged participation in protest without permission – Court held that the discharge orders lacked due process, including opportunity of hearing or show cause – Termination held unsustainable [Paras 1–6, 14–16].

Office Memorandum – Declared Ultra Vires – Cannot Be Basis of Termination - Termination orders were based on Finance Department O.M. dated 23.06.2012 which provided for “automatic termination” after 15 days' absence – Court reaffirmed earlier Division Bench ruling in Ramesh Sahoo v. State of Odisha holding the O.M. unconstitutional – Use of quashed O.M. renders termination illegal [Paras 7–8, 16–17].

Equal Treatment – Reinstatement of Similarly Situated Persons – Discriminatory Action Set Aside - Court found that other employees with identical allegations were reinstated and regularized, but petitioners were arbitrarily excluded – Held: Discriminatory treatment violates Articles 14 and 16 – Petitioners entitled to reinstatement [Paras 18–21].

Remedy – Reinstatement with Compensation – Continuity Without Back Wages - Court ordered reinstatement of petitioners on contractual basis with continuity for service benefits – No back wages granted, but lump sum compensation of ₹50,000 each awarded due to arbitrary exclusion and prolonged delay [Paras 21–22].

Final Decision – Termination and Rejection Orders Quashed – Writ Allowed - Impugned disengagement and rejection orders dated 13.09.2012 and 16.08.2024 quashed – Petition allowed with directions for reinstatement and compensation [Paras 21–23].

Criminal Law – Sect. 138 N.I. Act - Bail Cancellation – Non-Appearance Due to Health – Bail Restored – Petitioner’s bail was cancelled and non-bailable warrants issued for non-appearance in a Section 138 NI Act case – Held: Absence was unintentional, caused by medically proven encephalopathy – Trial Court’s action in issuing arrest warrant without notice was harsh and disproportionate – Bail cancellation order quashed [Paras 2–6, 7–8].

Judicial Discretion – Due Process Violated – No Prior Notice Before Warrant – Petitioner not issued notice before issuance of non-bailable warrant – Held: Contrary to settled law and judicial fairness – Courts must avoid mechanical detention and ensure liberty is not curtailed without procedural safeguards [Paras 5, 6].

Legal Principles – Liberty & Bail – Ref. Gudikanti Narasimhulu, Sanjay Chandra – Cited – Court reiterated that deprivation of liberty must be based on necessity, not mere procedural lapse – Held: Petitioner’s conduct showed cooperation, no risk of tampering with evidence – Bail is to secure appearance, not punishment [Paras 5.1, 5.2, 6].

Final Directions – Bail Restored with Conditions – Impugned order of 11.10.2024 set aside – Petitioner directed to appear before trial Court on 09.06.2025 and all subsequent dates – Passport to be surrendered if any – Rs.10,000 costs imposed payable to Punjab and Haryana High Court Employees Welfare Association [Para 8].
 

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].
 

Patent Law – Amendment of Patent Claims – Method of Treatment to Product Claims – Amendment Rejected – Appellants sought to convert originally filed method-of-treatment claims into product claims for anticMet antibody-drug conjugates – The Court held that such conversion amounted to enlargement of claim scope, not permitted under Section 59(1) – Further held that proposed amendments did not qualify as disclaimer, correction, or explanation – Amended claims lacked the original diseasespecific limitations and attempted to create broader product protection not originally disclosed [Paras 17-36].  

Patentability – Method of Treatment – Not Patentable Under Section 3(i) – The original claims related solely to therapeutic methods for treating cancers, which are excluded from patent protection under Section 3(i) – The Court held that allowing amendment to circumvent this bar by broadening to product claims was impermissible and would defeat legislative intent [Paras 13-15, 33].  

Industrial Applicability – Section 2(1)(j) – Rejection Upheld – Original claims also failed to meet the criteria of being capable of industrial application under Section 2(1)(j), as they focused purely on human therapeutic protocols – The Court upheld this ground for refusal as well [Paras 13, 38].

 Scope of Amendment – Interpretation of Section 59 – Broader Product Claims Not Within Original Specification – The Court reiterated that product claims introduced later must fall wholly within the scope of the original claims – Held that introduction of new claims related to pharmaceutical compositions (Claims 5 to 8) was beyond the originally filed claim set and therefore impermissible [Paras 24-32].  

Precedents – Allergan and Nippon Distinguished – The Court clarified that unlike in Allergan Inc. v. Controller of Patents, the amended claims in the present case did not retain the same disease-specific scope and thus substantially broadened the claim – Reliance on Nippon A & L Inc. and Ovid Therapeutics affirmed, which held that such broadening was not allowed under Indian patent law [Paras 22-23, 36-37].  

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Controller’s Order Upheld – The Court found no infirmity in the Controller’s rejection of the application and dismissed the appeal – Ordered copy of judgment to be forwarded to Controller General of Patents for compliance [Paras 38-41].

Hindu Law – Coparcenary Rights – Birthright in Ancestral Property – Partition Decree Upheld – 1st defendant alienated part of the suit property claiming it was self-acquired – Courts found that the property was purchased from ancestral nucleus – 2nd plaintiff (son) had a birthright as coparcener in his father’s share – Sale to 3rd defendant (aunt) could not affect son’s share – Held: Alienation not binding to the extent of son’s undivided share – Partition decree affirmed [Paras 16-21]. 
 
Burden of Proof – Failure to Establish Self-Acquired Status – Adverse Inference Drawn – 1st defendant failed to testify and substantiate claim of purchasing property from self-earnings – Held: In absence of evidence and given family’s agricultural income, courts rightly inferred acquisition through ancestral funds – Adverse presumption applied under Vidhyadhar v. Manikrao, AIR 1999 SC 1441 [Paras 16-17]. 
 
Presumption of Joint Family Property – Admissions and Agricultural Income – Confirmed – Defendant’s admission of joint cultivation and absence of independent income supported plaintiffs’ claim of ancestral source – Presumption applied under established principles where family nucleus and source of funds were admitted [Paras 17-18]. 
 
Effect of Birth on Property – Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act – Applicable – The son’s birth prior to alienation revived the coparcenary and entitled him to a half share in his father’s portion – Held: Father could only alienate his own share and not the son’s – Alienation to 3rd defendant partly invalid [Paras 2021]. 
 
Decision – Second Appeal Dismissed – Concurrent findings upheld – No substantial question of law made out – Each party to bear their own costs [Para 22].