Criminal Law – Cheating and Criminal Breach of Trust – Distinct Transactions – Simultaneous Invocation of Sections 406 and 420 IPC Not Mutually Destructive – Petitioner challenged FIR and charge sheet alleging both cheating and criminal breach of trust – Contended that offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC are mutually destructive when based on a single act – Court distinguished between the mental element (mens rea) in both offences – Held: Allegations pertain to three separate transactions—Two transactions relating to breach of trust under Section 406 IPC and one transaction involving inducement under Section 420 IPC – Therefore, simultaneous prosecution is legally sustainable [Paras 3, 18–22].

Criminal Procedure – Quashing of Charge Sheet – Ingredients of Offence Present – Investigation and Complaint Disclose Prima Facie Offence – Petitioner argued lack of application of mind by police and mechanical filing of charge sheet – Court held that complaint and charge sheet disclose prima facie ingredients of distinct offences – No grounds for quashing proceedings under Section 482 CrPC [Paras 5–8, 20–22].

Statutory Interpretation – Section 420 vs. Section 406 IPC – Distinction in Mens Rea and Timing of Dishonest Intent – Cheating under Section 420 IPC requires dishonest intention at the time of inducement – Criminal breach of trust under Section 406 IPC requires dishonest misappropriation after entrustment – Court applied this distinction to facts and held both offences made out in different contexts [Paras 16–18, 21].

Precedent – Delhi Race Club v. State of U.P. (2024) 10 SCC 690 – Not Applicable When Offences Arise from Separate Transactions – Apex Court had held that cheating and breach of trust cannot be alleged simultaneously for the same act – Court held that ratio does not apply when offences arise from separate and independent transactions, as in the present case [Para 18, 22].

Decision:

Writ petition dismissed – Simultaneous charges under Sections 406 and 420 IPC upheld in view of distinct transactions – Pending interlocutory applications also disposed of.

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].

PIL - Excise Law – Location of Liquor Shops – Residential Colony – Petition filed in public interest challenging the establishment of liquor shops allegedly within prohibited distance from residential areas and a temple – Petitioners relied on rent receipts from Labour Department and maps to claim status of colony as “residential” under Rule 5(4)(a) of U.P. Excise Rules, 1968 – Held: In the absence of map approval by a competent authority or any legal notification, the area could not be treated as a ‘residential colony’ as defined – No violation of distance norms established [Paras 13-18].

Excise Law – Definition of Place of Worship – Shiv temple cited as basis for invoking Rule 5(4) restrictions – No documentary evidence provided showing the temple was owned/managed by a registered trust or society – Held: Shiv temple did not qualify as “place of public worship” under the statutory definition – Distance restriction not applicable [Paras 19-20].

Public Interest Litigation – Evidentiary Standard – Petitioners failed to show that the area meets the legal criteria for a ‘residential colony’ – Photographs and maps showed commercial activity in the locality, weakening their claim – Proximity of petitioners' own premises to the liquor shops and personal disputes apparent – Court found no public interest violation or breach of statutory rules – Petition dismissed – Security deposit of Rs. 50,000/- ordered to be refunded [Paras 22-24].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – No direction issued for closure or relocation of liquor shops – Rs. 50,000/- deposited as cost/security to be refunded to petitioners on application [Paras 23-24].

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]

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].

Contempt of Court – Fraud on Court – Forgery – Abuse of Judicial Process – Husband of the appellant impersonated her and filed writ petition and writ appeal using forged signatures without her knowledge – Interim orders obtained based on misrepresentation – Court held this to be a gross abuse of process amounting to criminal contempt – Directed initiation of contempt proceedings under relevant provisions of law [Paras 1–17].

Misconduct by Advocate – Breach of High Court Rules – Advocate filed pleadings attesting signatures of the appellant without verifying her presence – Violated Rules 76 and 79 of the High Court Rules – Court permitted the appellant to initiate action against the advocate before appropriate forums [Paras 5, 11, 19].

Passport Law – Non-Disclosure of Criminal Case – Justification for Show-Cause Notice – Husband renewed passport from Indian Consulate, Dubai, without disclosing a pending criminal case – Show-cause notice issued under Sections 10(3)(b) and 10(3)(e) of the Passport Act upheld – Authorities permitted to proceed further in accordance with law after dismissal of the writ appeal [Paras 2, 20].

Immigration Law – Disobedience of Court Order – Attempt to Flee Country – Despite subsisting court direction not to travel abroad without permission, appellant’s husband attempted to fly to Dubai – Was offloaded by immigration authorities – Held: Attempt amounted to contempt and highlighted disregard for judicial authority [Paras 14, 21].

Costs – Exemplary Costs for Fraud and Misuse of Court Time – Rs. 1.5 lakhs directed to be paid to Kerala Legal Services Authority for abuse of judicial process – Additional Rs. 1.5 lakhs imposed as compensation to the appellant for mental agony and dragging her into litigation without consent [Para 16].

Decision: Writ appeal dismissed – Costs of Rs. 3 lakhs imposed on Shibu Mohan – Registry directed to initiate criminal contempt proceedings – Appellant allowed to pursue complaint and action against counsel – Travel restrictions on Shibu Mohan to continue until contempt case is heard.

Environmental Law – Jurisdiction of State Pollution Control Boards – Environmental Compensation – RSPCB imposed environmental compensation for alleged operation of brick kiln without valid Consent to Operate – Petitioners challenged competence of Board to impose compensation without statutory backing – Held: In absence of rules and regulations forming subordinate legislation, the RSPCB lacks authority to impose compensation under Sections 31A and 33A of Air and Water Acts respectively – Guidelines issued by CPCB in December 2022 do not carry statutory force – Impugned orders quashed [Paras 10.1 – 10.5, 13].

Constitution of India – Article 226 – Alternative Remedy – Maintainability of Writ – Composite orders passed under both Air Act and Water Act held not appealable before NGT due to lack of specific statutory mechanism – Held: When impugned orders are passed without jurisdiction, writ petition is maintainable despite alternative remedy – High Court has jurisdiction to entertain writ in such cases [Paras 9.2 – 9.4].

Administrative Law – Subordinate Legislation – Principles of Natural Justice – Supreme Court in Lodhi Property Co. Ltd. mandated that Pollution Control Boards may impose environmental compensation only upon notification of detailed rules and procedures ensuring fairness and transparency – Held: In absence of such framework, action of RSPCB imposing compensation is ultra vires and unsustainable [Paras 10.1 – 10.3].

Prospective vs. Retrospective Application of Judicial Decisions – Held: Supreme Court rulings apply retrospectively unless explicitly stated otherwise – Lodhi Property judgment clarifies that State Boards require legislative competence to impose compensation – RSPCB's demands issued prior to the judgment also covered under its ratio [Para 10.5].

National Green Tribunal – Delegation of Judicial Function – Petitioners successfully argued that NGT cannot delegate core adjudicatory functions like compensation determination to administrative bodies – Power under Section 15 of NGT Act is judicial and non-delegable – RSPCB cannot act solely on NGT’s administrative directions [Paras 4.2, 11].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Impugned orders/notices imposing environmental compensation quashed and set aside – RSPCB restrained from taking coercive action – Any amount recovered from petitioners to be refunded within six weeks – Future imposition of compensation by RSPCB permissible only after framing of appropriate subordinate legislation ensuring procedural safeguards and natural justice [Paras 13-15].

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].

Criminal Law – Sexual Assault – POCSO Conviction – Acquittal – Allegation that accused committed sexual assault on 13-year-old girl by hugging and kissing her in a field – Victim’s initial statement to aunt was that she fell down – Complaint made two days later alleging sexual assault – Delay in complaint explained as concern for family honour – Trial court convicted accused under Section 8 of POCSO Act and Section 354A(2) IPC – On appeal, High Court found victim's version had evolved over time with inconsistencies and lacked corroboration – Allegation of enmity arising out of local election dispute supported by defence evidence including medical record showing assault on accused's mother a day prior to the alleged incident – Held: Delay in filing FIR and contradictions in victim’s version made prosecution case doubtful – Conviction unsustainable [Paras 3–5, 13–20, 28–30].

Presumption under Section 29 POCSO Act – Rebuttal – Accused produced evidence of prior assault by victim's family due to local body election rivalry – Accused’s mother injured and admitted in hospital one day prior to alleged assault – Certified medical record (Ex.D2) and testimony of defence witnesses including elected panchayat member (DW2) corroborated the version – High Court held accused had successfully rebutted the statutory presumption under Section 29 – Trial court failed to properly consider defence evidence – Acquittal justified [Paras 21–27, 30].

Criminal Procedure – Appreciation of Evidence – Delay in lodging complaint – Alleged incident on 05.01.2020 but FIR filed on 07.01.2020 – Police station just 10 km away – Delay not properly explained in the context of election violence and counter-allegations – Court held such unexplained delay significant and fatal to the prosecution case in present facts – Tutoring and exaggeration in victim’s statement evident – Held: Trial court erred in convicting by applying presumption without evaluating credibility of evidence [Paras 15–18, 28–30].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Accused acquitted of all charges – Fine to be refunded – Victim compensation not disturbed [Para 31].