Criminal Law – Quashing - Domain Name Dispute – Criminal Charges Quashed – Civil Dispute Mischaracterized – The petitioner was accused of impersonating the Chancellor of Alliance University and fraudulently attempting to take control of the university’s domain name – Held: Allegations arise from civil dispute over institutional control post-termination – Even if accepted at face value, do not disclose ingredients of forgery or cybercrime – Proceedings quashed [Paras 3–11, 27].

Cyber Offences – Section 66, 66D of IT Act – No Mens Rea or Unauthorized Access – Petitioner operated domain email claiming status as Chancellor, which he asserted under Section 15(2) of Alliance University Act – Held: No dishonest or fraudulent intention established – Use of email to claim disputed position does not constitute cybercrime under Sections 66 or 66D IT Act [Paras 9–10].

Forgery – Sections 465 and 468 IPC – No Falsification Proven – Court examined definition and precedents on “forgery” and “false documents” – Held: Mere assertion of status or domain management without proving false intent or fabrication does not meet threshold – Proceedings would amount to abuse of process [Paras 10–12].

Misuse of Criminal Law – Civil Dispute Converted into Crime – High Court Criticizes Vexatious Prosecution – Referring to SC judgments in Mahmood Ali, Deepak Gaba, and Randheer Singh, held that criminal law cannot be weaponized for private vendetta or ongoing institutional rivalry – Allegations lacked prima facie criminality [Paras 11–12, 27].

Decision – Proceedings Quashed – Cognizance in C.C. No. 3218/2021 set aside – Petition allowed under Section 482 CrPC [Para 27].
 

Service Law – Compulsory Retirement – Judicial Officer – Validity of Adverse Material Considered – Challenge Rejected - Petitioner, a judicial officer compulsorily retired based on adverse remarks and a censure entry – Contentions regarding uncommunicated vigilance reports and pending representations rejected – Court held that adverse entries and censure, having attained finality, constituted sufficient basis for compulsory retirement without detailed examination of sufficiency – Scope of judicial review limited [Paras 1-3, 7-10, 14-15, 25-26].

Administrative Law – Principles Governing Judicial Officers’ Conduct – Higher Standards Required – Compulsory Retirement Distinguished from Punishment - Court reiterated that judicial officers are held to stricter standards of integrity and conduct – Compulsory retirement based on objective evaluation of entire service record and not punitive in nature – Emphasized public confidence in justice system [Paras 16, 24, 26].

Judicial Review – Scope and Limits – Screening Committee’s Decision – No Interference Warranted - Screening Committee’s recommendation and Full Court’s approval for compulsory retirement based on relevant and sufficient material – No malafide, bias, or arbitrariness shown – Writ jurisdiction confined to checking decision-making process, not reappreciation of merits [Paras 6, 14-15, 25-26].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Court found no grounds to interfere with the compulsory retirement order passed by the State Government and approved by the Full Court of Allahabad High Court [Para 27].
 

Civil Law - Probate – Delay in Filing – Not Fatal – Continuous Right Doctrine Applied – Supreme Court precedents in Samir Kapoor and High Court ruling in Achin Ghosh followed – Delay of 19 years explained due to mutual compliance with Will terms and cause of action arising only after partition suit filed by daughters – Held: Probate is a legal sanction to perform a duty created by Will, and not bound by limitation like ordinary suits [Paras 26–33].

Execution and Attestation of Will – Statutory Compliance Proven – Sole surviving attesting witness (P.W.2) confirmed execution and attestation in accordance with Section 63 of Succession Act and Section 68 of Evidence Act – No counter-evidence or expert testimony filed by appellant – Held: Will duly proved [Paras 34–36].

Suspicious Circumstances – Allegations Unsubstantiated – Claims of interpolation, signature mismatch, unusual spacing, and attesting witness bias not supported by evidence – Court held these as minor discrepancies insufficient to raise valid suspicion – Reiterated that Will must be judged based on prudent person test, not fantasy of doubt [Paras 39–46].

Section 105 Succession Act – Lapse of Legacy – Not Relevant to Probate – Held: Issues of title or lapsed legacy fall outside probate court’s remit – Validity of Will’s execution is sole concern – Post-mortem demise of legatee does not affect validity of Will executed prior [Paras 54–56].

Final Decision – Probate Deemed Decree Upheld – Appeal Dismissed – Probate granted to respondent affirmed by First Appellate Court – Held: Testamentary Court’s role is to honour the last wishes of the deceased in absence of real suspicious circumstances [Paras 60–61].
 

Tenancy Law - Lease and Eviction – Expired Lease Period – Tenant Liable for Eviction – Second Appeal Dismissed – High Court upheld concurrent findings that the appellant was a tenant under a registered lease deed from 01.11.2002 to 31.10.2008 – Quit notice issued and tenancy not renewed – Appellant held unauthorized occupant thereafter – Eviction decree affirmed [Paras 1–4, 16–21, 26].

No Substantial Question of Law – Second Appeal Not Maintainable – High Court held that no substantial question of law arose under Section 100 CPC – Disputed facts already decided by two courts below based on evidence – Law clarified that factual conclusions not open to re-evaluation in second appeal [Paras 13–15, 26].

Oral Assurances and Construction Investment – No Proof – Tenant’s Claims Rejected – Allegations that landlord permitted continued occupation or rent waiver in lieu of construction by tenant were rejected due to lack of evidence – No documents or credible proof produced by appellant – Oral promises deemed vague and unenforceable [Paras 18–20].

Pendente Lite Transfers – Section 52 TPA – Purchasers Added as Respondents – During pendency of suit, plaintiffs sold property to respondents 7–10 – Purchasers validly impleaded under Section 52 as pendente lite transferees – Entitled to take possession on success of suit [Paras 25, 28].

Final Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Possession to Be Delivered – Second appeal dismissed at admission stage – Appellant directed to hand over possession within three months to respondents 7–10 or face legal enforcement [Paras 28–29].

Criminal Law - Sexual Assault of Minor – Section 354B IPC and Section 10 POCSO – Conviction Upheld – Based on consistent testimony of the victim and her immediate disclosures to two neighbors, supported by FIR and medical evidence, the High Court confirmed the conviction – Appellant’s act of disrobing the 7-year-old victim after luring her into his room established assault with sexual intent [Paras 1–12].

Penetrative Sexual Assault – Allegation Disbelieved – Section 376AB Charge Not Made Out – Although the victim later alleged penetrative assault, her earlier statement under Section 164 CrPC and neighbors' accounts did not corroborate this – Doctor's finding of ruptured hymen without accompanying injuries led the court to reject rape charge [Paras 5–6, 12].

Medical and Witness Testimony – Inconsistencies Not Material – Court held minor contradictions and absence of medical injuries did not undermine consistent core accusation of sexual assault – Trial court rightly excluded exaggerated claims and focused on credible portion of testimony [Paras 6–8].

Admissibility of Magistrate Statements – Not Prejudicial – High Court rejected challenge that non-examination of Magistrate who recorded Section 164 CrPC statements prejudiced defence – Held: Such statements admissible under Section 80 Evidence Act; Appellant had opportunity to summon magistrate but didn’t [Para 13].

Age of Victim – Proven Through Birth Certificate – Challenge to age dismissed as birth certificate was on record and marked as exhibit without contrary evidence from Appellant [Para 13].

Presumption Under POCSO – Not Rebutted – Section 29 of POCSO invoked to affirm guilt – Appellant failed to rebut presumption or prove any ulterior motive such as property dispute – Contradictions deemed immaterial [Para 14].

Final Decision – Conviction and Sentence Affirmed – CRA (SB) No. 72 of 2023 Dismissed – Judgment of trial court upheld in entirety, with no interference warranted [Paras 15–16].
 

Child Custody – Habeas Corpus – Foreign Custody Order – Enforcement Directed – The biological mother sought custody of her Canadian minor child retained by father in India in defiance of Ontario Family Court order dated 13.11.2024 – Held: The retention is illegal, child's Indian VISA has expired, and father's actions amount to forum shopping – Repatriation to Canada ordered in interest of child’s welfare and legal comity [Paras 1–3, 14–27].

Jurisdiction – Writ Maintainable Despite Foreign Nationals – Writ of Habeas Corpus Lies – The petitioner (Brazilian national) and respondent (Canadian national) had a Canadian-born child brought to India under a short visit order – Held: Indian courts can issue writs in such cases if custody violates lawful foreign decrees and child's welfare is compromised – No bar under Article 226 [Paras 15–16].

International Comity – Canadian Court Order Given Effect – Indian Court Upholds Foreign Decree – Respondent failed to disclose Canadian Court’s order while seeking VISA extension – Held: Misuse of Indian jurisdiction and breach of foreign court undertakings cannot be condoned – Indian courts must respect international child custody norms [Paras 17–20].

Best Interest of the Child – Paramount Consideration – Child's Comfort with Mother Noted – Court observed interaction between child and mother as warm and reassuring – Held: Tender age, emotional bonding, and stable upbringing in habitual residence in Canada warrant returning custody to mother [Paras 22–24].

Judicial Discretion – Not a Custody Battle but Illegal Detention – Respondent’s Plea Rejected – Argument that this is a custody dispute not warranting habeas corpus was rejected – Held: Breach of undertaking and expired VISA render continued stay unlawful – Courts must prevent jurisdictional manipulation [Paras 21, 26].

Decision – Repatriation Ordered – Continued custody of child by father declared unsustainable – Child to be repatriated to Canada in custody of mother – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 27–29].
 

Civil Law - Public Land Allotment – Burial Ground for Muslim Community – Petition Dismissed - The petitioners challenged the allotment of 0.16 acres of land in Survey No.138/1 in Chinamushidiwada Village for a burial ground on grounds of health risks and procedural lapse – Court found that the site was adjacent to existing Hindu and Christian burial grounds and allotted following due procedure under the Municipal Corporation Act – Held: Petitioners failed to prove any contamination risk or legal infirmity in the allotment process [Paras 2–8].

Health Hazard Allegations – No Evidence Provided – Petition Dismissed - Petitioners’ claim that the burial ground posed a health hazard, especially in light of the Covid-19 pandemic, was unsupported by evidence – No documented complaints or scientific data submitted – Existing neighboring burial grounds never contested earlier – Court rejected unsubstantiated apprehensions [Paras 6–7].

Alternate Land – Shift Due to Master Plan – Allotment Justified – Petition Dismissed - The earlier burial ground for the Muslim community was affected by 60-0 master plan road widening – The authorities identified alternative land based on feasibility and religious parity, as Hindu and Christian burial sites were already nearby – The administrative decision was found reasonable and legally sound [Paras 3, 7].

Decision – No Grounds for Interference – Writ Petition Dismissed - The Court concluded that the petition lacked merit and the land allotment was lawful and justified – No basis for invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226 – Petition dismissed and pending applications closed [Paras 7–8].

Civil Law - Lok Adalat – Award Finality and Bar on Civil Court Challenge – Challenge Not Maintainable – Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain a suit or miscellaneous application to set aside a Lok Adalat award, even on grounds of fraud – Only remedy is a writ under Articles 226/227 of Constitution – Application filed under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC held not tenable [Paras 18–23].

Binding Nature of Lok Adalat Awards – Treated as Civil Court Decree – Lok Adalat award based on Compromise Memo signed by parties and accepted by Presiding Officer – Award deemed final and executable as per Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act – Findings of due procedure and party consent upheld [Paras 14–17].

No Exception for Fraud Allegations – Supreme Court Precedents Binding – Citing State of Punjab v. Jalour Singh and Bhargavi Constructions, Court held even fraud claims must be raised in writ jurisdiction, not through separate suit or civil application – Procedural route used does not affect jurisdictional bar [Paras 18–22].

Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC – Inapplicability to Lok Adalat Awards – Provisions applicable to consent decrees from court proceedings—not to statutory Lok Adalat awards – Attempt to indirectly challenge award under Rule 3 CPC rejected as contrary to Supreme Court rulings [Para 24].

Final Decision – Civil Judge’s Order Set Aside – Miscellaneous Civil Application Rejected – High Court allowed revision and quashed the impugned order – MCA No. 87 of 2021 declared not maintainable [Paras 25–26].

Patent Law – Challenge to Section 53 Patents Act – Appeal Dismissed – Petitioners sought to declare Section 53 unconstitutional for counting patent term from application date despite delays in grant – High Court upheld that Section 53 and Section 11A(7) operate in distinct domains – Section 53 governs term and cessation; Section 11A(7) confers provisional rights without full enforceability until patent is granted [Paras 12–24].

Delay in Grant – No Violation of Constitutional Rights – No Ground for Striking Down Provision – The delay of 7 years in granting the patent, though regrettable, was held not to invalidate the statutory scheme – Representation seeking legislative amendment or compensation was found beyond judicial remit under Article 226 [Paras 6–11, 23–27].

Pre-grant Rights and Enforcement – Limited Scope – Interim Protection Only – Section 11A(7) provides limited privileges but bars infringement proceedings before patent grant – Court reaffirmed statutory rights in patent law are distinct from common law and are enforceable only post-grant [Paras 13–16, 24].

Judicial Review of Legislative Policy – Separation of Powers – Rejected – Court held it cannot direct Parliament to amend legislation or restructure statutory timelines – Reliance on comparative models like the US Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) was held inapplicable in Indian context, as affirmed by expert committee in Nittoo Denko case [Paras 25–26].

Final Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Writ Dismissal Affirmed – No conflict found between Sections 53 and 11A(7) – Appellants directed to bear their own costs – Request for certified copy allowed [Paras 27–30].