Family Law – Divorce – Cruelty and Desertion – Husband alleged wife was quarrelsome, threatened to poison his blind parents, took his ATM card and money, and deserted him – Evidence led by husband found to be uncorroborated and lacking documentary support – In contrast, wife produced uncontroverted oral and documentary evidence including cybercrime and police complaints against the husband for uploading semi-nude images, digital abuse, and dowry-related harassment – Held: Cruelty not established by husband – Instead, cruelty by husband proved based on wife’s credible evidence [Paras 20, 40-44]

Family Law – Divorce – Desertion – Allegation by husband that wife deserted him since 19.05.2020 – Wife demonstrated she left due to cruelty, threats, and unsafe environment – Evidence showed she was compelled to leave due to abuse – Held: No voluntary or unjustified desertion by wife – Desertion not proved – Section 23(1)(a) of Hindu Marriage Act applied – Husband cannot take benefit of his own wrongdoing [Paras 33-37, 45-49]

Family Law – Perversity of Judgment – Husband claimed judgment of Family Court was perverse – High Court held trial court considered evidence thoroughly including respondent's uncontroverted witnesses and criminal proceedings substantiating her case – Held: No perversity or legal error – Family Court’s findings well-supported – Appeal dismissed [Paras 21-22, 51-52]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Divorce denied – Judgment of Family Court upheld – No proof of cruelty or desertion by wife – Pending interlocutory applications also disposed of

Money Laundering – Bail – Prolonged Incarceration – Article 21 – Delay in Trial – Applicant in custody for over two years in connection with ECIR/SHSZO/04/2019 under Sections 3 & 4 of PMLA – Charges not yet framed – 71 witnesses and over 31,000 pages of documentary evidence cited by ED – Trial of predicate offences before CBI Court not commenced – Held: Continued custody without foreseeable conclusion of trial amounts to violation of Article 21 – Right to speedy trial is paramount and overrides statutory restrictions under Section 45 of PMLA where prolonged incarceration is evident [Paras 26, 32-34, 44, 48].

PMLA – Twin Conditions under Section 45 – Constitutional Courts’ Powers – Citing judgments in V. Senthil Balaji, Manish Sisodia, and K.A. Najeeb, Court held that where trial is unlikely to conclude within a reasonable time, constitutional courts may relax twin conditions under Section 45 of PMLA – Held: In present case, both conditions deemed satisfied – Applicant not found guilty at this stage and not likely to commit offence on bail [Paras 43-45].

Bail Jurisprudence – Bail is Rule, Jail is Exception – Citing Manish Sisodia v. ED, Bachhu Yadav v. ED, and Ramkripal Meena v. ED, Court reiterated that statutory bail restrictions must yield to constitutional protections where trial is inordinate and incarceration disproportionate – Bail not to be withheld as punishment when trial unlikely to conclude soon [Paras 35, 39, 40, 42].

Trial Delay – No Fault of Applicant – Though ED alleged delay was caused by accused, Court found no fault attributable to applicant – Adjournments sought by co-accused not to prejudice applicant’s right to bail – Bail refusal cannot be justified solely on pendency caused by others [Paras 32-33].

Public Servant Accused – Shell Entities and Money Trail – Allegations that applicant, as Dealing Assistant in Department of Higher Education, verified fraudulent scholarship claims and laundered proceeds through entities formed with family members – ED traced proceeds of crime to land purchases and business investments – However, Court held that these are to be adjudicated at trial – Bail not to be denied solely due to role as government servant [Paras 21.3–21.15, 46].

Investigation Status – No Tampering Risk – ED expressed concerns about tampering and influence – Court held concerns can be addressed by imposing strict bail conditions – Evidence largely documentary and already seized – No likelihood of tampering [Paras 21.17, 57].

Decision: Bail granted – Applicant ordered to be released on furnishing personal bond of ₹2,00,000 with two sureties – Conditions imposed to ensure trial attendance and prevent tampering – ED granted liberty to seek cancellation upon violation of terms.

Criminal Law – NDPS Act – Personal Search – Non-Compliance with Section 50 – Conviction Set Aside – Accused allegedly found in possession of 450 grams of charas during personal search on a bus – IO failed to inform accused of right to be searched before Magistrate or Gazetted Officer – Held: Violation of Section 50 vitiates conviction – Recovery rendered suspect and inadmissible – Conviction set aside [Paras 16–25].

Investigation – Anticipatory Mention of FIR Details – Recovery Memo Prepared Before FIR – FIR number and NDPS section mentioned in recovery and search memos even before registration of FIR – Casts serious doubt on authenticity and timing of documents – Documents appear to be prepared post-facto – Judicial scrutiny finds prosecution version doubtful [Paras 17–22].

NDPS Act – Evidentiary Standards – Higher Degree of Proof – Supreme Court decisions in Noor Aga and Ranjan Kumar Chadha reiterated – Strict procedural compliance required due to stringent nature of punishment – Courts must ensure individual liberty and fair trial rights not compromised [Paras 18, 23].

Trial – Fairness and Procedural Safeguards – Section 50 Compliance Mandatory – Constitutional mandate of fair trial requires strict adherence to statutory safeguards – Casual or defective investigation cannot form basis of conviction under NDPS Act – Recovery held unreliable [Paras 23–24].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by Trial Court set aside – Accused acquitted of offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act – Bail bonds discharged – Direction to furnish bond under Section 437-A CrPC for appearance before Supreme Court if required.

Criminal Law – Discharge – Scope at Preliminary Stage – Accused seeking discharge contending that he was neither Director nor shareholder of accused company – Magistrate relied on Registrar of Companies records showing petitioner as Director – At discharge stage, court required to see prima facie material and not conduct a roving enquiry – Held: Existence of documentary material showing petitioner as Director sufficient to proceed with trial [Paras 5–6].

Company Offences – Director’s Liability – Economic Offences – Collection of deposits without licence – CBCID final report alleging offences under IPC, RBI Act and Kerala Chitties Act – Directors responsible for management as per Articles of Association – Held: When records show accused as Director during relevant period, criminal liability cannot be ruled out at threshold [Paras 2, 5].

Effect of Writ Proceedings – Direction to Registrar of Companies – Enquiry into Directorship – Mere direction by High Court to conduct enquiry and rectify records, if mistake found – No material produced to show that enquiry concluded in favour of accused – Held: Pendency or existence of such direction does not automatically entitle accused to discharge [Para 6].

Criminal Revision – Interference with Order Refusing Discharge – Revisional court will not interfere unless order suffers from illegality or perversity – Magistrate’s order based on records and relevant considerations – Held: No ground made out for interference under revisional jurisdiction [Paras 5–6].

Liberty Reserved – Quashing Proceedings – Accused permitted to approach High Court for quashing if subsequent enquiry by Registrar of Companies establishes that his name was wrongly shown as Director during period of offence [Final Para].

Decision: Criminal Revision Petition dismissed – Order refusing discharge upheld – Liberty reserved to seek quashment on proof of favourable outcome of Registrar of Companies enquiry.

Specific Relief – Specific Performance – Readiness and Willingness – Plaintiffs seeking specific performance of agreement to sell ancestral land – Agreement silent on key requirement of Nazrana amount of ₹1.5 lakhs to obtain Collector’s permission for sale to non-agriculturists – Plaintiffs failed to assist in discharging encumbrances or paying dues to enable sale deed – Held: Plaintiffs failed to prove continuous readiness and willingness as per Section 13(1)(c) of Specific Relief Act – Concurrent findings upheld [Paras 6.2, 10–13].

Contract Law – Agreement to Sell – Frustration – Agreement for sale of ancestral land executed when defendant in financial distress – Land jointly held and encumbered with loans exceeding ₹4 lakhs – Defendant required to obtain subdivision and Collector’s permission, but consideration received was grossly inadequate to meet obligations – Held: Agreement frustrated due to impossibility of performance – Plaintiffs not entitled to decree [Paras 9, 12–13].

Land Laws – Agricultural Land – Permission for Sale to Non-Agriculturist – Agreement did not mention requirement of Collector's permission or Nazrana payment – Plaintiff being non-agriculturist could not complete purchase without such permission – Held: Absence of contractual clause addressing this statutory requirement rendered performance legally impossible [Paras 10–11, 14].

Evidence Act – Concurrent Findings – Credibility of Defendant’s Evidence – Original defendant died before trial – Legal heir (Defendant 1C) deposed with supporting bank documents – Evidence corroborated non-performance and financial incapacity – Trial Court’s reliance upheld – Appellate interference unwarranted [Paras 11–13].

Appellate Jurisdiction – Second Appeal – Concurrent Findings – No Substantial Question of Law – Both courts below correctly appreciated evidence and applied settled law – Second appeal dismissed in absence of any perversity or legal error [Paras 15–16].

Restitution – Return of Deposit – ₹1.51 lakh deposited by plaintiffs pursuant to trial court order – No objection from defendants – Held: Amount with accrued interest to be returned within two weeks based on server copy of judgment [Paras 17–18].

Decision: Second Appeal dismissed – Decree of Trial Court and Appellate Court upheld – Plaintiffs not entitled to specific performance – Deposited amount of ₹1.51 lakhs to be refunded with interest.

Anticipatory Bail – Matrimonial Offences – Serious Allegations of Sexual and Physical Cruelty – Application under Section 482 BNSS seeking anticipatory bail in FIR alleging dowry harassment, physical assault, sexual abuse including unnatural sex and attempted burning with cigarettes – Allegations spanning over two years of matrimonial relationship – Held: Case not a simple matrimonial dispute but involves grave and serious allegations warranting custodial interrogation [Paras 18–20].

Anticipatory Bail – Delay in FIR – Explanation Acceptable in Sexual Offences – FIR lodged after considerable delay – Explanation that complainant was traumatised, socially stigmatized and earlier attempts to lodge FIR were refused by police – Held: Delay in lodging FIR in cases involving sexual abuse and matrimonial cruelty is not fatal and does not discredit the prosecution case at the bail stage [Paras 12–13].

Custodial Interrogation – Necessity – Recovery of Electronic and Physical Evidence – Allegations that accused possessed intimate photographs, hard disks, jewellery (streedhan), personal documents and electronic devices belonging to complainant – Held: Custodial interrogation necessary to recover crucial evidence, uncover full extent of offence and prevent tampering or misuse of sensitive material [Paras 14, 27–30].

Anticipatory Bail – WhatsApp Chats and Electronic Evidence – Prima Facie Assessment – WhatsApp communications containing abusive language, threats and intimidation relied upon by prosecution – Report under Section 65-B Evidence Act collected during investigation certifying genuineness of electronic evidence – Held: At anticipatory bail stage, Court can prima facie look into electronic material to assess gravity and necessity of custodial interrogation without conducting a mini-trial [Paras 15, 18].

Anticipatory Bail – Marital Consent – Bodily Autonomy of Spouse – Court observed that marriage does not imply automatic or perpetual sexual consent – Non-consensual and unnatural sexual acts within marriage cause physical and mental trauma and constitute grave offences – Held: Allegations of sexual assault within marriage cannot be trivialized at the stage of anticipatory bail [Paras 19–20].

Anticipatory Bail – Balance Between Personal Liberty and Societal Interest – While personal liberty is important, Court must consider seriousness of offence, societal impact, likelihood of repetition and need for fair investigation – No special or compelling circumstances shown to justify pre-arrest protection – Held: Grant of anticipatory bail at initial stage likely to hamper investigation [Paras 21–29].

Decision – Application rejected – Anticipatory bail declined – Trial court order upheld – Clarified that observations confined to bail stage and shall not prejudice regular bail or trial on merits [Paras 30–31].

Civil Writ - Natural Justice – Opportunity of Hearing – Revision Dismissed for Non-Appearance – Impugned order passed by Additional Commissioner dismissing OSS Case without hearing the petitioner – Petitioner contended absence of notice and denial of opportunity – Held: Order passed without hearing violates principles of natural justice and cannot be sustained [Paras 3-4].

Judicial Duty – Disposal on Merits – Avoidance of Multiplicity of Proceedings – Court reiterated that a matter should ordinarily be decided on merits after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties – Emphasised that courts should not permit technicalities to defeat substantial justice [Paras 4-5].

Substantial Justice – Technicalities – Preference – When technical considerations are pitted against substantial justice, the latter must prevail – Dismissal of revision without hearing petitioner held contrary to settled principles of law [Para 5].

Remand – Fresh Adjudication – Time-bound Disposal – Impugned order dated 21.06.2024 quashed – OSS Case No.630 of 2022 remitted back to the Additional Commissioner, Additional Revision Court-IV, Bhubaneswar for fresh hearing after giving opportunity to both parties – Direction to dispose of the revision within three months from petitioner’s appearance [Paras 6-9].

Direction to Parties – Appearance Before Authority – Petitioner directed to appear before the Revisional Authority on 12.01.2026 and file certified copy of the judgment for further proceedings [Para 10].

Decision: Writ Petition Allowed – Impugned order set aside – Matter remanded for fresh consideration on merits.

Banking Law – Freezing of Account – Dispute over Company Signatories – Axis Bank froze bank and demat accounts of appellant company citing conflicting communications and management dispute – Freeze based partly on letter from shareholder company (VTL) – Held: Axis Bank had no locus to rely on third-party communication – Bank duty-bound to act on customer’s own valid corporate resolutions – Freeze unjustified especially after ROC and MCA unmarked 'management dispute' status [Paras 31–38]

Company Law – Removal of Directors – Locus Standi – Respondents 5 to 7, erstwhile directors, not reappointed/removed validly by EGMs/AGMs – NCLT rejected their oppression and mismanagement claims under Sections 241 & 242 – Held: Absent any stay by NCLAT, respondents ceased to have locus in company affairs or writ proceedings – Cannot seek recall or impleadment post-disposal of writ petition [Paras 39–44]

Civil Procedure – Maintainability of Recall Application – Recall application and clarificatory application filed post-disposal of writ petition – Held: Such applications not maintainable when no review grounds pleaded under Order XLVII CPC – Addition of parties to disposed-of writ illegal – Order staying prior writ relief and impleading parties without deciding recall application unsustainable [Paras 45–48]

Banking Law – Bank’s Neutrality – Ombudsman and ROC Proceedings – Bank’s intervention in management dispute before NCLT and application for clarification of court’s order without locus – Letter of freeze addressed not to customer company but to M.P. Birla Group – Held: Bank failed in its duties, acted beyond its role, and supported third parties against customer’s instructions [Paras 33, 35–37, 42]

Judicial Discipline – Single Judge Order – Absence of Reasons – Impugned order stayed prior writ relief and kept contempt in abeyance without recording reasons or prima facie findings – Held: Such interim suspension without findings or re-opening writ not sustainable in law [Para 46]

Decision: Appeals allowed – Order dated 19/06/2025 in connection with CAN 1 and CAN 2 of 2025 arising out of WPA No. 6088 of 2025 and CPAN No. 933 of 2025 set aside – Learned Single Judge to first decide recall and clarification applications before hearing contempt – Stay applications also disposed – Observations tentative and not binding on pending writ applications [Paras 49–52]

Criminal Law – Bail – Parity – Accused not named in FIR but arrested along with co-accused from whose possession 40 motorcycles were allegedly recovered – No videography of recovery conducted as required under Section 105 BNSS – Co-accused Shoeb and Owais granted bail on similar grounds – Held: Applicant entitled to bail on grounds of parity and lack of procedural compliance [Paras 3, 5-6]

Evidence – Search and Seizure – Non-Compliance with BNSS – Recovery of motorcycles not recorded via audio-video means as mandated under Section 105 BNSS and Rule 18 of UP BNSS Rules, 2024 – No independent witnesses or uploading on E-Sakshya portal – Held: Creates serious doubt on prosecution version – Non-compliance may benefit accused at bail and trial stages [Paras 12-13, 16, 18]

Police Conduct – Procedural Safeguards – Lack of SOP – Despite clear statutory mandate, no SOP issued by DGP under Rule 18(5) of UP Rules – Court directs DGP to issue detailed SOP for mandatory video recording during seizure – Non-compliance may lead to disciplinary action against erring officers [Paras 17, 19]

Judicial Directions – Systemic Compliance – Registrar (Compliance) directed to forward copy of judgment to DGP, U.P., for issuance of SOP and ensuring compliance with Section 105 BNSS and Rule 18 UP Rules – Objective is to prevent false implication and ensure fair investigation [Paras 19-20]

Decision: Bail granted – Applicant to be released on furnishing personal bond and two sureties – Conditions imposed to ensure cooperation in trial and prevent misuse of bail – Court emphasizes mandatory procedural compliance in future seizures.