Matrimonial Law – Visitation Rights – Minor Children – Section 26 Hindu Marriage Act – Welfare of Child – Paramount Consideration – Husband filed application for visitation rights to meet two daughters aged 10 and 5 years and a son aged 3 years during pendency of divorce proceedings – Trial court rejected application based on interaction with the elder child – Impugned order granted liberty to petitioner to file fresh application after six months – Held: Serious matrimonial disputes cannot lead to deprivation of love and affection of both parents; welfare of child is of paramount consideration – Court must ensure child is not under influence of a parent before acting on the child's opinion – Revision petition disposed of with modification [Paras 9–11].

Interim Order – Telephonic/Video Contact – Restoration – Direction dated 11.09.2025 permitting petitioner/father to interact with children telephonically/by video call once a week was not complied with by respondent/wife – High Court found no justification for vacating the said interim order – Held: Interim order dated 11.09.2025 shall remain in force pending disposal of any fresh application for visitation rights that may be filed by petitioner [Para 10].

Fresh Application – Liberty – Trial Court Directions – Petitioner at liberty to file fresh application for visitation rights as per impugned order – Trial court directed to dispose of any such application on its own merits without being influenced by observations in the impugned order, within two months from date of filing, as expeditiously as possible [Para 11].

Decision: Revision petition disposed of with modification – Interim order dated 11.09.2025 to remain in force – Liberty to petitioner to file fresh application for visitation rights – No costs – All pending applications closed.

Land Acquisition – Requisition Without Subsequent Acquisition – West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 – Petitioner's land (RS Plot Nos. 452, 453, 527, 513 and 513/3862 totalling 29 decimals, Mouza Bural, PS Sabong, Paschim Medinipur) requisitioned under Section 3(1) of the 1948 Act in LA Case No. 255 of 1975–76 – Possession delivered to Requiring Body on 22.02.1978 – No notification under Section 4(1a) of the 1948 Act ever published – No award passed – No compensation paid – Held: In the absence of issuance of notice under Section 4(1a) of the 1948 Act, vesting under Section 4(2) never occurred – 1948 Act, being a temporary statute, expired by efflux of time on 31.03.1997 – With the expiry of the statute, requisition also came to an end – No notice under Section 9(3A) or Section 9(3B) of the 1894 Act was ever served during the lifetime of the 1894 Act – After repeal of the 1894 Act with effect from 01.01.2014, no further notice under Section 9(3A) could be issued – State possessing land forcibly and without authority of law – Petitioner entitled to fair compensation under the 2013 Act [Paras 37–59, 71–73].

Constitutional Law – Article 300A – Right to Property – Deprivation Without Authority of Law – No person can be deprived of property save by authority of law – Utilisation of private land for a permanent public purpose without initiating valid acquisition proceedings and without payment of compensation is violative of Article 300A – State, as a welfare State governed by rule of law, cannot arrogate to itself a status beyond what is provided by the Constitution – State cannot claim adverse possession over land of its own citizens – Held: Petitioner entitled to be compensated for deprivation of property without legal sanction [Paras 15, 57, 59, 73].

Delay and Laches – Land Acquisition – Distinction from Service Jurisprudence – State objected to maintainability of writ petition on ground of inordinate delay, possession having been taken in 1978–79 – Held: Doctrine of delay and laches cannot be invoked to defeat a land loser's claim for compensation where possession was taken without due process of law – Cause of action in such cases is continuous – Where the State deprives a citizen of property without sanction of law, shocks the judicial conscience, and no third-party interest is involved, delay cannot be a bar – Decisions in U.P. Jal Nigam and Rabindra Nath Bose, being cases of service jurisprudence, distinguished and held inapplicable – Discretion exercised in favour of petitioner to promote substantial justice [Paras 14–35].

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Applicability – Section 24 – State contended that the 2013 Act cannot apply retrospectively to acquisition initiated and possession taken under the 1948 Act and not the 1894 Act – Held: Section 24 of the 2013 Act is a saving section and saves acquisition proceedings from lapsing only to the extent indicated therein – Since no acquisition proceeding under the 1894 Act was ever initiated and no notice under Section 9(3A) was served during the lifetime of the 1894 Act, the only recourse available is initiation of acquisition proceedings under the 2013 Act – Respondent authorities directed to initiate and complete acquisition proceedings including payment of compensation within four months [Paras 61–74].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Respondent authorities directed to initiate proceedings for acquisition of petitioner's land under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and to complete entire proceedings including payment of compensation within four months from receipt of a server copy of this order.

Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025 – Section 21 – Quashing of Charge Sheet – Religious Persecution Exemption – Petitioner, a Hindu woman from Khulna, Bangladesh, entered India on 07.12.2024 through Ghojadanga Land Border with valid passport and VISA valid till 06.01.2025 – Married an Indian citizen in December 2024 – On 29.12.2025, implicated in Bongaon P.S. Case No. 1187 of 2025 under Section 21 of the Act of 2025 for allegedly loitering without valid travel documents – Charge sheet filed on 26.02.2026 despite FRRO verification report establishing lawful entry date of 07.12.2024 – Petitioner claimed exemption under Order 3(1)(e) of the Exemption Order 2025 as a minority Hindu compelled to flee due to religious persecution – Essential ingredients of offence under Section 21 set out: (i) person must be a foreigner; (ii) entry into India; (iii) entry without valid passport/visa/travel documents; (iv) entry in contravention of Section 3 of the Act – Held: Petitioner's VISA expired on 06.01.2025 and she was staying without lawful VISA since 07.01.2025 on the date of FIR – Question of entitlement to exemption under Order 3(1)(e) requires establishment of 'fear of religious persecution' through credible testimony, documentary evidence, forced concealment, legal discrimination and loss of employment – Plea of religious persecution raised only after initiation of criminal proceedings held to be prima facie an afterthought – Burden of proof under Section 16 of the Act lies on the individual to establish that she is not a foreigner or is an exempted person — onus is absolute and non-obstante in character — not displaced at the stage of quashing [Paras 12–27].

Criminal Procedure – Quashing of Proceedings – Section 482 CrPC – Scope – Power under Section 482 must be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and in rarest of rare cases – Such power can be invoked only to prevent abuse of process or to secure ends of justice – Not applicable where no grave miscarriage of justice is demonstrated and where the factual matrix does not attract any of the categories laid down in Bhajanlal – Held: No case made out for quashing – Proceeding allowed to continue – Trial court to decide matter expeditiously uninfluenced by observations of this Court – Bail relaxation order dated 23.03.2026 to continue until court below proceeds for cancellation of bail [Paras 28–32].

Decision: CRR 1121 of 2026 dismissed – Charge sheet and proceedings under Section 21 of the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025 not quashed – No opinion expressed on merits – Trial court to decide expeditiously – Bail relaxation order dated 23.03.2026 to continue till cancellation of bail is considered by court below.

Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ Jurisdiction - Land Tenure Conversion - Premium rates - Delay in administrative decision - Petitioners sought conversion of land from new to old tenure based on application dated 07-10-2002 - Authorities delayed final approval for over 13 years despite the District Valuation Committee fixing rates in 2003 and 2007 - Held - State cannot keep applications for premium pending indefinitely - Delay of 13 years is entirely attributable to the respondent authorities - Petitioners cannot be compelled to pay premium at current higher Jantri rates due to such administrative procedural impropriety - [Paras 2-12, 29-31]

Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948 - Section 43 - Restricted Tenure - Conversion to Old Tenure - Premium Calculation - Crucial date for determination - Supreme Court in Gohil Jesangbhai case held that the Collector must decide premium applications as far as possible within 90 days - In the present case the Collector forwarded proposals in 2004 and 2007 but Revenue Department sat tight - Held - Ratio in Gohil Jesangbhai is squarely applicable - Collector is expected to take a decision within 90 days - Since the decision on the 2007 proposal was delayed without justification the petitioners are entitled to pay premium at the rate of Rs 14,500 per sq mtr as decided in 2007 - [Paras 14-15, 22, 30-31]

Indian Contract Act 1872 - Section 202 - Agency coupled with interest - Death of Principal - Preliminary objection raised by State that petition was filed by a dead person as one petitioner passed away in 2005 - Petition filed through Power of Attorney (POA) holder - Held - Agency coupled with interest does not terminate by the death of the principal where agent has an interest in the property - Irrevocable POA continues to operate - Preliminary objection rejected - [Paras 13, 13.1]

Decision: Petition partly allowed - Order dated 22-01-2020 quashed and set aside - Respondents directed to accept premium at the rate of Rs 14,500 per sq mtr as decided in 2007 - Differential amount already deposited by petitioners to be refunded within 8 weeks - Rule made absolute.

Negotiable Instruments Act — Section 138 — Dishonour of Cheque — Joint Account Holder — Liability — Only Drawer/Signatory Can Be Prosecuted — Cheques were issued from a joint bank account maintained by the applicant and co-accused Rahul Thind, but were signed solely by Rahul Thind — The trial court summoned both on a complaint under Section 138 NI Act — Held: To constitute an offence under Section 138, the cheque must have been drawn by the accused on an account maintained by him — It is only the drawer/signatory of the cheque who can be prosecuted — A joint account holder who has not signed the dishonoured cheque cannot be held liable under Section 138 NI Act — No specific role was attributed to the applicant except that she was jointly and severally liable to repay the loan, which is insufficient to attract liability under Section 138 — Summoning order against applicant quashed [Paras 9–21].

Negotiable Instruments Act — Section 141 — Vicarious Liability — Applicable Only to Companies — Not to Individuals — The complainant sought to rope in the applicant as a joint account holder by invoking Section 141 NI Act — Held: Section 141 creates vicarious liability only where the offence under Section 138 is committed by a company, firm, or other association of individuals — Two private individuals cannot constitute an association of individuals for the purpose of Section 141 — Section 141 has no application to individual joint account holders — Proceedings against the applicant on this basis are an abuse of process of Court [Paras 19–21].

Section 482 CrPC — Quashing — Scope — Inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC are wide but must be exercised sparingly, with circumspection, in cases where allowing proceedings to continue would be an abuse of the process of Court or the ends of justice so require — Where on the face of the complaint no prima facie case is made out against the accused, quashing is warranted — Held: Proceedings against applicant Madhu Singh quashed; trial against co-accused Rahul Thind to continue [Paras 14, 21–25].

Decision: Application allowed — Proceedings in Complaint Case No. 958 of 2006/New No. 1776 of 2024 under Section 138 NI Act, insofar as they relate to applicant Madhu Singh, quashed — Proceedings against co-accused Rahul Thind to continue.

Juvenile Justice – Child in Conflict with Law – Bail – Section 12(1) Proviso – CCL tried as adult – Standard of Consideration – CCL/applicant, being tried as an adult in FIR No. 11/2024 (PS Badarpur) under Section 302/34 IPC for alleged murder of Gaurav @ Paggal by inflicting multiple stab injuries along with two other CCLs and two adult accused – Decision to try as adult not challenged – At the time of alleged offence, CCL was already on bail in FIR No. 489/2023 (PS Sarita Vihar) under Section 302/397/34 IPC – Also involved in FIR No. 542/2022 (PS Badarpur) under Section 394/34 IPC – Eye witness and CCTV footage available – Public witnesses yet to be examined – Held: In cases of CCL under proviso to Section 12(1) of the JJ Act, the court must consider whether release is likely to bring the CCL into association with any known criminal, or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger, or defeat the ends of justice – Manner of offence, seriousness of charge and antecedents, while not exclusively determinative, are relevant to the statutory inquiry – Present murder alleged while CCL was on bail in another murder case — five assailants involved in the present case — risk of association with known criminals not vague or speculative — apprehension that release would lead to witness intimidation well-founded — over-liberal approach not warranted merely because the applicant is a child being treated as adult — Court cannot be oblivious to the harsh reality that juveniles are increasingly used by organised criminal syndicates — bail refused [Paras 2–9].

Decision: Bail application dismissed – CCL not entitled to regular bail at this stage – Copy of order to be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent for immediate conveyance to the CCL.

Criminal Law – Section 332 IPC – Voluntarily Causing Hurt to Public Servant – Section 504 IPC – Intentional Insult – Appellant Devanand entered the cabin of the informant (Dr. Pankaj Jawale, Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Osmanabad, belonging to Mahar caste) on 15.05.2007 and questioned him regarding non-issuance of a death certificate, hurled abuses questioning his competence and the absence of police protection, and assaulted him on the right side of his face and nose causing bleeding — Appellant Sunil @ Pintu and co-accused Anna Rochkari thereafter entered and participated in abusing and assaulting the informant — Accused by force compelled the informant to sign a death certificate, a job work bill and two blank cheques — Informant's evidence corroborated by medical evidence of P.W.9 Dr. Mustafa Palla who found bleeding from the right nostril and abrasion on the dorsum of right hand with injury age within 24 hours — Most other witnesses turned hostile or did not support the prosecution — Trial court acquitted all accused under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Atrocities Act and Section 506 read with Section 34 IPC but convicted under Sections 332 and 504 IPC — Held: Essential ingredients of Section 332 IPC (voluntarily causing hurt to a public servant discharging lawful duty with intent to obstruct) and Section 504 IPC (intentional insult and provocation) proved beyond reasonable doubt from the consistent oral evidence of the informant and corroborating medical evidence — Conviction and sentence upheld — Prosecution case proved even though eye witnesses did not support, as quality of evidence of informant and treating doctor sufficient [Paras 9–15, 18].

Sentence – Quantum – Hearing on Sentence – Procedural Irregularity – Appellant Devanand argued that he was not heard on the point of quantum of sentence as he was away for a marriage ceremony and returned after recess — Trial court in its sentencing observations made erroneous reference to other pending cases against him which resulted in acquittal due to hostile witnesses — Held: Such erroneous observations are not a ground for acquittal or reduction of sentence as the basis of conviction is the reliable oral and medical evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.9 and not the antecedents — No evidence that appellant was present in court after recess — One year's simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 332 IPC and three months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 504 IPC awarded to Devanand is just and proper — Fine of Rs. 15,000/- in default simple imprisonment for six months awarded to Sunil @ Pintu under Section 332 IPC is also just and proper — No interference warranted [Paras 14–17].

Decision: Both criminal appeals dismissed – Conviction and sentence of Devanand s/o Sahebrao Rochkari under Sections 332 and 504 IPC and of Sunil @ Pintu s/o Sambhaji Rochkari under Section 332 IPC upheld – Bail bonds and sureties of both appellants discharged from liability – Conviction warrant to be issued against appellant Devanand s/o Sahebrao Rochkari.

POCSO – Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault – Section 5(m)(n) punishable under Section 6 – Conviction Upheld – Accused/appellant, uncle of the survivor by marriage, convicted by Special Judge (POCSO), Nongstoin for committing penetrative sexual assault on the survivor, a minor girl aged about ten years, at his house on 04.12.2018 – Sentenced to ten years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 30,000/- under Section 6 POCSO Act and one year rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 506 Part-I IPC – On appeal, held: impugned judgment and sentence suffer from no legal or factual infirmities – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1, 36–37].

Testimony of Survivor – Minor Contradictions – Reliability – Survivor made statements at three stages: under Section 161 CrPC, under Section 164 CrPC, and before court – Though exact words varied across the three statements, the foundational fact that the accused carried her to his bed, removed her clothing as well as his own, and touched or inserted his penis into her vagina remained consistent and uncontradicted in cross-examination – Held: In the absence of effective contradiction, the essence of the survivor's statement as to the manner of commission of the offence cannot be doubted – Minor discrepancies not of fatal nature – Survivor's testimony found reliable [Paras 26–29].

Sole Testimony of Prosecutrix – Conviction – A prosecutrix in a sexual offence case is not an accomplice but a victim; her evidence need not be tested with the same suspicion as that of an accomplice – Conviction can be based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix if her evidence is trustworthy, credible, and of sterling quality – Minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies should not be a ground to discard an otherwise reliable prosecution case – Reliance placed on Phool Singh v. State of MP, (2022) 2 SCC 74, and series of Supreme Court decisions therein discussed [Paras 28–29].

Medical Evidence – Intact Hymen – Penetration – Contention that intact hymen proves absence of penetrative assault rejected – Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to constitute the offence – Section 3(a) POCSO Act provides that a person commits penetrative sexual assault if he penetrates his penis to any extent into the vagina of a child – Survivor stated accused touched her vagina with his penis – Held: Penetration made out; conviction under Section 6 POCSO Act justified – Reliance placed on Ranjit Hazarika v. State of Assam, (1998) 8 SCC 635 [Paras 33–35].

Extra-Judicial Confession – Voluntary Admission – Accused admitted before a family clan meeting, attended by the complainant, the survivor, and family members, that he had committed the offence, asking for forgiveness – This admission corroborated by PW-5, PW-6, and PW-7 – Denial in Section 313 CrPC statement not sufficient to dislodge the confession – Held: Extra-judicial confession being voluntary, made without threat, promise, or inducement, and corroborated by multiple witnesses, is reliable and can be acted upon to sustain conviction – Reliance placed on Jagroop Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 11 SCC 768 [Paras 30–32].

Decision: Appeal dismissed as devoid of merits – Conviction and sentence affirmed – Trial Court records sent back.

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Section 483 - Bail - NDPS Act - Custodial necessity - Petitioner arrayed as an accomplice based on information from co-accused Jawan Singh - No recovery of contraband effected from the petitioner - Co-accused and other similarly placed persons already granted bail by a Coordinate Bench - Investigation complete and charge sheet filed - Held, looking at the period of custody and the fact that further proceedings will take time, the Court deemed it appropriate to grant bail. [Paras 1-9].

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, Sections 8 and 21 - Prosecution Procedure - Evidentiary requirements - Recovery of 27.77gm of Heroin from co-accused - Petitioner implicated in the distribution chain based on hearsay from co-accused - Lack of legal evidence - Held, naming a person and forwarding them for trial requires legal evidence; it is not the concern of the police to ignore whether sufficient evidence is available or not. The prosecution's failure to advise against recommending a charge sheet despite deficiency of evidence noted. [Paras 10-11].

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Section 273 - Trial Court Duty - Compensation for groundless prosecution - Corresponding to Section 250 CrPC - Non-application of mind at grass-root level - Held, Trial Courts are required to look into the deficiency of evidence at the stage of framing of charge; if deficiency exists, it warrants the invocation of Section 273 BNSS to award compensation to innocent persons for unnecessary custody and prosecution. [Paras 11-12].

Decision: Application allowed – Petitioner released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties – Copy of the order directed to be sent to ACS Home and DGP Rajasthan for taking action against non-application of mind in investigations.