Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Prima Facie Case – Allegation of ₹10 lakh bribe involving public servant – Cash recovered from Petitioner’s vehicle – Petitioner not named in FIR but added during investigation – Held: FIR discloses cognizable offence and prima facie material exists – Investigation at nascent stage – No grounds for quashing at this stage [Paras 1, 8-9, 15-17]

Prevention of Corruption Act – Role of Private Individual – Petitioner argued as being outside scope of PC Act as he is not a public servant – Court held: PC Act extends to private persons who abet, conspire or facilitate corruption involving public servants – Involvement of Petitioner cannot be ruled out at this stage [Paras 6(j), 14-15]

Criminal Procedure – Stage of Investigation – Court reiterated that investigation is executive function – Judicial interference limited unless FIR is patently illegal or lacks ingredients of offence – Presence of Rs.10 lakh cash in Petitioner’s vehicle sufficient to continue probe – Court refuses to halt investigation [Paras 11-13, 15-16]

Evidence – Recovery of Bribe Money – Petitioner claimed absence of delivery details and improper Memo procedure – Court observed that ₹10 lakh recovered from Petitioner’s car and FIR discloses sequence of events justifying investigation – Alleged irregularities can be examined after charge-sheet or during trial [Paras 6(g)-(h), 15-16]

Constitution – Article 20(3) – Right Against Self-Incrimination – Demand for mobile phone passwords by CBI – Petitioner claimed violation – Court noted CBI’s position that password is a means of access and not testimonial evidence – Issue kept open for future examination [Paras 6(m), 7(h)]

Decision: CRLMC petitions dismissed – FIR and investigation not quashed – Liberty granted to petitioners to approach court after filing of final report or charge-sheet, if aggrieved – No interference warranted at current stage [Paras 17]

NDPS Act – Bail – Commercial Quantity – Section 37 Bar – Petitioner arrested with 150 bottles of Codeine-based syrup and found in possession of multiple contrabands at co-accused’s premises – Statement under Section 67 NDPS Act reveals trafficking and delivery role – Trial court framed charges under Sections 8, 8-A, 21(c), 22, 27-A, 29 NDPS Act – Petitioner contended low Codeine content, but Court held cumulative quantity recovered from all accused relevant due to conspiracy under Section 29 – Held: Prima facie material supports charges – No reasonable grounds to believe petitioner not guilty – Bail rejected [Paras 14–21]

NDPS Act – Section 27-A – Financing Illicit Trafficking – Petitioner charged with facilitating supply chain – Evidence includes co-accused statements, mobile records, and possession of commercial quantities – Held: Offence under Section 27-A attracts statutory bar under Section 37 – No case made out to overcome the twin conditions – Bail refused [Paras 18–21]

Codeine Content – Manufactured Drug – Petitioner argued that recovered Codeine content was below 2.5% and outside NDPS definition – Court held such argument irrelevant in light of Section 29 conspiracy and joint recovery principles – Commercial quantity proven even excluding petitioner’s personal seizure – Court declined to enter academic debate at bail stage [Paras 15, 20]

Prolonged Incarceration – Not Ground for Bail – Petitioner in custody for over a year – Trial at nascent stage – Court held mere long detention not sufficient for bail in serious NDPS offences involving commercial quantity and financing – Trial court directed to expedite proceedings [Paras 21–22]

Decision: Bail application dismissed – Court held bar under Section 37 of NDPS Act is attracted – Petitioner failed to establish reasonable grounds for believing he is not guilty – Trial court directed to expedite trial.

Land Law – Agrarian Reforms Act – Challenge to Mutation Orders After 24 Years – Barred by Limitation – No Sufficient Cause for Delay – Writ Dismissed – Petitioner challenged mutation orders passed between 1981–1986 under Sections 4 and 8 of J&K Agrarian Reforms Act – Appeals filed only in 2009 and dismissed as barred by limitation – Revision petitions also dismissed – Held: Petitioner and co-owners failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for delay under Section 5 of Limitation Act – Mere claim of merit in case is no ground to condone inordinate delay – Writ court cannot interfere in absence of material irregularity or perversity in impugned orders [Paras 9–13, 19–22].

Limitation – Delay of 24 Years – No Condonable Explanation – Knowledge Attributable from Participation of Family Members in Mutation Proceedings – Petitioner’s predecessor-in-interest did not challenge mutation orders during his lifetime despite being aware – Petitioner’s father and co-owners signed mutation documents – Petitioner resided in same village – Held: Petitioner estopped from pleading ignorance – Delay fatal and unexplainable [Paras 12–15].

Writ Jurisdiction – Judicial Review – No Interference When Tribunal Decision is Based on Evidence and Law – No Extraneous Factors or Perversity Found – Court reiterates its limited scope in reviewing decisions of quasi-judicial bodies – Held: Tribunal rightly refused to condone delay and appellate authority’s order not vitiated by illegality or misdirection – Writ jurisdiction not to be exercised [Paras 20–21].

Delay Condonation – Merits of Case Irrelevant to Condonation of Delay – Citing Pathapati Subha Reddy [2024 SCC OnLine SC 513] and Shivamma v. Karnataka Housing Board [2025 LiveLaw (SC) 899], Court held that merits are not to be considered when deciding limitation – Delay must be justified by “sufficient cause” alone – Strict adherence to limitation ensures legal certainty [Paras 16–18].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Mutation orders upheld – Delay of 24 years not condonable – No irregularity found in appellate or revisional authority’s refusal to condone delay – Merits of case not examined [Paras 21–22].

Criminal Law – NDPS Act – Bail – Commercial Quantity – Confessional Statements under Section 67 – Petitioner accused of being recipient of large consignment of drugs intercepted by NCB – Bail initially denied during investigation – Post-filing of complaint, petitioner seeks bail citing lack of admissible evidence – Prosecution relies on statements recorded under Section 67 of NDPS Act and Call Data Records (CDRs) – Held: As per Supreme Court in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, confessional statements under Section 67 made before NCB officials are inadmissible in evidence – Statements of petitioner and co-accused Zahoor Ahmad Shah cannot be relied upon [Paras 13–14].

Evidence – Call Detail Records – Probative Value – CDRs showed that petitioner was in touch with co-accused before drug seizure – No voice recordings or direct link to seized contraband – Held: Mere existence of CDRs without corroborative material not sufficient to establish prima facie guilt in absence of admissible confession – Petitioner entitled to benefit of doubt at bail stage [Paras 15–16].

NDPS Act – Section 37 – Conditions for Bail – Commercial quantity involved invokes bar under Section 37 – Court finds no prior criminal antecedents and no risk of reoffending – Held: Reasonable grounds exist to believe petitioner is not guilty of the offence and unlikely to commit similar offence on bail – Section 37 conditions satisfied [Paras 12–17].

Bail Conditions – Safeguards – Bail granted on condition of two solvent sureties, regular appearance before trial court, non-interference with witnesses, non-indulgence in similar offences, surrender of passport, and restriction on leaving Union Territory without permission [Para 18].

Decision: Bail application allowed – Petitioner admitted to bail subject to conditions – Petition disposed of – Observations made in order not to influence trial on merits [Paras 18–20].

Railways Act, 1989 – Section 124-A – Untoward Incident – Strict Liability – Bona Fide Passenger – Compensation – Deceased allegedly fell from an overcrowded passenger train due to a sudden jerk and succumbed to injuries during treatment – Tribunal dismissed claim holding that deceased was not a bona fide passenger and the ticket recovered was fabricated – On appeal, held: Documentary evidence including Inquest Report, Post-Mortem Report, and Final Investigation Report conclusively established accidental fall from train – Once it is shown that death occurred in an “untoward incident” while travelling with a valid ticket, Railways’ liability arises irrespective of fault – Strict liability under Section 124-A applies – Tribunal erred in rejecting claim on suspicion of ticket authenticity [Paras 13–16].

Evidence – Burden of Proof – Bona Fide Passengership – Initial burden on claimant can be discharged by affidavit and production of journey ticket – Once prima facie case made, burden shifts to Railways to rebut – Mere absence of ticket or clerical error in train name does not negate bona fide travel – Reliance placed on Union of India v. Rina Devi, (2019) 3 SCC 572 and Kamukayi v. Union of India, (2023) 19 SCC 116 [Paras 15–17].

Pleadings – Amendment of Claim Petition – Procedural Fairness – Refusal of Tribunal to allow amendment correcting train name from “Puri–Rourkela Passenger” to “Konark Express” held hyper-technical – Such inadvertent clerical error caused by appellants’ illiteracy and distress on son’s death cannot defeat substantive rights under a beneficial statute – Liberal construction warranted [Paras 17–18].

Relief – Remand and Compensation – High Court set aside the Tribunal’s order and remanded the case for fresh adjudication on amended pleadings – However, directed Union of India to pay ₹8,00,000 compensation with 6% interest p.a. from the date of claim application till realization, to be deposited before Tribunal within three months [Paras 19–22].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned judgment set aside – Matter remanded to Tribunal for fresh adjudication – Compensation of ₹8,00,000 with 6% interest awarded to appellants – Interim orders vacated [Paras 20–23].

Senior Citizens Act, 2007 – Appeal under Section 16 – Right of Appeal – Maintainability – Whether appeal under Section 16 is maintainable only by senior citizens or parents or also by any aggrieved person – Larger Bench of High Court constituted due to conflicting views among coordinate benches – Held: Appeal under Section 16 is maintainable only at the instance of a senior citizen or a parent – Appeal by any other aggrieved person (such as children or relatives) not maintainable [Paras A-1 to A-24, C-1, C-2]

Welfare Legislation – Beneficial Interpretation – Senior Citizens Act, 2007 enacted to provide effective provisions for maintenance and welfare of senior citizens and parents – Entire scheme, definitions, and procedural framework designed solely for benefit of senior citizens and parents – Object is to provide speedy, summary remedy to senior citizens without exposing them to prolonged litigation – Hence, restrictive interpretation of appellate rights justified [Paras A-2 to A-6, A-17, A-18]

Statutory Interpretation – Section 16(1) – Plain and Clear Language – Section 16(1) restricts right of appeal to “any senior citizen or a parent” – No ambiguity or scope for expansion to include “any aggrieved person” – Legislature consciously excluded children and relatives – Rule-making power under Section 32 does not authorize expansion of appellate rights – Any such inclusion would amount to judicial legislation [Paras A-10 to A-13, A-19, A-20, A-22]

Interpretive Doctrines – Doctrine of Casus Omissus – Inapplicability – No inadvertent omission by legislature in Section 16 – Omission of children or relatives from appellate provision is deliberate and intentional – Courts cannot supply words not found in statute – Reliance on Supreme Court decisions reaffirming that casus omissus cannot be judicially supplied unless omission is evident and defeats statute’s object [Paras P-12 to P-15, A-21]

Proviso to Section 16 – Scope – First proviso requiring continued payment of maintenance by children during appeal does not imply that children can file appeal – It only ensures continuity of support to senior citizen during pendency of appeal filed by them – Cannot be interpreted to extend appellate rights to children or relatives [Para A-13]

Availability of Alternate Remedy – No Violation of Natural Justice – Though appeal is not maintainable at the instance of children or relatives, they are not remediless – Remedy under Article 226 of Constitution always available to challenge Tribunal’s orders on jurisdictional or legal grounds – Hence, exclusion from appellate remedy does not violate principles of natural justice [Para A-24]

Constitutional Provisions – No Violation of Articles 14 or 21 – Restriction of appeal to senior citizens or parents does not offend equality clause under Article 14 – Classification is reasonable, based on intelligible differentia and rational nexus with object of statute – Protection of elderly is a constitutionally recognized goal under Articles 21, 41, 46 [Paras P-1 to P-5, A-6, A-17, A-18]

Doctrine of Harmonious Construction – Rejected in Present Case – Argument that proviso to Section 16 implies children can also appeal rejected – Harmonious construction cannot override clear legislative intent and express statutory language [Para A-13]

Reference to Larger Bench – Justification – Conflicting decisions by coordinate benches of same High Court – Larger Bench constituted to resolve interpretive inconsistency – Held: Previous view in Nitin Jaat (which allowed appeal by children) overruled – View taken in Anil Choupda and Dilip Marmat upheld [Paras F-3, F-13, F-14, C-1, C-2]

Comparative Statutory Schemes – Not Applicable – Reference to other social welfare legislations like Domestic Violence Act, Consumer Protection Act, RERA, etc., where appeal is allowed to both sides, held irrelevant – Senior Citizens Act is unique and designed to grant limited appellate remedy only to the beneficiary class [Paras S-7, S-8, A-16]

Legislative Amendment – Pending Amendment Not Applicable – Reliance placed on proposed 2019 Amendment Bill which seeks to include “children or relatives” in Section 16 – Held: Until amendment is passed, Court cannot read into statute what is consciously omitted – Pending amendment reinforces current exclusion [Paras P-16, A-15, A-21]

Decision: Reference answered in negative – Appeal under Section 16 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 maintainable only at the instance of senior citizen or a parent – Not maintainable at the instance of any other aggrieved person – Writ petition to be listed before Single Bench for adjudication [Paras C-1, C-2]

Hindu Marriage Act – Divorce on Ground of Cruelty – Decree of Divorce – Permanent Alimony – Appeal Dismissed – Matrimonial Dispute – Allegations of Cruelty – Marriage between Appellant-Wife (Group 'A' Officer in Indian Railway Traffic Service) and Respondent-Husband (Advocate) solemnized on 25.01.2010 – Parties separated on 08.03.2011 – Husband filed for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Family Court decreed divorce on ground of cruelty – Wife filed appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 challenging the decree and seeking permanent alimony – High Court dismissed the appeal [Paras 1–2, 4, 10, 18–19, 90–92]

Mental Cruelty – Proven Use of Abusive and Derogatory Language – Husband relied on text messages sent from Appellant’s phone using language such as "bastard", "son of a bitch", suggesting illegitimacy, and calling Respondent’s mother a "prostitute" – Family Court found the messages proved and corroborated by Section 65B certificate – Explanation by Wife that messages were fabricated or sent by Respondent using her phone was rejected as an afterthought – Held: Use of such language caused grave mental cruelty and mental agony – Messages alone sufficient to constitute cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) HMA [Paras 5, 23–25, 54–57]

Conduct of Appellant – Pattern of Abusive and Hostile Behaviour – Additional incidents corroborated cruelty: slapping husband, refusal of conjugal relations, forcing his parents out of home, demeaning language during Durga Puja and in presence of Appellant’s parents – Family Court relied on uncontroverted testimony of Respondent – High Court held such behaviour established cruelty by cumulative effect, not isolated incidents [Paras 6–9, 58–59]

Counter-Allegations by Wife – Not Substantiated – Allegations of husband locking her inside home, coercion to misuse official position, caste-based comments, and emotional abuse found vague and uncorroborated – High Court held counter-allegations could not displace proved acts of cruelty by the Appellant – Mere assertion of cruelty by both sides does not negate cruelty established by one party [Paras 11–17, 20–27, 60–61]

Condonation – No Proof of Resumption of Cohabitation – Wife claimed parties resumed cohabitation between 2011 and 2013 – No documentary or material evidence produced – Family Court held that no intent of condonation was established – High Court affirmed that condonation requires conscious forgiveness and restoration of marital relations, which was absent in this case [Paras 17, 23, 62–63]

Frivolous Litigation – Not a Ground to Deny Divorce – Appellant alleged multiple false cases filed by Respondent and his mother – Some cases dismissed for non-prosecution – Family Court acknowledged some conduct of Respondent was undesirable – However, held that this could not justify wife’s cruelty – High Court upheld this reasoning, holding two wrongs do not negate cruelty proved by one spouse [Paras 15–16, 64–65]

Appellant’s Demand for Money – Conditional Consent to Divorce – Appellant stated willingness to accept divorce if paid Rs. 50 lakhs – This demand recorded in cross-examination and Family Court’s order sheet – High Court held this showed financial motivation behind opposition to divorce – Reiterated that spouse cannot resist divorce only for monetary gain without intention to continue matrimonial life [Paras 36–38, 75–79]

Permanent Alimony – No Entitlement Established – Appellant is a financially independent senior government officer with substantial income and benefits – No evidence of economic hardship, dependents, or medical condition – High Court held no justification for award under Section 25 of HMA – Permanent alimony is an equitable relief for genuine financial need, not enrichment or equalization of status [Paras 30, 80–88]

Admissibility of Evidence – Section 65B Compliance – Electronic evidence accompanied by certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act – Family Court noted and showed certificate to Appellant’s counsel during cross-examination – Section 14 of Family Courts Act allows liberal admissibility of relevant documents even without strict compliance with Evidence Act – High Court upheld Family Court’s approach [Paras 28–29, 68–73]

Irretrievable Breakdown – Parties lived together for barely one year – Separated for over 14 years – Series of litigations and failed reconciliations showed relationship was beyond repair – Marriage held to have irretrievably broken down – Divorce confirmed on that basis as well [Paras 30, 67]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) HMA upheld – No merit found in claims of condonation or entitlement to permanent alimony – Parties to bear their own costs [Paras 90–93]

Civil Procedure – Order VII Rule 14(3) CPC – Reception of Additional Documents – Delay and Admissibility – Judicial Discretion – Trial Court allowed plaintiff’s petition to receive certain documents obtained under RTI Act during 2021–22 though produced belatedly in 2024 – Revision petitioner contended that documents were neither certified nor originals and delay was unexplained – Held: Procedural rules are handmaids of justice and cannot be used to defeat substantive rights – Delay in production not fatal unless it causes serious prejudice or necessitates a de novo trial – Order of trial court allowing reception of documents upheld [Paras 8–11].

Evidence – Admissibility vs. Reception – Stage of Consideration – Relevancy and admissibility of documents are distinct issues – At the stage of reception, the court is only concerned with whether documents may be taken on record; their evidentiary value can be decided at the trial – Objections regarding proof under Sections 63–65 of Evidence Act premature [Para 12].

Procedural Law – Delay – Liberal Approach – Costs as Remedy – Court emphasized that procedural law should facilitate justice and not obstruct it – Though delay was established, it did not justify exclusion of material evidence – Delay compensable by costs – Plaintiff directed to pay ₹5,000 to revision petitioner to offset inconvenience caused [Paras 10–13].

Supervisory Jurisdiction – Interference under Article 227 – Scope – High Court declined to interfere under Article 227, finding no perversity or illegality in the trial court’s reasoning – Observed that the trial court’s omission to record elaborate reasons was not sufficient to vitiate the order when conclusion was otherwise just and equitable [Paras 11–13].

Decision: Civil Revision Petition dismissed – Impugned order dated 28.03.2025 in I.A. No. 788 of 2024 upheld – Plaintiff directed to pay ₹5,000 as costs to revision petitioner – Interim orders vacated – Miscellaneous petitions closed [Paras 13–End].

Civil Writ - Recruitment Process – Assistant District Attorney (ADA) – Screening Test – Legality of Syllabus – Petitioners challenged the screening test syllabus notified under Advertisement No. 18 of 2025 for ADA posts which excluded legal subjects – Court held that the post of ADA being legally specialized, excluding legal subjects from the screening stage was arbitrary and lacked rational nexus with the object of selection – Such exclusion renders the process legally unsustainable and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution [Paras 40-44, 56-66]

Equal Opportunity – Article 16(1) Violation – Petitioners argued that majority of candidates were being unfairly ousted at the first stage without testing legal acumen – Court held that elimination of more than 85% aspirants based on a test devoid of legal subject matter amounts to denial of equal opportunity in public employment – State cannot justify exclusion based on logistical convenience – Screening process must fairly reflect core qualifications [Paras 45-55]

Statutory Compliance – Article 320(3)(b) and HPSC Regulations – Court found that altering the recruitment methodology including syllabus without prior consultation with the Government and in violation of Clause 41 & 42 of the 1973 Regulations was contrary to constitutional and statutory mandates – The Commission’s autonomy cannot override the requirement for lawful consultation and adherence to recruitment norms [Paras 67-75]

Judicial Review – Scope in Recruitment Matters – While courts generally defer to recruiting agencies in academic matters, interference is warranted when the process is manifestly arbitrary, violates statutory norms, or contravenes constitutional guarantees – Present process failed to meet standards of legality, fairness, and rationality – Judicial intervention justified [Paras 32-39]

Decision: Writ petitions allowed – Screening Test syllabus and Advertisement No. 18 of 2025 quashed – Commission and State directed to revisit the recruitment process for ADA in line with constitutional and statutory requirements – Fresh process to be initiated, ensuring fairness and legal relevance [Paras 76-82]