Criminal Law - Matrimonial Discord - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Section 498A - Quashing of FIR - Petitioner wife of the husband's cousin brother was named as Accused No. 2 in FIR alleging offences under Section 498A IPC - Informant alleged that husband (A1) spent time with Petitioner and engraved her son's name on his hand - Further allegation that Petitioner abused informant at Shirdi - Petitioner contended she was a distant relative and the allegations were baseless - Court perused the FIR and chargesheet noting that allegations were general vague and based on mere suspicion of an extra-marital affair - No specific instances of dowry demand or physical violence were attributed to the Petitioner - Judicial precedents caution against roping in distant relatives in matrimonial disputes without specific roles or active involvement - Held - Allowing the proceeding to continue against the Petitioner would be an abuse of process of law as no prima facie case of cruelty was made out - [Paras 1-16].

Criminal Law - Cruelty - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Section 498A - Extra-marital relationship - Informant alleged mental cruelty due to husband's proximity with the Petitioner - Court analyzed the definition of cruelty under Explanation (a) and (b) of Section 498A IPC - Ratio Decidendi - Solely because a husband is involved in an extra-marital relationship and there is suspicion in the mind of the wife the same cannot be regarded as mental cruelty which would attract Section 498A IPC - For an extra-marital relationship to constitute cruelty it must be of such a degree that it drives the wife to commit suicide or causes grave injury - Suspicion based on moral notions cannot substitute legal or cogent evidence - Held - The alleged conduct did not meet the statutory threshold of cruelty - [Paras 10-15].

Criminal Law - Inherent Powers - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 482 - Scope of Quashing - High Court examined the increasing tendency to implicate entire families in matrimonial disputes over trivial issues - Reliance placed on Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P. and Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar - Held - Criminal process is a serious matter and cannot be permitted when allegations are inherently improbable or unsupported by concrete material - Mere casual reference to names of family members in a domestic quarrel does not justify taking cognizance - [Paras 5-9].

Decision: Petition allowed – Criminal proceedings in R.C.C. No. 43/2020 arising out of FIR No. 83/2019 registered with Revdanda Police Station Alibag quashed and set aside as against the Petitioner only – Trial to proceed against other co-accused in accordance with law.

Writ Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1999 - Rule 7 - Procedure for major penalties - Petitioner serving as Sub-Divisional Magistrate was subjected to disciplinary proceedings for alleged irregularities in land allotment - Inquiry Officer submitted report finding one charge proved based solely on documentary evidence without conducting oral inquiry or examining witnesses - State Government imposed punishment of permanent withholding of one annual increment and censure - Petitioner challenged the order on grounds of procedural violation and non-consideration of exculpatory Board of Revenue report - High Court found that no date - time or place was fixed for inquiry and no oral evidence was led by the department - Held - Inquiry proceedings conducted in violation of mandatory procedure under Rule 7 and principles of natural justice are non-est and unsustainable - Writ petition allowed and punishment order quashed - [Paras 1-53].

Evidence Law - Oral Evidence - Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1999 - Rule 7 - Requirement of proving documents - Department failed to produce witnesses or fix a date for oral hearing - Finding of guilt recorded solely on documentary material - Held - Where no oral evidence is led to prove documents relied upon in support of the charge-sheet - such documentary evidence cannot be taken into consideration by the Inquiry Officer for recording a finding of guilt against the charged employee - It is mandatory for the department to lead evidence even in ex-parte inquiries to establish allegations - [Paras 30-31 and 43-44].

Writ Law - Reasoned Order - Administrative Law - Exercise of quasi-judicial powers - Disciplinary authority passed a cryptic and non-speaking order by merely reproducing the charge-sheet and inquiry report - No independent analysis of the petitioner defense or the Board of Revenue report was recorded - Held - Recording of reasons is an essential facet of fair decision-making and a safeguard against arbitrary exercise of power - Failure to deal with the specific defense and to record reasons while affirming findings of guilt demonstrates total non-application of mind rendering the order unsustainable - [Paras 32-35 and 45-46].

Writ Law - Delay - Service Jurisprudence - Conclusion of disciplinary proceedings - Inquiry report submitted in 2020 but final punishment order passed only in 2025 after nearly four years of unexplained administrative delay - Held - Inordinate and unexplained delay in conclusion of disciplinary proceedings causes serious prejudice to the government servant who remains under a cloud of uncertainty for an indefinite period - Such prolonged delay defeats the very object of disciplinary proceedings and vitiates the final order - [Paras 38-41 and 47].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Punishment order dated 10.09.2025 and consequential order dated 09.12.2025 quashed – Respondents directed to restore all consequential service benefits including withheld increments and refixation of pay within three months.

Writ Law - Search and Seizure - Administrative stay on Fraud classification - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Petitioner No. 1 a pharmaceutical company challenged the classification of its loan account as Fraud by Respondent bank - Obtained an interim stay in WP No. 24697 of 2025 suspending the operation and effect of the classification and all further proceedings pursuant thereto - CBI registered FIR and conducted coordinated searches on 20.01.2026 at residential and business premises during the subsistence of the stay - Petitioners contended search was illegal as the jurisdictional foundation namely the Fraud classification stood suspended - CBI argued the investigation was an independent statutory process based on a complaint alleging siphoning of Rs. 424.43 Crores - Court found that the earlier interim order was context-specific to administrative consequences under RBI Master Directions - Held - Criminal and administrative proceedings operate in separate and distinct spheres - Suspension of administrative action does not automatically nullify or extinguish the criminal process - Interim order was confined to regulatory consequences and did not constitute a blanket embargo on statutory powers under criminal law - Ratio in CBI vs. Surendra Patwa applied - Petition dismissed - [Paras 1-41].

Criminal Law - Independence of Statutory Process - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 - Sections 96 and 185 - Legality of CBI investigation and search warrants during stay of administrative bank fraud classification - Held - Registration of FIR and subsequent investigative steps constitute an independent statutory process - Foundational facts may overlap but proceedings remain conceptually and legally distinct - Principles of natural justice apply to administrative classification but not to the registration of criminal offences - Investigation into grave economic offences involving public money should not be stifled at a nascent stage - Search and seizure conducted pursuant to judicial warrants cannot be construed as contemptuous or in circumvention of a stay on administrative action - [Paras 14-27, 38].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – No costs – All miscellaneous applications closed.

Criminal Law - Murder and Attempt to Murder - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Sections 302, 307 and 34 - Appellants Prem Dan Jojo and Aniket Jojo attacked the informant party during a land dispute using bows and arrows - Prem Dan Jojo shot PW-8 in the rib and Aniket Jojo shot PW-3 in the chest while other family members assaulted the deceased Somra Chick with tangi and lathi - Trial Court convicted appellants under Section 302/34 and 307 but sentenced them to only ten years RI for murder - High Court issued notice for enhancement of sentence noting the statutory minimum for murder is life imprisonment - Appellants contended that witnesses were interested and IO was not examined - Medical evidence confirmed death via arrow-induced lung perforation and head injuries - High Court held that ocular testimony of injured eye-witnesses carries high evidentiary value and discrepancies in non-essential details do not vitiate the prosecution case - Held - Conviction sustained - Sentence for murder enhanced from 10 years to life imprisonment - Appeal dismissed with modification - [Paras 1-141].

Evidence Law - Hostile Witness - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 154 - Discarding testimony - Injured witness PW-3 supported the occurrence in chief but turned hostile on identification of assailants - Court followed Attar Singh v State of Maharashtra to hold that evidence of a hostile witness is not effaced from the record - part of the testimony that is dependable and corroborated by reliable evidence can be used by the prosecution - PW-3 confirmed being shot by an arrow at the place of occurrence while ploughing which corroborated the informant's version - Held - Hostile witness testimony used to the extent of supporting the factum of occurrence and presence of parties - [Paras 59-70].

Criminal Law - Investigation - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 173 - Non-examination of Investigating Officer - Appellants argued prejudice due to non-examination of IO regarding the place of occurrence - Court applied Ram Gulam Chaudhary v State of Bihar - non-examination of IO is not fatal if eye-witnesses are credible and trustworthy - Testimony of PW-8 (injured informant) and PW-2 clearly established the place of occurrence as the bari land - no prejudice shown by defense - Held - Non-examination of IO did not create a dent in the prosecution case - [Paras 115-127].

Criminal Law - Sentencing - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Section 302 - Enhancement of Sentence - Suo motu Revision - Trial Court awarded 10 years RI for murder which is not a permissible sentence under law - High Court exercised revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 read with 401 CrPC - Principles from Govind Ramji Jadhav v State of Maharashtra applied - High Court has the power to enhance sentence to fit the crime when it is grossly inadequate or below statutory minimum - Notice for enhancement was served and amicus curiae heard - Held - Minimum punishment for murder is life imprisonment - sentence enhanced accordingly - [Paras 130-138].

Decision: Appeal dismissed with modification in sentence – Conviction under Sections 302/34 and 307 IPC affirmed – Sentence for murder enhanced to Rigorous Imprisonment for Life – Bail bonds cancelled – Appellants directed to surrender before the Trial Court.

Civil Law - Review Jurisdiction - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order 47 Rule 1 - Applicant sought review of judgment dated 21.04.2025 passed in Writ-A No. 4076 of 2025 on grounds that a page containing his EWS certificate was omitted from written instructions - Contended that he secured higher marks than the last selected EWS candidate and was illegally denied reservation - State argued that applicant consciously applied under Unreserved (UR) category in the online form and the EWS certificate produced was not in the prescribed format - High Court summoned original records and found that the allegedly missing pages were identical to existing records and no prejudice was caused - Held - review is maintainable only upon discovery of new matter or an error apparent on the face of the record - omission or misplacement of a document does not automatically render a judgment erroneous unless it results in a patent error or manifest miscarriage of justice - Court cannot re-appreciate evidence or re-hear the matter on merits under the guise of review - applicant having opted for UR category at the initial stage cannot later claim migration to EWS contrary to selection conditions - application dismissed - [Paras 1-20].

Civil Law - Scope of Review - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order 47 Rule 1 - Principles of Review - Court reiterated that review is not an appeal in disguise - Error apparent on the face of the record must be manifest and self-evident without requiring a process of reasoning - Held - a plea requiring elaborate examination and factual adjudication does not satisfy the settled parameters for review - [Paras 6, 17].

Decision: Review Application dismissed - No error apparent on the face of the record found.

Civil Law - Recovery of Money - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 100 - Loan versus reimbursement of expenses - Plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs 2 lakhs advanced to the Defendant via two cheques in May 2009 - Defendant admitted receipt and encashment of cheques but claimed the amount was partial discharge of Plaintiff liability towards litigation expenses for ancestral property in Bhatinda - Trial Court found that the Plaintiff proved the loan through bank statements and ITR verification forms for 2010-2011 where the loan was reflected as an asset - Defendant failed to provide particulars of legal proceedings or prove that such litigation expenses were due from the Plaintiff - High Court observed that the Defendant defense was mutually contradictory as the Sale Deed Ex DW1/1 cited by him was executed after his father death and did not reflect the father as a party or mention the alleged litigation debt - Held - Concurrent findings of fact based on cogent evidence do not warrant interference in second appeal - [Paras 1-37].

Civil Law - Additional Evidence - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order 41 Rule 27 - Filling of lacunae - Appellant moved an application to examine three additional witnesses at the appellate stage claiming they were inadvertently not examined before the Trial Court - Record indicated that the Appellant had voluntarily closed his evidence after examining himself and DW2 - High Court held that Order 41 Rule 27 cannot be invoked to fill gaps or lacunae in evidence when the party had the opportunity but chose not to examine witnesses during the trial - Held - Application for additional evidence is a mere attempt to fill lacunae and is liable to be dismissed - [Paras 34-35].

Civil Law - Second Appeal - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 100 - Substantial Question of Law - Appellant challenged the concurrent findings on grounds of shifting onus of proof and closure of evidence - High Court found that the grounds urged by the Appellant were purely factual in nature - The court noted that since the Plaintiff established the loan through bank records and tax filings the burden shifted to the Defendant to prove his specific defense of reimbursement which he failed to do - Held - No substantial question of law arises for consideration and the appeal is dismissed - [Paras 38-39].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Concurrent judgments of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court affirmed – Pending applications disposed of.

Criminal Law - Narcotics - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 - Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) and 37 - Bail - Recovery of commercial quantity - Petitioner was intercepted while driving a hired vehicle containing three nylon sacks of Ganja weighing 104.6 kg - Bail sought on grounds of five-day delay in producing inventory before Magistrate under Section 52A - Allegations of using uncertified weighing machine and overwriting in seizure list - Claims of violation of Article 39A due to non-supply of translated statements - State contended search was videographed and independent witnesses were present - Held - To overcome the rigors of Section 37 the court must find reasonable grounds that the accused is not guilty - Recovery of commercial quantity and statutory presumption under Section 54 create a prima facie case - Procedural issues regarding inventory delay or seizure list overwriting are matters for trial - Bail application dismissed .

Criminal Law - Procedural Compliance - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 - Section 52A - Inventory Procedure - Delay in production - Petitioner argued that inventory forwarded to Magistrate after five days breached the mandatory requirement of being done forthwith - Held - Delay or non-compliance with the procedure envisaged under Section 52A is at most an irregularity and not an illegality that nullifies the prosecution or entitles the accused to bail - Mere non-compliance does not affect the search and seizure if otherwise established by sufficient material .

Evidence Law - Statutory Presumption - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 - Section 54 - Possession - Petitioner found in possession of a large quantity of contraband in a vehicle booked through a rental app - Held - Courts are entitled to presume commission of an offence unless the accused rebuts the presumption during trial - Non-compliance with early disposal procedures under Section 52A does not vitiate the trial when possession is found.

Decision: Prayer for bail dismissed – Petitioner to remain in custody.

Civil Law - Temporary Injunction - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 and Section 151 - Suit for declaration of sole ownership of 861918 equity shares filed by deceased original plaintiff Hemendra Prasad Barooah against daughter Respondent No 2 and others - Plaintiff alleged joint holding was for operational convenience only and daughter held no beneficial interest - Trial Court dismissed injunction application despite Respondent No 2 expressing no objection to the grant of restraint - Trial Court reasoned that no cause of action existed at the time of filing since both joint holders were alive and one alone could not transfer shares - High Court found the reasoning perverse as it ignored the subsequent death of the plaintiff and the potential for transfer under NSDL Rule 12.6.1 by the surviving holder - Held - Trial Court erred in ignoring the defendant's concession and the clear dispute regarding beneficial ownership - Impugned order set aside - [Paras 1-31].

Civil Law - Procedure - Concession by Defendant - Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC - Respondent No 2 through senior counsel accepted the proposal during trial court proceedings to resolve the application by grant of the prayed reliefs - Trial Court rejected the concession and dismissed the petition based on a misinterpretation of the legal framework - High Court observed that a consent order would not violate any rules and was the proper course to protect the subject matter of the suit - Held - When a party concedes to a restraint and the ownership is inseparably linked to the trial the court must preserve the status of the shares - [Paras 13-26].

Corporate Law - Demat Shares - NSDL Rules - Rule 12.6.1 - Transmission of shares upon death of joint holder - Trial Court held that Respondent No 2 was empowered to transfer shares to her individual account as surviving holder - High Court clarified that while the rules allow movement of shares the question of real ownership was the fundamental issue to be decided in the suit - Held - Injunction must be granted to prevent transgression of the plaintiff's claim during the pendency of the suit - [Paras 26-28].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Order dated 15.09.2025 passed in Misc (J) Case No 27/2012 set aside – Respondent No 2 restrained from transferring 861918 shares in DP ID IN 301151 Client ID 26424547 – Respondent No 3 directed not to facilitate any such transfer.

Criminal Law - Bail - Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967 - Section 43D(5) - Prolonged Incarceration - Appellant-human rights activist was arrested for allegedly recruiting OGWs for LeT-facilitating contacts with Pakistan-based handlers-collecting data on Indian Army movements and bribing an NIA officer to compromise a separate investigation - Trial Court denied bail holding allegations prima facie true based on approver statements and seized documents - Appellant argued 4.5 years of custody with 197 witnesses yet to be examined violated Article 21 - High Court conducted surface evaluation of evidence noting that documents like the Structures of Violence Report were in public domain and approver testimony was yet to be tested - Court observed that trial was only at the stage of framing charges - Held - Statutory restrictions under Section 43D(5) UAPA must melt down where there is no likelihood of trial completion in reasonable time and incarceration period is substantial - Right to speedy trial under Article 21 may trump statutory bars on bail - Impugned order set aside and bail granted - [Paras 1-76].

Constitutional Law - Right to Liberty - Constitution of India - Article 21 - Interplay with UAPA - Right to speedy trial - High Court reiterated the principle from K.A. Najeeb that constitutional courts retain the power to grant bail notwithstanding statutory restraints if the trial is unlikely to conclude within a reasonable period - Held - Pre-trial incarceration cannot assume the character of punishment through mere passage of time - [Paras 51-58].

Criminal Law - Bail - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 437(1) - Infirmity - Special consideration for disabled accused - Appellant lost a leg in a landmine blast in 2004 and uses a prosthetic limb - Prosecution argued infirmity did not hinder his activities - Court held that the appellant is infirm and deserves special consideration under the proviso to Section 437(1) CrPC which applies even to UAPA cases - [Paras 24, 73-74].

Decision: Appeal allowed - Rejection of bail by Trial Court set aside - Appellant released on bail subject to personal bond of Rs. 2,00,000 with two sureties and conditions including surrendering passport and reporting to Investigating Officer fortnightly.