Criminal Proceedings – Quashing under Section 482 CrPC – Allegations of manufacturing and selling goods by misusing established brand identity – FIR and charge-sheet disclose prima facie offences of cheating, forgery and deception – High Court declined to quash proceedings holding that disputed facts require trial and continuation of prosecution not an abuse of process [Paras 10, 24–25].

Section 482 CrPC – Scope and Limits – Inherent powers to be exercised sparingly and in rare cases – Court cannot undertake detailed examination of evidence or adjudicate disputed facts at threshold – Held: Only prima facie case to be seen [Paras 10–12].

Commercial Dispute vs Criminal Offence – Petitioners contended matter is civil in nature relating to trademark/copyright – Held: Allegations indicate fraudulent conduct and deception of consumers, thus not purely civil dispute [Paras 5–7, 21].

Cheating and Fraud – Use of Deceptive Branding – Allegations of rebranding inferior goods with names of reputed companies to mislead consumers – Held: Such conduct, if proved, constitutes dishonest intention attracting penal provisions [Paras 6–7].

Precedents – Application of Bhajan Lal Principles – Quashing permissible only where allegations do not disclose offence or proceedings are mala fide – Present case does not fall within such categories [Para 11].

Trial – Role of Court – Determination of issues like intention, deception, and misuse of brand requires appreciation of evidence – High Court cannot act as trial court under Section 482 CrPC [Para 23].

Decision: Petitions dismissed – Prayer for quashing FIR and criminal proceedings rejected – Trial court directed to proceed in accordance with law.

Contempt of Court – Wilful Disobedience – Interim Order – Creation of Third-Party Rights – An interim order dated 16.07.2021 in I.A. No. 1 of 2021 in A.S. No. 1280 of 2017, while releasing original documents to the appellant/respondent No. 2, expressly restrained him from creating third-party rights over the suit schedule properties or pledging/mortgaging the original documents – Respondent No. 2 applied for modification of the interim order to permit pledge of property for a bank loan, which was rejected on 04.08.2022 – Despite this, respondent No. 2 executed a mortgage deed (Document No. 4299 of 2023 dated 07.08.2023) and thereafter a registered sale deed (Document No. 25358 of 2024 dated 10.12.2024) in favour of third parties – Execution of both deeds admitted by respondent No. 2 – Held: Charges of wilful disobedience proved – Contempt committed [Paras 3-26].

Defence – Nominal Transaction – Kararnama – Not Accepted – Respondent No. 2 sought to justify the sale deed as a nominal transaction and pleaded that on the same date the purchasers executed a kararnama agreeing to reconvey the property by 10.06.2026 – Held: The execution of the mortgage deed and the sale deed was a conscious and deliberate act – Application for modification of the interim order was rejected and despite that the alienations were made – Defence of nominal transaction is not acceptable – Financial compulsion cannot justify violation of a Court's order [Paras 19-24].

Wilful Disobedience – Meaning – "Wilful" means an act done voluntarily with specific intent to do something the law forbids, or with bad purpose either to disobey or to disregard the law – Even negligence and carelessness may amount to contempt – The act or omission has to be judged having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case [Para 25].

Apology – Not Bona Fide – Rejected – Apology is an act of contrition and must be offered at the earliest opportunity in good grace – An apology tendered only when punishment is imminent is shorn of penitence and is the act of a cringing coward – The apology in the present case is not bona fide as the disobedience was conscious and contumacious and the modification application was rejected before the alienations were made – Apology rejected [Paras 27-30].

Punishment – Section 12, Contempt of Courts Act – Respondent No. 2 punished with simple imprisonment for one month and fine of Rs. 2,000/- – Additional cost of Rs. 10,000/- imposed to be remitted to the Andhra Pradesh High Court Legal Services Committee – Respondent entitled to subsistence allowance of Rs. 500/- per day during civil imprisonment to be deposited by the contempt petitioner – In default of fine, action to be taken under Section 421 CrPC/Section 456 BNSS [Paras 31-41].

Decision: Contempt Case allowed – Charges proved – Apology rejected – Respondent No. 2 sentenced to simple imprisonment for one month and fine of Rs. 2,000/- with cost of Rs. 10,000/-.

Civil Law – Joint and Unpartitioned Property – Co-sharer – Passage – Declaration of Specific Portion Not Sustainable – Land measuring 4 Bigha in Khasra No. 141 jointly owned by Ram Singh, Mukhtiar Singh, Nirmal Singh and their mother Smt. Basant Kaur – Mukhtiar Singh, Nirmal Singh and Basant Kaur sold portions of land to plaintiffs through sale deeds executed in 1984 leaving 4 Biswa 11 Biswansi as access passage – Subsequently, Mukhtiar Singh and Nirmal Singh executed sale deed dated 29.09.1988 in favour of co-sharer Ram Singh regarding the said passage – Courts below declared the passage and held the sale deed void – Held: So long as the property remains joint and unpartitioned, declaration of a specific portion as an exclusive passage binding on a non-consenting co-sharer is not legally sustainable; sale deed executed by one co-sharer transferring undivided share to another co-sharer cannot be declared void [Paras 14-19].

Co-sharer's Rights – Transfer of Undivided Share – A co-sharer in joint property is entitled to transfer his undivided share and the transferee steps into the shoes of the vendor as a co-sharer – However, no co-sharer can claim exclusive ownership of or earmark a specific portion of joint land unless and until partition is effected by metes and bounds – Disputes regarding specific portions of joint property are ordinarily required to be resolved through partition proceedings [Paras 16-17, 22].

Possession and Access – Protection Pending Partition – Although exclusive declaration of passage over joint land is set aside, plaintiffs' possession over land purchased through registered sale deeds deserves protection – Each co-sharer is deemed to be in possession of every inch of joint holding and is entitled to make reasonable use without excluding other co-sharers – Existing user of the disputed strip as means of access to the purchased plots shall continue pending partition – Rights including access to be finally determined in partition proceedings [Paras 20-21, 25-29].

Substantial Question of Law: Whether the courts below were justified in declaring a specific portion of joint and unpartitioned land as a passage and in holding the sale deed dated 29.09.1988 executed in favour of defendant Ram Singh to be null and void, despite the admitted position that the land comprised in Khasra No. 141 remained joint and unpartitioned and that Ram Singh was a co-sharer therein.

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Decree of courts below modified – Declaration of suit property as an exclusive passage set aside – Sale deed dated 29.09.1988 in favour of Ram Singh not treated as void – Possession of plaintiffs over purchased land protected – Parties at liberty to seek partition; rights including access to be determined at partition.

Property Law – Sale Deed – Cancellation – Subsequent Purchaser – Caveat Emptor – Appellants/defendants 1 and 2 purchased fractional right over the suit property and right to construct a flat by virtue of Ext.A2 sale deed dated 25.05.2004 – Defendants 3 and 4 thereafter sold the same property to the plaintiff/respondent 1 by virtue of Ext.A1 sale deed dated 19.03.2008 – Trial Court decreed the suit cancelling Ext.A2 sale deed – Held: Defendants 3 and 4 had no valid title to execute Ext.A1 in favour of the plaintiff since Ext.A2 was a valid prior subsisting deed – Plaintiff was under a duty to inquire about prior encumbrances before purchase – Principle of caveat emptor squarely applicable – Trial Court erred in decreeing the suit [Paras 19-22].

Lok Adalath Award – Reconveyance – Conditional Obligation – As per Ext.A3 award passed in Lok Adalath, defendants 1 and 2 agreed to reconvey the property to defendants 3 and 4 only upon receipt of the agreed money – No amount was paid by defendants 3 and 4 as per the award – Conditions of Ext.A3 not performed – Defendants 3 and 4 therefore could not claim any right over the property after execution of Ext.A2 sale deed – Plaintiff's reliance on Ext.A3 to contend that Ext.A2 is null and void is untenable [Paras 20-21].

Additional Evidence – Order XLI Rule 27, CPC – Limitation – New Point in Appeal – Appellants sought to produce FIR as additional evidence (Annexure A) at appellate stage to raise the plea of limitation – No such plea raised in the written statement before the Trial Court – No ground made out that the document was not in possession of appellants during trial or that they were prevented from producing it – Issue of limitation being a mixed question of law and fact cannot be decided merely on the basis of a document produced without supporting pleadings – I.A. No. 5 of 2022 dismissed – Additional evidence not receivable [Paras 9-18].

Decision: Regular First Appeal allowed – Impugned decree and judgment dated 21.12.2018 of the Subordinate Judge, Thiruvalla, in O.S. No. 45 of 2014 set aside – Suit dismissed – Appellants/defendants 1 and 2 entitled to costs throughout from the 1st respondent/plaintiff.

Hindu Marriage – Validity of Second Marriage – Pending Appeal against Decree of Divorce – Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act – Ayyappan's first marriage with the first petitioner was solemnised on 20.03.1977 – Decree of divorce granted by trial court on 13.06.1990 – First petitioner filed MFA 667/1990 before this Court on 10.07.1990 challenging the decree – Ayyappan contracted second marriage with the appellant on 30.01.1991 during pendency of the appeal – Appeal was ultimately allowed and decree of divorce reversed – Held: Second marriage contracted during pendency of appeal against divorce decree is void as contravening Section 5(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act – Family Court decree affirmed [Paras 6-11].

Section 15, Hindu Marriage Act – Right of Appeal – Effect on Subsequent Marriage – Section 15 permits remarriage only when no right of appeal exists, or the time for appeal has expired without an appeal being filed, or an appeal has been dismissed – An appeal is the continuation of original proceedings and acts done pending appeal are subject to its outcome – A party cannot defeat the appeal by contracting a second marriage during its pendency – Dissolution of marriage is complete once decree is made, subject to appeal [Paras 7-10].

Lila Gupta v. Laxmi Narain Distinguished – Appellant's reliance on Lila Gupta (1978) misplaced – That case concerned marriage during the one-year prohibitory period under the proviso to Section 15 and held such marriage not void – However, the Apex Court in that case itself underscored that such marriage is subject to the result of the appeal – In the present case, an appeal was filed within limitation and was ultimately allowed, reversing the divorce decree – The ratio of Lila Gupta does not assist the appellant [Paras 8-9].

Service of Notice in Appeal – Irrelevance – Contention that notice in the appeal was served only after the second marriage and hence marriage is saved, rejected – Relying on Chandra Mohini Srivastava v. Avinash Prasad Srivastava (AIR 1967 SC 581), a party who has obtained a decree of dissolution cannot by contracting an immediate second marriage deprive the other party of the chance to prefer an appeal or special leave petition – Such a party acts at their own risk [Para 10].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Second marriage of Ayyappan with appellant held void under Section 11 read with Section 5(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act – Decree of Family Court affirmed.

Service Law – Pension – Deduction – Rule 139, Jharkhand Pension Rules, 2000 – Post-Retirement Proceedings – Respondents retired as Engineer-in-Chief and Chief Engineer respectively from the Water Resources Department – No departmental proceedings initiated against them during service – After retirement, explanations sought for alleged irregularities in disposal of desilted soil under three schemes for 2014-15 – Orders of 5% deduction from pension for two years passed under Rule 139 without conducting full-fledged departmental or criminal proceedings, without issuing charge memos, without appointing inquiry officer and without affording due opportunity of hearing – Held: Mere allegation of irregularity is not sufficient to exercise power under Rule 139(c) – Condition precedent not fulfilled – Orders of deduction rightly quashed by Single Judge – Appeals dismissed [Paras 31-41].

Rule 139 – Two Circumstances for Reduction of Pension – The first circumstance is that the service of the pensioner was not thoroughly satisfactory, which requires examination of the entire service record and not a single instance of irregularity – The second circumstance is proof of grave misconduct in a departmental or judicial proceeding – In the present case neither was it alleged that entire service was thoroughly unsatisfactory nor was grave misconduct proved in any proceeding – Both conditions for reduction of pension not satisfied [Paras 31-36].

Rule 43(b) – Procedure for Post-Retirement Departmental Proceedings – Where departmental proceedings are initiated after retirement, the same must be in accordance with the procedure applicable to proceedings in which an order of dismissal from service may be made – The same condition is equally applicable for reduction of pension under Rule 139(c) – Where a power is conferred to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all [Paras 28-40].

Delay Condonation – I.A. Nos. 1797 of 2025 and 6797 of 2025 for condonation of delay of 145 days and 93 days respectively in filing the appeals – Reasons found satisfactory – Delay condoned [Paras 1-4].

Decision: Both Letters Patent Appeals dismissed – Orders of the learned Single Judge quashing the orders of deduction of pension confirmed – All pending interlocutory applications dismissed.

NDPS – Bail – Commercial Quantity – Foreign National – Illegal Custody – Article 21 Override – Applicant, a foreign national, was intercepted at IGI Airport on 02.07.2024 and 8 capsules containing cocaine recovered at the Airport itself from her undergarments – She was then taken to Safdarjung Hospital where 34 more capsules were eased out – Total recovery was 42 capsules containing 503 grams of cocaine (commercial quantity) – Formal arrest was shown only on 07.07.2024 after her discharge from hospital – Held: Once 8 capsules were recovered at the Airport and the offence stood revealed, the applicant should have been arrested immediately and produced before the Magistrate – Further recovery could have been effected pursuant to Court order – Remand could have been taken at the hospital if health hazard was a concern – Applicant remained in illegal custody from 02.07.2024 – Despite statutory embargo under Section 37 NDPS Act, Article 21 must prevail – Bail granted [Paras 14-27].

Section 103, Customs Act – Production Before Magistrate – Where proper officer has reason to believe that goods liable to confiscation are secreted inside the body, the accused must be produced before the nearest Magistrate without unnecessary delay – Exception under Section 103(8) applies only where the person voluntarily admits to having goods secreted in his body – In the present case, no clear and specific admission of willingness was discernible from the bare contents of the notice – Service of notice through AI translation tool (Google Translator) was incomplete as the translated copy did not contain the applicant's replies or responses – Mere signatures on an incomplete translated notice do not amount to adequate communication of legal rights [Paras 16-22].

Section 50, NDPS Act – Notice – Mandatory Compliance – Section 50 provides that personal search can only be conducted before a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer – Customs unlawfully informed the applicant that she could also be searched before any lady customs officer, which is contrary to the statutory mandate – Translation through AI tool was incomplete and did not contain the applicant's reply – Whether applicant was duly apprised of her rights was not discernible [Paras 19-21].

AI Translation Tool – Defective Compliance – Use of an AI tool (Google Translator) for serving notices upon a foreign national, without the translated copy containing the applicant's responses, renders the statutory compliance incomplete and inadequate – The identity of the person (Vikas Kumar) who allegedly explained the notice to the applicant in her vernacular language was not even included in the list of prosecution witnesses [Paras 20-22].

Decision: Bail application allowed – Applicant directed to be released on bail on furnishing personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one local surety of like amount subject to conditions including reporting to IO on first Sunday of every month, not leaving NCR without prior permission, not contacting witnesses, and keeping mobile number active.

Civil Writ - Medical Education – Super Speciality Course – Pending Criminal Case – Bail – Right to Continue Studies – Petitioner enrolled in M.Ch. (Urology) course at Sapthagiri Institute of Medical Sciences could not appear for the November-2025 examination due to registration of Crime No.179/2025 by Madanapally Police, Andhra Pradesh for offences under the BNS and the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act – Petitioner was enlarged on bail by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madanapally on 05.01.2026 – Respondents opposed continuation of course citing pendency of the criminal case – Held: Pendency of a criminal case, where trial is yet to conclude, does not render the accused guilty – No impediment exists for the petitioner to continue his course and appear for examination – Respondents 2 and 3 directed to permit petitioner to continue course till May/June-2026 – Respondent 4-University directed to permit petitioner to appear for the ensuing examination subject to eligibility [Paras 4-8].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Respondents 2 and 3 directed to permit the petitioner to continue M.Ch. (Urology) course till completion in May/June-2026 – Respondent No. 4-University directed to permit the petitioner to appear for the ensuing examination subject to eligibility.

Contempt of Court – Government Officials – Delay in Compliance – Unconditional Apology – Writ Court directed respondents 2 and 3 in W.P. No. 33879 of 2022 to consider the petitioner's representations dated 24.08.2022 and 10.10.2022 for encashment of earned leave for 300 days and other pensionary benefits within four weeks from receipt of the order – Order received on 09.11.2022, compliance due by 08.12.2022 – Appellants failed to comply within time; thereafter rejected the petitioner's representation by order dated 19.04.2023 during pendency of contempt case – Learned Single Judge convicted the contemnors and imposed fine of Rs. 100/- each with default sentence of one week's simple imprisonment – Held: Although there was a delay of four months and compliance was not in true letter and spirit, unconditional apology tendered by the appellants accepted with stricture – Punishment of fine set aside – Contempt appeals allowed [Paras 2-15].

Scope of Contempt Proceedings – Points Determinable – A Court dealing with a contempt case can only verify whether the order was properly communicated and when, whether the contemnor was in a position to understand and comply with it, whether the contemnor acted diligently within authority to comply in true letter and spirit, and whether there was wilful laches and disobedience – A contempt court cannot go into jurisdiction of the court passing directions, merit of the matter or direction, or any question determinable only by an appellate court [Para 10-11].

Scope of Contempt Appeal – An appellate court in a contempt appeal can verify only the correctness of points determinable by the court passing the punishment order, whether the order is appealable under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, and the correctness of the extent and quantum of punishment and whether it is commensurate to the alleged disobedience [Para 12].

Government Officials – Duty to Comply with Court Orders – Casual approach of Government officials in complying with directions of Constitutional Courts is not only derogatory to the Constitution of India but also shameful to the official position and dignity – Senior officials must be more careful in complying with court orders in true letter and spirit [Para 13].

Decision: Contempt appeals allowed – Unconditional apology accepted with stricture – Punishment of fine of Rs. 100/- imposed by the learned Single Judge set aside – No costs.